Sitting of 11 March 2003

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

    Index of Multiple Deprivation Report
    Mr. David Marshall: What plans she has to meet the Scottish Executive to discuss the Scottish index of multiple deprivation report; and if she will make a statement. [101095]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Anne McGuire): Both the Government and the Scottish Executive are committed to the fight against poverty. Publication of the index and other indicators reflects our determination to measure the impact of our policies and the progress achieved.
    Mr. Marshall: I thank the Minister for her reply. Is she aware that 16 of the 20 most deprived areas in Scotland are in the city of Glasgow? Does she agree that the only way in which Glasgow's deprivation and poverty problems can be tackled successfully is if the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Executive get together, agree that Glasgow is indeed a special case and allocate resources accordingly? Will she and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State do all that they can to ensure that that comes to pass?
    Mrs. McGuire: There is a great deal of collective working in Glasgow through social inclusion partnerships and the better neighbourhood services fund. UK Departments contribute to, and are involved in, some aspects of that work. The Scottish Executive have certainly contributed to a city growth fund of £40 million for better neighbourhood services in Glasgow and, as I said, the social inclusion partnership. My hon. Friend may well have ideas about more collective and cohesive working, and I would certainly be pleased to discuss that with him afterwards with a view to giving information to UK Ministries and colleagues in the Scottish Executive.
    Annabelle Ewing: Can the Minister explain to the people of Scotland why, after nearly six years of a Labour Government in London and four years of a
    144
    Labour Government in Edinburgh one in three children in Scotland are being brought up in poverty, and one in four of our pensioners are living in poverty?
    Mrs. McGuire: That is rather a myopic question. The hon. Lady has failed to take into account the impact on poverty of the national minimum wage, the working families tax credit and children's credits. Before she bandies figures around in the House, she would do well to look at the actual figures on the proportion of Scottish children in low-income households which, using the absolute measure, fell by 21 per cent. in 2001–13 percentage points better than in 1997 and significantly better than it would be if we had to deal with a £4.5 billion hole in Scottish finances because we had divorced from the United Kingdom.
    John Thurso: The Minister will know that the income deprivation indices for the economy are largely made up of figures on benefit take-up, including working families tax credit. The Government have not released any figures, but is she aware that the Library estimates that approximately 100,000 people in Scotland who are eligible for working families tax credit have not taken up their entitlement? With the introduction of the new regime in three weeks, what will the Government do to ensure that that inadequate take-up is improved?
    Mrs. McGuire: I share the hon. Gentleman's views on the importance of take-up. It is Government policy to try to encourage people to take up tax credits, and I encourage hon. Members to promote those tax credits, as they have access to local media and community groups, which could do much to promote the beneficial aspects of Government policy on which most of us in the House agree.
    Mr. Ian Davidson: May I bring to the Minister's attention the concentration of poverty and deprivation in, Glasgow? While considerable cuts in unemployment in Glasgow have gone a great way towards alleviating deprivation, does she accept that there is a substantial need for additional funding for the city? Those of us who are city Members do not want to call for independence for Glasgow, but we want additional resources for the city, both from Westminster and the Scottish Executive. Does my hon. Friend agree that partnership working is undoubtedly the way forward in the city, but it must be fully funded and must involve elected representatives at all levels?
    Mrs. McGuire: I agree that partnership working is important, and I am pleased that my hon. Friend also recognised the importance of the drop in unemployment and, by implication, all the measures that we put in place to alleviate poverty. In view of the fact that two of my colleagues from Glasgow have highlighted specific issues relating to the city, I would be delighted to meet them and discuss some of those issues further as we have only a short time this morning.
    Sir Archy Kirkwood: May I tell the Government that we welcome the fact that the indices are much better than they were? With those better figures, policy makers are better armed to deal

    145
    with some of the problems. However, there are still problems concerning rurality, as some parts of the country face depopulation, which is not reflected in the indices as currently cast. If the Minister is generously offering to meet Members to discuss what, I accept, are real problems in Glasgow will she extend the favour to those of us who represent rural areas?
    Mrs. McGuire: As a Member from a rural area, I offer to meet myself and any other rural Members who wish to meet me, in both capacities.
    Mrs. Jacqui Lait: As the hon. Lady has—rather plaintively, I thought—invited us to sell the child tax credit to our constituents, and as she has said that she is prepared to talk to UK Ministers, will she take up the issue of the simplification of means-tested benefits, so that the many people, including pensioners, who are entitled to them can find their way through the benefit forms and claim them?
    Mrs. McGuire: The Government are constantly looking at ways in which to improve the form-filling involved, but the message that I am giving today is that I hope that hon. Members recognise that these benefits are of great value to our constituents and that they really ought to exercise just a little leadership in going out and making people aware of what they are entitled to.

    Postal Services
    Mr. Alan Reid: What discussions she has had with Royal Mail concerning (a) postal services and (b) post offices in Scotland. [101096]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Anne McGuire): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I met Allan Leighton, the chairman of Royal Mail Group, in November to discuss postal services and post offices in Scotland.
    Mr. Reid: There is widespread concern that many rural post offices will be forced to close when the Government introduce the new method of paying pensions and benefits in three weeks' time. Will the Minister assure the House that the rather sinisterly named customer conversion centres will give unbiased information to pensioners? Will she also ensure that automated credit transfer will not be introduced until the computer systems have been properly tested? Finally, will the Government run a high-profile campaign to promote the new Post Office card account before it is introduced?
    Mrs. McGuire: May I reassure the House that the net figure for post office closures in Scotland in 2001–02 was 26, compared with 63 in the previous year? That is a 59 per cent. reduction. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the Government have invested a great many resources in trying to maintain the network. What we are trying to do with the new way of paying benefits is to institute a far more secure—and, in many ways, easier—system, particularly for pensioners. If anyone suggests that the Government are somehow hiding this new initiative under some kind of collective bushel, I would ask them to look at some of the
    146
    information that is out there in the post offices in the communities, and to be more positive about the move. The single most important message is that pensioners will still be able to collect the same money from the same place at the same time, but they will have more choice when they do so.
    Mr. George Foulkes: Is not the truth that most post offices close because the postmasters or postmistresses retire, and it is then incumbent on the Post Office to find someone to take over? That involves a great responsibility for the local Member of Parliament. In Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley, the local Member of Parliament liaises very closely with the Post Office, and tries to find someone to take over. If Opposition Members did that instead of coming along here and whingeing, there might be fewer post offices closing.
    Mrs. McGuire: I could not have put it better myself.
    Mr. Peter Duncan: I know that, given the way things are going for the Government, the Minister will have given some thought to how, where and when her benefits will he paid in retirement. Does she appreciate, however, that Scots are increasingly finding it easier to open a bank cash card account than a Post Office card account? What exactly is the Scotland Office doing to preserve the future of these vital small businesses throughout Scotland, to which the right hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) referred? Do she and the Secretary of State consider the key target of Government policy to be the maximisation or the minimisation of benefits being paid through post offices?
    Mrs. McGuire: Speaking as someone who collected her family allowance through the post office every week on the button for many years, I have a strong commitment to the continuing service that the post offices provide. May I reassure the hon. Gentleman that, as recently as last week, I spoke to Ministers from the Department for Work and Pensions to highlight some of these concerns, and sought the reassurances that he seeks. The reality is, however, that people are voting with their feet in terms of the collection of benefits. More and more people are moving towards bank transfers, and we are trying to ensure that those people who are outside the banking system are brought into it. I would have thought that he would have supported that.
    Mr. Michael Weir: What would the Minister say to the pensioner in my constituency who received information from the Department for Work and Pensions regarding her pension, found the small part that referred to the Post Office card account, phoned the helpline and asked about opening such an account, and when it was discovered that she had a bank account, was pressed to have her pension paid into that account, rather than at the post office? Why do the Government seem so hell-bent on transferring business from post offices to banks?
    Mrs. McGuire: One of the aims behind the move to the new banking system is to end financial exclusion. [Interruption.] Having asked a question, the hon.

    147
    Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) ought at least to listen to the answer. The Department for Work and Pensions helpline is trying to guide people to the account that would be best for them. In some circumstances, the Post Office card account may not be the best option for a pensioner. I am sorry that hon. Members are seeking to pursue a panic agenda on the move to a far simpler system for paying benefits.

    Friends of Scotland Initiative
    John Robertson: If she will make a statement on progress with the Friends of Scotland initiative. [101097]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Helen Liddell): Friends of Scotland has so far attracted some 250 opinion formers from more than 20 countries around the world. They are already promoting a better understanding of contemporary Scotland. Our website is proving very successful in highlighting Scottish achievements and success in the fields of culture, education and business. In the past month, there were just under 300,000 hits and nearly 9,000 visitors to the site, of whom three quarters accessed the site information from overseas locations.
    John Robertson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the relationship between the Scotland Office and the Scottish Executive is now paying dividends? If so, what are the benefits of reaching out to the millions of Scots overseas?
    Mrs. Liddell: The partnership that exists in that setting is proving very useful. Through Friends of Scotland, we are able to access key opinion formers, Prime Ministers, governors-general—for example, those of both Australia and New Zealand—Ministers and senior politicians, all of whom can be of huge value, not least to the Scottish Executive, but particularly to GlobalScot, the ground-breaking initiative of the Scottish Executive to sign up business leaders to act as mentors to inward investors. Those are key ways to bring jobs to Scotland. If only 1 per cent. of the 40 million people around the world who have some connection with Scotland were to visit Scotland, Glasgow's convention and tourist activity would be even begger than at present.
    Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I hardly think that 250 Friends of Scotland are 1 per cent. of the 40 million Scots around the world. Can the right hon. Lady tell us the total cost of her time per Friend of Scotland, and her Department's expenditure on that programme?
    Mrs. Liddell: The total expenditure of the Department comes out of its running costs of about £250,000 per annum. As the hon. Lady was never able to win a seat in Scotland, lives outside Scotland and makes occasional visits, I am sure that we would be delighted to sign her up as a Friend of Scotland.

    Sunday Working
    David Cairns: What discussions she has had in the course of her consultation on the rights of Sunday shop workers in Scotland. [101098]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Helen Liddell): My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I have had discussions with various business and retail organisations and trade unions in the course of the consultation on Sunday working in Scotland.
    David Cairns: Has my right hon. Friend met a single individual who car justify Scottish shop workers having fewer rights than shop workers throughout the rest of the United Kingdom? Does she agree with the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who said:
    "we should fully protect the rights of those who work on Sundays in order that we may Shop then … employee protection must go hand in hand with the freedom to shop."—[Official Report, 29 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 822.]?
    Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I congratulate him on introducing a private Member's Bill to ensure that Scottish workers have the same protection as workers in England and Wales. If businesses had been prepared to honour the voluntary agreement that was put in place at the time of deregulation in England, the problem need not have arisen. I am happy to report that almost all the workers from Argos who lost their jobs in Aberdeen have reached a satisfactory settlement with the company, and I pay tribute to all my hon. Friends who made that possible.
    Andrew Selous: Is the right hon. Lady concerned that many supermarket workers in England and Wales have to put up with five-out-of-seven-day contracts and that there is not much choice for any of them? Is it part of her brief, perhaps at some time in the future, to examine the rights of workers other than shop workers in that regard?
    Mrs. Liddell: I would say to the hon. Gentleman that that is a very clear sign of why people should join trade unions. Indeed, at the forefront of the campaign to ensure equality between Scottish and English shop workers has been the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. In a fair society, it is right that the sort of employment protection that this Government have developed should ensure that people have equal rights both north and south of the border. That is something to which the Government give priority.

    Asylum Seekers
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: If she will make a statement on recent discussions with the Scottish Parliament on Government policy on asylum seekers. [101099]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Anne McGuire): I have regular discussions with both Scottish Executive Ministers and Home Office Ministers on asylum and refugee policy.
    Mr. Dalyell: What thought is being given to the possible influx of asylum seekers from Iraq?
    Mrs. McGuire: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I advise the House that last year, out of 85,865 applications for asylum in the UK. 14,940 were from Iraqis—more than double the number that applied in the previous year. The plans for dealing with the full range of potential consequences of armed conflict overseas are kept constantly under review. I have already indicated the number of Iraqi citizens currently seeking asylum, and Home Office officials routinely revise contingency plans to deal with increases in the number of asylum seekers. At present, there are no specific plans to take refugees from Iraq.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: Does not the Minister see a contradiction between the declared policy of the First Minister in his speech in Edinburgh last month about attracting skilled workers and the practices of the Home Office in Scotland? Let us take, for example, the Chernov family, my constituents. Mr. Chernov is a skilled and highly qualified engineer, Mrs. Chernov is working and their son is at Fraserburgh college. They are a conscientious, hardworking, extremely popular and skilled family who have won a judicial review against deportation, but the Home Office wants to go back through the process to get them out of the country. Why is the Home Office spending vast amounts of public money trying to expel from Scotland exactly the sort of people whom the First Minister says that he wants to attract into the country?
    Mrs. McGuire: I am not aware of the specifics of the case to which the hon. Gentleman referred, although I would be willing to discuss it with him later. May I advise the House, however, that the Home Office has increased the number of work permits for immigrants coming into Scotland and the United Kingdom to attract those very people about whom, in general terms, he spoke? If he wants me to discuss with him the specific issue that he raised, I shall be delighted to do so.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Reverting to the question asked by the Father of the House, is it not likely that, if the Prime Minister's admirable policy towards Iraq succeeds, which I am sure it will, there will not be much need for Iraqis to seek asylum anywhere?
    Mrs. McGuire: I would hope that many Iraqis would feel safe about going home to their own country.

    Defence (Employment)
    Jim Sheridan: How many jobs in Scotland are (a) directly and (b) indirectly related to defence.[101100]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Helen Liddell): The most recently available estimates are that a total of 30,400 jobs in Scotland are directly related to
    150
    defence and a further 10,640 jobs are indirectly related to it. The number of directly dependent jobs includes both MOD personnel and jobs in related industries directly dependent on defence procurement.
    Jim Sheridan: I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. Will she estimate the cost to the Clyde and Rosyth of the cancellation of two aircraft carriers? Does she agree that the implications of Scotland divorcing itself from the rest of the UK and adopting the bow and arrow defence policies of others would be devastating?
    Mrs. Liddell: I am glad that my hon. Friend has drawn attention to the aircraft carrier contracts that will benefit both the Clyde and Rosyth. The point that he makes is very valid. For many years ahead, security of employment is now available for shipyard workers in Scotland. That would be jeopardised by the policies of the Scottish National party, one of whose members has already said "Oh well, we'll just have one aircraft carrier" without even being able to say how it would be paid for. In these uncertain times, it is important that we have stability and a defence industry that continues to contribute to the excellence of Scottish employment.
    Sir Robert Smith: The Secretary of State knows of the quality and talents of the many companies that work in the North sea oil and gas industry. They could benefit the defence industry and the Ministry of Defence. What is she doing to encourage the Ministry of Defence to look wider so that those companies can broaden their base of commercial talent?
    Mrs. Liddell: I have held discussions with Lord Bach, the Minister responsible for defence procurement, specifically about the Nigg yard, where there is a great opportunity if the alliance can take it. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point that is especially relevant to heavy engineering and at the high-tech end of the marketplace. Opportunities exist and I am sure that the aircraft carrier contract means the creation of many jobs that will attract back to heavy industry many people who previously worked in shipbuilding and related employment. The Eurofighter helmet is an example of the way in which great engineering skill can make Scotland a centre of excellence. All Scots should he proud of it.

  The Advocate-General was asked—
  ADVOCATE-GENERAL

    Human Rights
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: How many human rights matters have been referred to her in the last four weeks. [101092]
    The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): Since 4 February, I have received intimation of 36 devolution issue minutes, all of which concerned human rights matters.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is thought being given to the delicate human rights problems that would surround any influx of asylum seekers from Iraq, of whom some might be henchpersons of Saddam Hussein?
    The Advocate-General: The Government always give serious thought to human rights issues. That is why we introduced the Human Rights Act 1998. The Government are dealing with the position.

    Devolution
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What devolution issues she has advised on since 4 February. [101093]
    The Advocate-General: Since 4 February, I have examined devolution issues on a wide variety of topics including: challenges by life prisoners to fixing the punishment part of life licence hearings; the criminal liability of corporate bodies; pre-trial delay and whether the requirement on the defence to disclose that it plans to raise sexual history evidence breaches the accused's right to a fair trial.
    Miss McIntosh: The hon. and learned Lady knows that partnership law remains a reserved matter. Does she realise that during the passage of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill through the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Executive tabled amendment No. 169, which would interfere with partnership law? Should not she tell the Scottish Executive not to interfere, and to allow this House to continue to enjoy its reserved powers over partnership law?
    The Advocate-General: Without specific notice of the amendment to which the hon. Lady refers, I cannot give her a chapter-and-verse answer. In general, the question whether a partnership issue is reserved or devolved depends on the way in which it is introduced. The Scottish Parliament can table any amendment that it wishes. However, I ultimately have four weeks in which to consider the Bill and decide whether it is within competence. I am entitled to take a view about the matter at that stage.

    Human Rights
    Mr. Alan Reid: What human rights issues she has dealt with since 4 February. [101094]
    The Advocate-General: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago to the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh).
    Mr. Reid: Does the Advocate General know that, during the investigation into the incident at Dunoon pier, about which I asked her four weeks ago, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has interviewed only three passengers and eye-witnesses? Given that there were 28 passengers and also eye-witnesses on the pier,
    152
    will the hon. and learned Lady advise the agency that it should publicise the inquiry and contact details so that more witnesses can have the opportunity to give evidence? That would protect ferry passengers' rights.
    The Advocate-General: My parliamentary and statutory duties do not cover such matters. General policy issues on such a subject are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. It is up to the agency to observe its duties. It might become a devolution issue if anyone is dissatisfied and wants to challenge the way in which the agency does that.

  SCOTLAND
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  SCOTLAND

    Energy White Paper
    Malcolm Bruce: If she will make a statement on the impact on Scotland of implementing targets in the Energy White Paper. [101101]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Anne McGuire): There are both reserved and devolved responsibilities relevant to the delivery of the objectives set out in the White Paper "Our energy future—creating a low carbon economy". The White Paper acknowledges the continuing need for co-operation between the Government and the Scottish Executive to address the energy challenges that we face.
    Malcolm Bruce: Given that Scotland lost out to Denmark on the technology for wind development, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that Scotland takes the opportunity presented by the White Paper in order to become a world leader in new technology for wave power, wind power and biomass? What is she doing to ensure also that Scotland's economy benefits from the export of renewable energy to the rest of the United Kingdom, and that the host communities have a direct stake in that?
    Mrs. McGuire: I trust that the hon. Gentleman and his party will make their own contribution to the White Paper consultation.
    There have been significant developments in wind technology recently. My hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. MacDonald) has welcomed a potential new project in his area, and I think that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) will have welcomed the Vestas project in Campbeltown.

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

    Court Service
    Mr. John Bercow: If she will make a statement on the efficiency of the Court Service. [101887]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Yvette Cooper): The Court Service annual report sets out full details of Court Service performance and audited accounts. The Court Service has demonstrated steady improvement in a series of areas, including reductions in delays in both civil and criminal cases.
    Mr. Bercow: That soothing bromide of a reply really does not meet the needs of the case. Does the hon. Lady not understand and accept that one of the real inefficiencies in the Government's changes to the Court Service in rural areas is the fact that witnesses and defendants must sometimes travel long distances, very inconveniently, as a result of the closure of more than 200 magistrates courts since the Government took office? Does she not recognise that the closures have dramatically undermined the whole principle of local justice?
    Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman should withhold some of his righteous indignation. Decisions about magistrates courts are, in fact, made by local magistrates courts committees. They take account of a wide range of factors, including witness facilities in the local courts, access to justice and the use of courtrooms.
    The number of courtroom closures has fluctuated from one year to another. Last year there were six; during the last year of the Tory Government, there were 21.
    Caroline Flint: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important, in the interests of justice, for those who provide our court service to liaise effectively with the police, local authorities, social services and others? What is her Department doing to ensure that a dialogue takes place between the agencies responsible for delivering justice to the many victims in our communities?
    Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right about the inefficiencies and ineffectiveness that can arise from a lack of communication between the different criminal justice agencies. That is why I strongly support the establishment of the criminal justice boards, in which the Court Service and magistrates courts will play a central role—in particular, in reducing the number of ineffective trials.
    Mr. David Heath: Is not the key area for reform of the Court Service that of judicial appointments? Has the hon. Lady had an opportunity to read today's recommendation by Sir lain Glidewell in his report to the Bar Council? He says that the Lord Chancellor's position is politically unacceptable. That recommendation builds on the recommendation of Sir Colin Campbell, who asked for a wide-ranging debate, and a debate in the other place on Friday which, nemine contra, suggested that the Lord Chancellor's salary should be reduced. Is it not time for us to debate the Lord Chancellor's position, his role in judicial appointments and, indeed, a wide range of other subjects?
    Yvette Cooper: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Lord Chancellor has done much to increase the
    154
    openness and transparency of the appointments system. That includes the appointment of Colin Campbell to examine the overall position. We will of course consider the Glidewell report when it is published.
    David Taylor: I am a member of the Magistrates Association, and last week, at the Coalville courthouse, I had a meeting with the clerk, the chairman and senior members of that bench. They advised me of major blunders by the Court Service in calculating the £385 million in Government grant for 2003–04 that is distributed to magistrates courts committees. Is it true that there is no intention to correct those mistakes, which are depriving poorly funded magistrates courts committees such as Leicestershire's of several hundred thousand pounds? Can the Minister look again at this wrongful distribution and remedy this injustice?
    Yvette Cooper: I shall certainly look at the position in Leicestershire. It is true that a new formula has been introduced this year to establish a far fairer system for distributing resources across the country. Some magistrates courts committees have been treated unfairly in the past, and have not received their fair allocation. We have also made it clear that it will take time to move towards a fair allocation and an improved system. That process is under way, and I shall certainly happily look again at the case that my hon. Friend raises.

    Magistrates Courts
    Andrew Selous: What recent representations the Lord Chancellor has received about the reopening of magistrates courts. [101888]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Yvette Cooper): The decision to reopen magistrates courts is a matter for the independent magistrates courts committees. The Lord Chancellor's Department is working in partnership with local MCCs and local councils in several areas to build new magistrates courts.
    Andrew Selous: I thank the Minister for that reply, but could she give the House some assurance about the situation in towns that are growing rapidly? The magistrates court in Leighton Buzzard, which is in my constituency, has been closed. The town's population is increasing from about 35,000 to 50,000, and it will become the second largest town in Bedfordshire. Given that huge increase, will the Minister offer me an assurance that her Department will look into establishing a mechanism to assess whether the magistrates court can be reopened, for the benefit of victims and of witnesses?
    Yvette Cooper: I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman's concerns to the local MCC. It is for the MCC to assess local need and circumstances, and the requirements for magistrates courts in that area. I certainly agree that magistrates courts committees need to look ahead in their planning, and to examine population developments.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does the Minister not recognise that her disingenuous answers to my hon. Friends the Members for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) and for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) disguise the fact that it is her Department's guidelines that box in magistrates courts committees? Ever since this Government came to power, month after month she and her predecessors have mouthed sweet platitudes at the Dispatch Box about this Government's supposed support for the lay magistracy. In fact, month in, month out, local magistrates courts are closing—indeed, more than 200 have closed since her Government came to power.
    There is increased centralisation, and in rural areas witnesses and defendants have to travel many miles. That is not an efficient way to run the Court Service. At the same time, the Magistrates Association is being undermined, and the penny is starting to drop: from the way in which this Government have suffered defeat after defeat—
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Yvette Cooper: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his speech. Let me remind him of what happened in 1996, when 21 magistrates courts closed—considerably more than closed in the past year. As I have said, such numbers fluctuate, but in 1996 courts closed in Bromley, in Mansfield, in Hornsea, in Howden, in Market Weighton, in Old Street, in Halstead, in Biddulph, in Cheadle, in Kidsgrove, in Tonbridge, in Colwyn Bay, in Bedale—I could go on. The hon. Gentleman should realise that magistrates courts committees need to take responsible decisions about improving the facilities that they provide, and about improving access for witnesses, including disabled witnesses. It is their responsibility to do that, and that is what they are doing.
    Angela Watkinson: What plans the Department has to open new magistrates courts. [101889]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Yvette Cooper): The Lord Chancellor's Department is working on a series of new court developments with magistrates courts around the country.
    Angela Watkinson: The Minister will be as concerned as I am at the amount of court time that is wasted through the non-attendance of witnesses. Does she agree that ensuring that local magistrates courts are indeed local, and ensuring short journey times for witnesses, are the best ways to overcome that problem?
    Yvette Cooper: The hon. Lady is right. Travelling times must be taken into account when considering magistrates and other courts. Improvements to county courts are aimed at increasing the number of local hearing venues by 15 per cent., to improve local access. In fact, the unified administration will provide the opportunity for MCCs and the Court Service to look
    156
    closely at areas in which they can provide better local access. MCCs often have to take into account difficult issues, and it is their job to do so.
    Dr. Brian Iddon: Is my hon. Friend aware that communities in Bolton are pleased by the decision that the magistrates court will be retained—and in a much improved building?
    Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. Both Bolton and Salford will benefit from new investment in magistrates courts. New courthouses are also up and running in Hull, Beverley, Bridlington, Hereford and Worcester, and investment programmes have been set up for new courthouses in Manchester, Derbyshire, Liverpool, Avon and Somerset and other areas, to improve the facilities in courtrooms for witnesses and victims, to whom it can make a real difference.
    Mr. A. J. Beith: The Minister referred to the benefits of the unified courts administration. If that is put in place, will she encourage magistrates to make use of county court centres for hearings, where available, and vice versa, so that the gaps in both systems can be filled?
    Yvette Cooper: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. In some areas, the Court Service and the MCC are working together to improve the use of buildings. In some cases, either court on its own might not be viable, but by working together they can preserve or even increase the services in an area. We want to see that happen more often, as part of the unified administration.
    Dr. Andrew Murrison: What value does the Minister put on local and accessible justice, especially in connection with Trowbridge magistrates court, and when can the people of west Wiltshire expect to have a decision on the future of that courthouse?
    Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman has met me to make his points about the Trowbridge magistrates court. I have asked for additional information about both the Trowbridge and the Devizes magistrates courts. As he will be aware, the MCC has proposed that they should be closed. The local council has appealed against the decision. It is for the Lord Chancellor's Department to determine that appeal and I will let the hon. Gentleman know as soon as the decision has been taken.
    Gareth Thomas: Will the Minister accept, from someone who has practised as a lawyer in many rural courts, :hat the case against closure of those courts is often exaggerated? What must really be taken into account is the need for properly resourced, good buildings for the convenience of all concerned, not least witnesses and victims.
    Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right, and several issues must be taken into account. For example, if witnesses or victims have to sit in a corridor next to the family of the defendant, they can feel intimidated. Having the resources to invest in separate facilities for

    157
    victims and witnesses is important to delivering justice—which is, in the end, what the courts should be about.

    External Advisers
    Mr. David Ruffley: What recent representations the Lord Chancellor has received regarding his Department's annual expenditure on external advisers. [101890]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Ms Rosie Winterton): The Lord Chancellor has received no recent representations on this subject. Parliamentary questions on this subject from the hon. Members for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) were answered on 16 January and 24 February 2003 respectively.
    Mr. Ruffley: The Minister will be aware that under Labour her Department's annual bill for external consultants and advisers has increased from £400,000 a year to £2.5 million—a sixfold increase of which Cardinal Wolsey himself would be proud. Given that the Department has lost control of its running costs, will she apologise to the British taxpayer?
    Ms Winterton: The use of external consultants costs less than 0.5 per cent.of the Department's overall budget. External consultants are used only when we do not have the relevant expertise or skills in-house, and when their use provides value for money. The hon. Gentleman may not be aware of the July 2001 National Audit Office report, which looked at the use of external consultants in all Departments. It found that the Lord Chancellor's management of external consultants was pretty good. However, we also have an internal audit review to make sure that all the recommendations of the NAO report are carried out and implemented effectively.
    Mr. Boris Johnson: Have the external consultants to the Lord Chancellor's Department made any attempt to earn their crust by pointing out the grave damage done by the closure of magistrates courts, to witnesses who may be deterred from turning up and to local papers that are deterred from reporting cases? Does she agree that it is vital for local justice that there should be public reporting of cases? What steps will she take to ensure that local newspapers receive advance notification of upcoming cases?
    Ms Rosie Winterton: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on getting his question on magistrates courts into this question. External consultants have been used in the courts and tribunals programme, whose aim is to improve services to people using the courts and to make accessibility easier. However, the official solicitor, for example, has also used external consultants to ensure that services to very vulnerable clients and children are improved. That is the sort of use that we want to make of external consultants, when their use is necessary and represents value for money. We want to improve the services that we give to the people who use the courts services and the other services of the Lord Chancellor's Department.

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

    Electronic Voting
    Mr. John Bercow: If he will make a statement on his proposals for electronic voting in the House. [101896]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): Any change to electronic voting would require a consensus among hon. Members, and the survey of their opinion in the last Parliament did not produce a majority for change. I understand the value that hon. Members place on the opportunity for contact with colleagues in the Division Lobbies, and I would need to be persuaded that there is a settled will for change before departing from the present practice.
    Mr. Bercow: In his glittering parliamentary career, that statement from the President of the Council will certainly rank as one of the highlights. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that any electronic voting system would be costly and almost certainly open to abuse unless it involved the use of fingerprinting or was televised? Given that, does he accept that the late Lord Falkland's wise dictum—that that which it is not necessary to change it is necessary not to change—should be followed?
    Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman is generous in his remarks. He does not encourage me to think again in respect of the position that I have outlined to the House. I am sure that no hon. Member would wish to abuse any voting system. I am confident that if a new system were introduced, its use would proceed in a calm way. However, there is a fundamental problem of topography when it comes to introducing electronic voting in the Chamber. We are almost unique among western democracies in that hon. Members do not have fixed seats. Almost every place that has introduced electronic voting has done so on the basis that there are fixed seats. I do not anticipate that hon. Members would want to depart from the present arrangements in the Chamber.
    Mr. David Kidney: I assure the Leader of the House that he is wrong on that. It is curious that there are not even enough seats in the Chamber to allow every hon. Member to be here at the same time. If there were—[Interruption.] I have listened in silence to other hon. Members' points of view. I should like them to listen to mine. If there were sufficient seats there could be sufficient buttons for each hon. Member to press for each vote, personally, in sight of all their colleagues. We could save something like 14 minutes per vote, which would allow considerably more debate on Report, when we are considering amendments and scrutinising legislation.
    Mr. Cook: I am justly rebuked by my hon. Friend for the error of my conclusion. I understand that some Members will see some attraction in his proposal, but it would alter the character of this Chamber for all time. For instance, the Chamber would have to be much larger.

    159
    I am also conscious that, if we were to vote from our seats, there would be less of the free milling around and contact that we presently have in the Division Lobby. I know that Members value that immensely—although it may not always be equally valued by Ministers who are exposed to lobbying. Nevertheless, the Lobby is an important point for Parliament to come together.
    Mr. Greg Knight: We on this side of the House welcome the Leader of the House's robust answer. Does he agree that the main justification for any system of electronic voting is that it enables an elected Member to vote from his or her place? Any system that involved walking to an electronic machine would therefore be pointless. Does he accept that a proper electronic system could be introduced here only if we demolished this Chamber or, at any rate, altered it substantially? In view of that, does he agree that any further discussion and investigation of this matter is rather a waste of time?
    Mr. Cook: I would not wish to go down in history as the Leader of the House who demolished the Chamber. The right hon. Gentleman is correct to say that the work required to accommodate change would be formidable. We should also be clear about the extent to which time would be saved. I presume that we would still ring the Division bells for some eight minutes before Members came in, so the time that we would save would be the next area for discussion.
    I can see a case for electronic voting when there are multiple Divisions. However, most Divisions arise during the passing of legislation. From our recent visit to the Scottish Parliament, the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that, even though the Scottish Parliament uses electronic voting, MSPs do not vote without waiting for the results of earlier votes when passing legislation.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that another idea is floating about? If, perchance, electronic voting came in—and I would not vote for it—we would need a different system for different people. For instance, all those moonlighters on the Opposition Benches, who work outside this building making money on the side, would have to have a special little device, like a pager, so that when they went into their City stockbroking firms they could press their button there. I hope that my right hon. Friend has studied this issue carefully, because change would cost a hell of a lot of money. If that happens, we should charge those Tories for using those devices.
    Mr. Cook: As I understand him, my hon. Friend agrees with the Conservatives in opposing electronic voting—although, in his own way, he has managed to find grounds for disagreement with them. If we were to make any change to the voting system, I am sure that the House would insist that, whatever the method, Members should vote in person. I fear that this afternoon's exchange has confirmed my impression that there is not a settled will for change.

    Modernisation
    Bob Spink: What recent representations he has received on the modernisation of the House of Commons. [101897]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): I continue to receive a number of representations from Members of Parliament and of the public. It would be a fair summary that nearly all possible views on modernisation are expressed in those representations and I regret that they are not all mutually consistent.
    Bob Spink: In the light of our experience last evening when a number of clauses were passed without any debate at all, does the right hon. Gentleman not find that the mood of the House has changed substantially? Would it not be in all our interests for this matter to be brought to the House for a vote, perhaps in September or at the end of this Session, rather than waiting until the end of this Parliament before we revisit it?
    Mr. Cook: When the House considered this matter in October and took its decision, it took its decision for the rest of this Parliament. That seems to me an entirely fair period for which to reach an assessment. However, I must correct the hon. Gentleman about his comments on yesterday. There was no reduction in the time for debate on the Local Government Bill or any other Bill yesterday. The Bill received the same amount of debate as it would have done under the previous hours, by virtue of the fact that the debate continued until 10 o'clock, it being a Monday. However, the Bill would have received the same amount of debate time had it been a Tuesday or Wednesday, stopping at seven o'clock.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Many of us on the Labour Benches appreciate the modernisation and reforms that my right hon. Friend has initiated. Reforms such as putting a greater emphasis on pre-legislative scrutiny do a great deal to enhance the reputation of this House. I fear that taking a step backwards at this stage would not be in anybody's interest.
    Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her support for the changes that we have made. We should not lose sight of the fact that the bulk of the changes have consensus support in the Chamber. I think that all Members of the Ho use welcome the fact that Question Time can now be more topical as a result of the sharp reduction in the period of notice required. The introductory cross-cutting question session in Westminster Hall was generally agreed to have been a great success, especially by the representatives of the youth organisations who attended and by the record number of Members who attended Westminster Hall on that occasion. All Members appreciate the distribution of the text of statements immediately after the Minister has completed making the statement.

    161
    Many of the modernisation measures have full support so it would be premature for the House to revisit those areas that have yet to command the same degree of consensus.
    Mr. Paul Tyler: Have the Leader of the House, or indeed the Modernisation Committee, which he chairs, considered suggestions that Parliament should have a more specific role in authorising the Government's use of the royal prerogative? Is it not ironic that the American President has to go to Congress for specific consent to permit American troops to go to war, while the British Prime Minister has no constitutional responsibility to the House in similar circumstances? It seems that President Blair is more presidential than President Bush.
    Mr. Cook: I think that we could get too hung up on what may be the legal niceties of the situation. As I said at the start of the present Iraqi crisis, it is inconceivable that any Government could commit their troops to action without the support of Parliament. That remains my position; that remains the position of the Government. Of course, any Government must reserve the right to act immediately if the safety of our troops is at risk but, subject to that obvious reservation, a decision in this place should come first and I attach the highest importance to the right of the Commons to vote on the matter before there is any conflict.
    Mr. Peter Pike: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the main objective of programming was to ensure better scrutiny of legislation both in the Chamber and in Committee? Is he surprised., therefore, to learn that on many occasions the Opposition parties believe that because the knife falls at 5 o'clock, debate should finish at 5 o'clock and not continue after that time? Do we not need to look in more detail at trying to get an agreed system on times so as to ensure that Committees work better and Bills receive proper scrutiny?
    Mr. Cook: As a member of the Chairman's Panel, my hon. Friend speaks with authority on experience in Committee. He will be aware that the Modernisation Committee, of which he is also a member, has agreed to keep the experience of programming under review, and we may have an opportunity to examine some of those points of detail later in the Session.

    Sitting Hours
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: What assessment he has made of the impact of the House's new sitting hours on scrutiny of Government business. [101898]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): It would be premature to attempt an assessment of changes that the House introduced for the remainder of this Parliament. My own impression is that the parallel measures of modernisation have enhanced Parliament's role of
    162
    scrutiny, especially through Question Time becoming more topical. I hope that the other measures that we introduced will command the same degree of support.
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: The right hon. Gentleman has led the Modernisation Committee with considerable distinction and a great deal of commitment, and we respect him for that. However, will he accept from hon. Members, like myself, who have had considerable experience over many years, that there is a problem for a large number of Members of Parliament adequately to scrutinise legislation because of the many other things that are going on outside the Chamber? When we are squeezing the full week into two and a half days, it is difficult for Members to find time adequately to cover debates in this place—something that remains important. Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the matter again and perhaps consider holding a debate on, or a review of, the new rules and sittings before the end of the current Session?
    Mr. Cook: I certainly do not accept that we have a two and a half day week. As Leader of the House, when I programme business I do so for the full four days and I expect Members to make themselves available for those full four days. Long before the hours were changed, Select Committees and Standing Committees frequently met at hours during which the House itself was sitting—normally after 4 o'clock. Committees now have the opportunity to sit earlier in the afternoon. There may be a particular problem at present, due not to the change in hours but to the large volume of legislation and the large number of Standing Committees. However, that problem will ease as the months proceed and I anticipate that, as that happens, some of the present difficulties will resolve themselves.
    Helen Jackson: Does the Leader of the House agree that the hours issue was part of the overall modernisation package, which was designed to improve scrutiny, and that some hon. Members focus on hours because they find fundamental change difficult in their own personal way of doing their jobs and working? Indeed, is it not the case that some hon. Members suggested that they could not cope with the change after only two or three weeks? May I fully endorse the view that they will need some time to become totally accustomed to the new hours and that those hours should be considered in the wider context of scrutiny, which now involves using the whole Palace of Westminster—Westminster Hall, Select Committees, Standing Committees and the Chamber—more effectively?
    Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the very important work that is done by hon. Members in Select Committees, Standing Committees and Westminster Hall, and I personally regret that that very important work does not attract the same attention as work in the Chamber. I would add that I fully agree with my hon. Friend that the point of changing the hours was not to make life more convenient for us, but to make the Chamber more representative of those in the world outside who elect us.

    163
    I welcome the fact that, by moving our hours earlier, we are able to set the media agenda earlier in the day. There certainly have been at least a couple of occasions in the past few months when our votes at 7 o'clock have been much more fully recorded in the next day's papers than they ever would have been if they had taken place at 10 o'clock in the evening.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: If the Leader of the House is so confident that his new hours have met with wide approval, why will he not give the
    164
    House another opportunity to vote on them, rather than saying that they should be revisited only in the next Parliament?
    Mr. Cook: I am saying that precisely because that is what Parliament itself agreed to last October and, certainly in the case of Tuesday sittings, by a very large majority indeed. [Interruption.] I am sorry—Thursdays. I have seen no evidence to suggest that, if the matter were put to the House again, there would a majority for abandoning the 7 o'clock end.

Point of Order
12.31 pm
Sir Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your help and advice on an issue of real significance to the House of Commons. On 3 March I asked the Secretary of State for Defence, on Question 1, whether he would seek to establish from the United States authorities which weapons of mass destruction had been provided to Iraq, so that we could assess the problems that our troops might encounter if we entered into armed conflict. The Secretary of State advised me that the US had "categorically denied" making any such items available to Iraq.
Later the same day, I gained access to a Senate committee report, written in May 1994, which set out in great deal the materials related to biological warfare that the US had provided to the Iraqi Government and the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission. Those items included things such as anthrax, histoplasma, clostridium and other materials that have frightening potential. I tabled three written questions for answer on the named day of 6 March, asking for details. On that day, to my surprise, was I advised that a Minister would seek to answer my questions as soon as possible, but I still do not have the answers.
My question to you, Sir, is whether there is any time limit on the period for which Ministers can keep the House waiting for answers on important questions that have been tabled for answer on a named day. As I believe it is vital that the House should have that information before a decision is made on possible conflict, can you give me any assurance about the period that we might have to wait for information?
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. I understand his frustration that his questions have not received a substantive reply. The rule is that an answer to a named question must be given on the day named by the Member, but if that answer is a holding answer, there is no rule about when the eventual substantive answer should be given. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's point of order has been noted by Ministers.

Specialist Schools (Selection by Aptitude)
12.34 pm
Mr. David Chaytor: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to repeal the provisions of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 enabling specialist schools to select pupils on the basis of aptitude: and for connected purposes.
First, this is not a Bill that in any way seeks to criticise the concept or purpose of the secondary specialist school—far from it, as the Government's recent decision to make specialist school designation available to all schools has been widely welcomed. The Bill is solely concerned with a relatively obscure part of the school admission arrangements, which enables certain specialist schools, and other schools that consider themselves to have a specialism, to select up to 10 per cent. of their pupils on the basis of aptitude. The School Standards and Framework Act 1998 introduced the concept of testing for aptitude, the 1999 regulations described the means of implementation, and the new school admissions code of practice, published last month, provides further guidance. My Bill proposes to end the power to select by aptitude, on the grounds that it will increasingly be used as a back-door method of selection by ability.
This is a unique Government policy, and the main argument given to justify it by Ministers, officials and advisers is that the policy is rarely used. Can anyone think of a parallel? Would we, for example, defend the policy of the inclusion of children with special needs in mainstream schools by arguing that few schools did anything about it? If selection by aptitude is a good policy, consistent with the Government's other objectives, why are all schools not strongly encouraged to use it? The silence on the issue speaks volumes. The latest available figures indicate that about 6 per cent of specialist schools choose to select by aptitude. The figures clearly indicate, however, that the majority of schools that select are foundation schools—former grant-maintained schools—or voluntary aided schools, and those schools are their own admission authorities.
In addition, schools that select tend to have far fewer children on free school meals than the national average, and take far fewer children with statements of special needs than the national average. Although it is true that that 6 per cent. represents a comparatively small number of schools at present, when all 3,500 English secondary schools become specialist, if the figure remains at 6 per cent., that will equate to more than 200 schools. That will mean a 150 per cent. increase in the existing number of grammar schools that select explicitly on the grounds of ability.
Consequently, a deep concern exists that selection by aptitude has become, and will continue to develop, as yet another means by which schools whose intakes are already comparatively privileged will seek to reinforce their position in the local hierarchy of schools. Some schools have used, and some are still using, selection by aptitude to increase further their intake of able and well motivated pupils, thus increasing the concentration of less able and less well motivated pupils in neighbouring schools. The twin pressures imposed on head teachers by pupil-related funding and the publication of league tables make the process almost inevitable.

167
Selection by aptitude will lead to a reinforcement of the local hierarchy, a widening of inequality between schools and the creation of more schools that simply cannot recruit that critical mass of able and motivated children that all schools need in order to progress. That was precisely the issue identified as one of the great problems of the English education system in the recent OECD report on secondary school performance, and it would be perverse to continue with policies that make the problem worse.
Secondly, selection by aptitude is now unnecessary because of the Government's welcome changing policy on specialist schools. The earlier rhetoric in the debate on specialism was couched in the language of specialist schools delivering better results, becoming individual centres of excellence and therefore offering greater consumer choice for parents. It was then pointed out that only schools that were already performing well could become specialist schools, that the £600,000 of additional funding probably played some part in the delivery of better results, that the Government's evidence on results was itself highly selective and disputed by some experts, and that in most parts of the country there was no increase in parental choice, only in parental preference. By definition, selection by aptitude, like all forms of selection, restricts parental choice precisely because it is the school that does the choosing.
The Government have now sensibly developed the policy in a new direction, so that specialist schools are now expected to work in collaborative networks and share their expertise with others. Specialism is seen as a means of school improvement for all schools, not as a means by which the few can gain an advantage over the many. In this framework, it becomes less important for parents to seek out a specialist school to match the alleged aptitude of the child, because not only will all schools have a distinct specialism but they will develop their expertise across the curriculum and benefit from the specialisms of neighbouring schools. As the specialism becomes a means to an end and not an end in itself, the argument for selecting pupils to attend particular schools becomes increasingly irrelevant.
Thirdly, there is the question of what exactly constitutes aptitude, how it can be measured and how it relates to ability. No one has yet has been able to provide a satisfactory definition. Previously, Ministers have equated aptitude with potential, but when they were pressed to clarify what kind of potential, the discussion always reverted to the concept of potential ability. Of course, Government policy is opposed to increasing selection by ability. The confusion between aptitude and ability, and the confusion caused by using the word "potential" as a noun rather than an adjective, are obvious.
There has been some attempt to argue that aptitude relates only to sport and the arts. The idea that some 11-year-olds have an aptitude for sport or the arts that is distinct from their general level of ability, and that they should be given special help to develop it, is superficially attractive. However, the justification for that argument always reverts to the need to identify and promote young talent and future high achievers—that is, young people with ability. Again, aptitude is used as a proxy for ability.
168
Another attempt to define aptitude is contained in a recent ministerial reply that refers to
"pupils who, for example, show a capacity to be trained or developed".—[Official Report, 4 March 2003; Vol. 400, c. 964W.]
The new schools admissions code of conduct defines a pupil with aptitude as
"one who is identified as being able to benefit from teaching in a specific subject".
If the overwhelming majority of pupils entering secondary school do not show a capacity to be trained or developed, or if they are not able to benefit from teaching in a specific subject, we have some serious problems. The real issue is not whether pupils can benefit from teaching, but the extent to which they can be trained and developed. Once again, this brings us back to the question of their ability.
There is also the question of how accurately aptitude can be assessed at the age of 10 or 11. I do not intend to go into the dubious practices that some schools have used to enhance their pupil intake, but that might be a useful subject for a future Adjournment debate. It has been well documented most recently in research by the London school of economics. All I I shall say now is that schools that are their own admissions authorities can operate in ways that are not altogether transparent, and aptitude testing simply provides another means of selection by ability, without even having the justification of the objectivity that most specific tests of ability will provide.
During the past three years, I have asked representatives of England's examining boards, head teachers and Ofsted officials about aptitude tests. The answer is always the same: there are no standardised tests available that satisfactorily assess aptitude without reference to ability. At a recent meeting of the Select Committee on Education and Skills, I put a question to Sir Cyril Taylor, the chair of the Specialist Schools Trust Council and adviser to eight successive Secretaries of State, and the author of the specialist schools policy. In his reply, he said:
"I personally think it is really only of use in areas where you can clearly identify aptitude: music, sport perhaps, maybe maths. Most so-called aptitude tests are also intelligence tests … Most tests in subjects would measure both aptitude and intelligence."
That is exactly the point. Can anyone explain how we could test aptitude in mathematics without reference to ability, or test in music or technology? Are we seriously saying that we want a new generation of plumbers who have an aptitude for using a blowtorch but no ability to fix a leak? I want—
Mr. Speaker: Order.
12.44 pm
Mr. Graham Brady: It is always a great pleasure to oppose what the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) has said in the Chamber. However, that puts me in a slightly awkward position, because I know that opposing him is helpful to Ministers in the Department for Education and Skills. In a week in which we have all grown used to reading stories about divisions in the Labour party over international matters, he is introducing a Bill that highlights one of the key divisions in the Labour party on an important aspect of domestic policy.

169
The Bill is at the core of the Government's education policy. I give the hon. Gentleman credit for being consistent. Only a few months ago, he tabled a Bill that would have had an almost identical effect on reducing the amount of selection possible in specialist schools. As someone who takes an interest in education policy, I was concerned that not only did Ministers sit on their hands throughout the debate, but when it came to a Division, the Government allowed no fewer than six Parliamentary Private Secretaries, who are members of the Government, to vote against Government policy and support the hon. Gentleman's proposals.
In opposing the Bill, I am conscious of providing an opportunity for the Government Whips, who have been experiencing some difficulty of late, to test their new strategies. We will be interested to see whether they choose to exercise on this policy the variable geometry allowed to members of the Cabinet on international affairs, or whether they want to revert to instilling discipline within the Labour party, especially as selection by aptitude is one of the more sensible parts of the Government's education policy.
Given that Ministers have been silent on the issue, I took the precaution a couple of weeks ago of tabling a written question to the Department for Education and Skills asking the Secretary of State about the Government's policy on the Bill. I shall again be perhaps uncharacteristically helpful by acting as a mouthpiece for the Minister for School Standards, who is sitting silently at the Dispatch Box. In his candid response, for which I thank him, he said:
"The Bill seeks to repeal the provisions of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, which enable schools with a specialism, not just those designated under the Specialist Schools Programme, to give priority to up to 10 per cent. of pupils".
He went on:
"We do not believe it is necessary nor desirable to remove the flexibility which enables the admission authorities for schools with a specialism, where they wish to do so, to give limited priority to pupils with a particular aptitude for the relevant specialism."—[Official Report, 4 March 2003; Vol. 400, c. 964W.]
As the Minister went on to say, that applies in particular to an aptitude for sport and the ability of music and ballet schools—which are close to the heart of my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan)—to select by aptitude. The Bill would destroy that ability and do significant damage.
Given the Minister's splendid response to my written question, I trust that when the House divides he will join us in the Lobby to support what is clearly explicit Government policy and vote against those on the Labour Benches who choose to deviate from that policy, so setting back progress in our schools. The Opposition support specialist schools and accept that there is a role for selection in raising standards—something that Ministers also accept. That is true of both partial and full selection. Northern Ireland has a wholly selective system and GCSE results there are 14 per cent. better than in England. Yet in spite of that, with direct rule in place, the Government are persisting in the policy previously pursued by Mr. Martin McGuinness of trying to destroy that system.
170
In the past few days I received another written answer confirming that it is not just grammar schools that do well in a selective system. Selective systems as a whole show benefits for educational performance—
Mr. John Bercow: As in Buckinghamshire.
Mr. Brady: Indeed, and in the borough of Trafford—[Interruption.] I am being urged to add Kent to that list.
We have clear evidence that wholly selective areas outperform the national average by 4 per cent. in terms of the number of children getting A* to C grades in all the core subjects of English, maths and science. Areas that are wholly comprehensive underperform against that average.
We urge the Minister and his colleagues to join us in the Lobby in support of one of the more sensible parts of Government policy. He should accept that selection has a role to play in raising standards. If we have a quibble with Ministers on this subject, it is that they have been far too timid. They could go much further and free schools even more to harness the energy that would come from there being far greater diversity and choice among them. That is the way to raise education standards; the Minister knows it, and the answers that he has given me prove it. He should now act on what he has said and come into the Lobby with us to oppose the Bill.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 ( Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House divided: Ayes 135, Noes 92.

Division No. 112]

[12:50 pm

AYES

Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

Crausby, David

Allan, Richard

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Barnes, Harry

Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

Barrett, John

David, Wayne

Battle, John

Davidson, Ian

Begg, Miss Anne

Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Bennett, Andrew

Dismore, Andrew

Betts, Clive

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Borrow, David

Edwards, Huw

Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

Breed, Colin

Foster, rh Derek

Brennan, Kevin

Foster, Don (Bath)

Bruce, Malcolm

Francis, Dr. Hywel

Bryant, Chris

George, Andrew (St. Ives)

Burgon, Colin

George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

Burnham, Andy

Gerrard, Neil

Byers, rh Stephen

Gibson, Dr. Ian

Cable, Dr. Vincent

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Campbell, Ronnie(Blyth V)

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Challen, Colin

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

Chaytor, David

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Chidgey, David

Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

Clapham, Michael

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

Harvey, Nick

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

Heath, David

Cohen, Harry

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Cotter, Brian

Hinchliffe, David

Cox, Tom (Tooting)

Holmes, Paul

171

Hopkins, Kelvin

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Rendel, David

Humble, Mrs Joan

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Illsley, Eric

Sanders,Adrian

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

Savidge, Malcolm

Sedgemore, Brian

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Shaw, Jonathan

Jenkins, Brian

Sheerman, Barry

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Skinner, Dennis

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Kilfoyle, Peter

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

Lamb, Norman

Laws, David (Yeovil)

Stevenson, George

Lepper, David

Stinchcombe, Paul

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Stunell, Andrew

Llwyd, Elfyn

Tami, Mark (Alyn)

Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

MacDonald, Calum

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

McDonnell, John

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

MacDougall, John

Tonge, Dr. Jenny

McKechin, Ann

Trickett, Jon

Mackinlay, Andrew

Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

Mallaber, Judy

Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

Martlew, Eric

Vis,Dr.Rudi

Mole, Chris

Walley, Ms Joan

Mullin, Chris

Wareing, Robert N.

Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

Olner, Bill

Webb, Steve (Northavon)

Perham, Linda

White, Brian

Pickthall, Colin

Williams, Betty (Conwy)

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Plaskitt, James

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Pollard, Kerry

Willis, Phil

Pound, Stephen

Wright David (Telford)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Pugh, Dr. John

Tellers for the Ayes:

Purchase, Ken

David Taylor and

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

Lynne Jones

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Collins, Tim

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

Bercow, John

Blunt, Crispin

Djanogly, Jonathan

Boswell, Tim

Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

Brady, Graham

Evans, Nigel

Brazier, Julian

Fabricant, Michael

Burns, Simon

Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

Burt, Alistair

Cameron, David

Flight, Howard

Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

Flook, Adrian

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Forth, rh Eric

Fox, Dr. Liam

172

Francois, Mark

Moss, Malcolm

Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

Munn, Ms Meg

Garnier, Edward

Murrison,Dr.Andrew

Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Ottaway, Richard

Goodman, Paul

Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

Gray, James (N Wilts)

Randall, John

Grayling, Chris

Redwood, rh John

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Robathan, Andrew

Hawkins, Nick

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

Hayes, John (S Holland)

Hendry, Charles

Roe, Mrs Marion

Hermon, Lady

Sayeed,Jonathan

Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

Sheerman, Barry

Hogg, rh Douglas

Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

Johnson, Boris (Henley)

Spring, Richard

Key, Robert (Salisbury)

Stanley, rh Sir John

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Swayne, Desmond

Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

Swire,Hugo (E Devon)

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Tredinnick, David

Trimble, rh David

Leigh, Edward

Tyrie, Andrew

Letwin, rh Oliver

Waterson, Nigel

Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

Watkinson, Angela

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Whittingdale, John

Luff, Peter (M-Wores)

Wilkinson, John

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Willetts, David

Mackay, rh Andrew

Wilshire, David

Maclean, rh David

Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Maples, John

Young, rh Sir George

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Mercer, Patrick

Tellers for the Noes:

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

Andrew Selous and

Mr. Bill Wiggin

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Chaytor, John Austin, Andrew Bennett, Valerie Davey, Mr. Huw Edwards, Jeff Ennis, Mr. David Hinchliffe, Glenda Jackson, Mr. Tony Lloyd, Mr. Chris Mullin, Mr. Kerry Pollard and Jonathan Shaw.

Specialist Schools (Selection by Aptitude)
  SPECIALIST SCHOOLS (SELECTION BY APTITUDE)
  Mr. David Chaytor accordingly presented a Bill to repeal the provisions of the School Standards and Framework Act 1988 enabling specialist schools to select pupils on the basis of aptitude; and for connected purposes: 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 69].
ESTIMATES DAY
[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
ESTIMATES DAY
  SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 2002–2003
    Foreign and Commonwealth Office

      War Against Terrorism
      [Relevant documents: Second Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee, Session 2002–03, on Foreign Policy Aspects of the War against Terrorism, HC 196, and the Government's response thereto, Cm 5739; and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Annual Report 2002, Cm 5413.]
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      That further resources, not exceeding £144,807,000, be authorised for use during the year ending on 31st March 2003, and that a further sum, not exceeding £26,460.000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund for the year ending on 31st March 2003 for expenditure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
      Mr. Speaker: Before I call the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson), I inform the House that there is a limit of 15 minutes on Back-Bench speeches, but that does not include the right hon. Gentleman.
      1.3 pm
      Donald Anderson: I am grateful both for that information, Mr. Speaker, and the opportunity to open the debate.
      Estimates days are always based on something of a fiction—in this case, the relevant estimate is the provision of about £5 million to be spent on increased security for posts in the middle east. The report by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, however, ranged far more widely—hence there is a double fiction, as I anticipate that much of today's debate will focus on the crisis in Iraq.
      As a Welshman, I like to begin with a text, and the appropriate text today is attributed to Voltaire:
      "Doubt is uncomfortable, but certainty is ridiculous."
      Our first report on foreign policy aspects of the war against terrorism was published in June 2002, and focused on intelligence before 11 September; the formation of the international coalition and military action in Afghanistan; and post-Taliban reconstruction. In my speech in Westminster Hall on that report on 31 October, I promised the House that the Foreign Affairs Committee would keep the issue high on the agenda; hence our second report in the series, published in December, and today's important debate. Our second report, like all reports produced by the Committee during this Parliament, was unanimous, which shows the readiness of colleagues of all parties serving on the Committee to work together to reach a consensus. I pay tribute to the expertise, dedication, and focus of my Committee colleagues for their sustained commitment to that cause.
      In 2001, about 3,000 people lost their lives because of terrorism. The action taken in Afghanistan has certainly disrupted the al-Qaeda network, but no one can be in
      174
      any doubt that it still has the capacity to inflict great damage. In just two weeks last autumn, over 300 people were killed. The Committee's view is that
      "al-Qaeda and associated organisations continue to pose a grave threat to the UK and its interests abroad".
      We cannot afford to be complacent.
      I shall explain how our inquiry was carried out. Since the war against terrorism began on 11 September 2001, we have visited New York and Washington on three occasions, most recently in October 2002. On all our visits, we held meetings with UN officials and representatives of member states in New York, and US officials at the State Department, the Pentagon and the National Security Council. We also met a number of our colleagues and friends on Capitol Hill. Indeed, doors opened wide for us—the special relationship has become a reality—so we are grateful to the US Administration, the State Department and Congress, as well as our own Foreign Office. Our visit to Copenhagen in July enabled us to discuss EU measures on counter-terrorism with our Danish colleagues. In January this year, we met the Greek presidency and learned of the astonishing co-operation between the Greek intelligence agencies and our own which led to the identification of the N17–17 November—suspects, responsible, it is said, for the murder of defence attache, Brigadier Saunders.
      In the course of our inquiry, we heard oral evidence from academics and other experts, including two professors of international law, and from former US officials, who spoke about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Recently, we held a particularly interesting evidence session on Iran, and took evidence from the Foreign Secretary. Our wide-ranging report deals with multilateral developments, developments in US foreign policy, al-Qaeda, Iraq and the anticipation of war. I shall highlight two key aspects.
      First, it is hardly surprising that the issue of Iraq figured prominently in our inquiry. We considered the threat, the question of disarming, and the possibility of military action. I remind the House that the report was published on 17 December—obviously, there have been major developments since, particularly at the United Nations Security Council and, indeed, there was a debate in the House on 26 February.
      The Committee reached some key conclusions. The possibility that Saddam Hussein might employ terrorist methods must be taken seriously, but there is no compelling evidence linking the Iraqi regime to al-Qaeda.
      Llew Smith: Does my right hon. Friend believe that the Government have got their priorities wrong, as they seem to have set aside £1.75 billion to fight a war against Iraq or, as they say, against terrorism, although it now seems to be a blank cheque, yet they can find only £100 million to deal with humanitarian emergencies, not just in Iraq but worldwide?
      Donald Anderson: I anticipate that, if the commitments of the Government and of our major allies are proved true and if there is a war, there will certainly be ample funds available for the reconstruction of Iraq.
      The evidence of Iraq's retention and continued development of weapons of mass destruction is compelling and a cause for considerable concern. Again,

      175
      we drew attention to the failure to address the threat from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, which could pose very high risks to the security of British interests in the middle east and the Gulf region. We said that Iraq must not be permitted to continue to defy the authority of the United Nations. We cited the unanimous adoption of Security Council resolution 1441 on 8 November, which states that the obligation to disarm is absolutely clear, and that this is "a final opportunity". It also set out the tests of immediate and unconditional co-operation.
      Mr. Stephen McCabe: When the Committee said that Iraq should not be allowed to continue to defy the United Nations and that this was a final opportunity, what kind of time scale was it thinking about? Did it think that Iraq should not be allowed to continue to defy the United Nations for several months, or for years, or into the dim and distant future? Did the Committee think that "final" meant something other than "final", or was it absolutely clear about the words that it was using? Did it understand this to mean that defiance should cease, and that "final" should mean the last opportunity?
      Donald Anderson: My hon. Friend will recall that any so-called second resolution will be the 18th resolution, and so long as "immediate" is not defined as "immediate", and "final" not defined as "final", the Security Council will lose credibility for its own resolutions.
      I commend the Government's commitment always to work within international law. We recommended that they should do their utmost to ensure the adoption of a further Security Council resolution, as, in our judgment, resolution 1441 would not provide unambiguous authorisation. International law rarely appears to give absolutely clear direction.
      Joan Ruddock: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Perhaps I interrupted him a little too quickly. I think that the phrase involved here is "all necessary means", which I believe is diplomatic-speak for going to war. Does he know whether the resolution currently being circulated in the United Nations includes the phrase "all necessary means", and would he consider that a legal basis for action?
      Donald Anderson: "Serious consequences" is the phrase in the relevant paragraph of resolution 1441, which also contains a number of other phrases that have special meaning for diplomats and which may mean something other than the ordinary observer might think. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us on this later, but there has been a whole series of draft resolutions, and I genuinely do not know what is in the latest one now before the Security Council.
      Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Donald Anderson: I must make some progress. I will give way later.
      In our judgment, the Government are right to take a robust stance in the face of the continued defiance of Security Council resolutions by Saddam Hussein.
      176
      Saddam's defiance does indeed damage the credibility of the United Nations—it also threatens British interests—but the Government must maintain a position consistent with international law. Any military action against the Iraqi regime must be legally justified, and should only be taken
      "on grounds other than"—
      Iraq's
      "past or current involvement with the al-Qaeda network."
      I do not intend to digress into speculation on what will or will not happen during the current intense negotiations in New York. The subject was debated fully in the House on 26 February and we hope for an early debate within the next few days.
      The second area that I would like to tackle is the doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence. For me, this was one of the most important parts of the report, and it is highly relevant to the Iraq situation. I do not apologise to the House for dwelling on this, because I do not think it has been given sufficient consideration.
      We began to investigate the US Administration's thinking on pre-emptive self-defence early in 2002, the President having first outlined the doctrine in January. The doctrine was spelled out more clearly in the national security strategy, which was published shortly before we visited Washington in October last year. In the strategy, the Administration explained:
      "We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today's adversaries. Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means … they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction—weapons that can be easily concealed, delivered covertly, and used without warning."
      The Administration therefore saw a
      "compelling case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack."
      Accordingly,
      "To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act pre-emptively."
      Two experts in international law appeared before the Committee. They were lawyers with major reputations as academics and practitioners. Professors Brownlie and Greenwood appeared before us on 24 October. It was a fascinating session, we were most grateful to them, and I commend their evidence to colleagues. It does something of an injustice to the sophistication of their arguments to summarise them, but their contribution was so valuable that it must have some mention. Both referred to the famous Caroline dispute, which is the classical definition of the right of self-defence in international law. In 1837, British forces took action in Canada against a US merchant vessel which Canadian rebels and American sympathisers had used as a base for attacks on the British.
      Professor Brownlie took the more conservative position. For him, the Caroline case raised the question: what is the level of necessity? He suggested that preemptive action was open to abuse, and mentioned the danger that could have arisen if the doctrine had been applied during the cold war in 1962, for example. He believed that is was better not to invent a new umbrella of subjective action, and stated in his memorandum that pre-emptive attacks, as envisaged in US policy statements, would be in violation of the United Nations charter.

      177
      Professor Greenwood, on the other hand, took a more expansive account of international law. He believed that we had to take into account the military developments since Caroline. That incident involved a group of men with rifles, which are very different from the chemical, biological or nuclear weapons available today. Obviously, such weapons are much more difficult to detect, it is more difficult to determine the time scale involved in their use, and it would be far more damaging if the threat were to materialise. We agreed that we must start with article 51 of the United Nations charter, but according to Professor Greenwood, it must be interpreted in the light not only of what went before and of the drafters' intentions, but of its interpretation by states since 1945 and of common sense.
      Professor Greenwood quoted Judge Higgins, who said:
      "Common sense cannot require one to interpret an ambiguous provision in a text in a way that requires a state passively to accept its fate before it can defend itself."
      The professor argued that there must be a right of anticipatory self-defence, and that we need to find a balance between too loose a definition, which every state could use as a licence for action, and a definition so restrictive that it would not fit the conditions of today. The problem, as always, resolves itself into where to draw the line.
      The Committee was concerned about precedent, and that there would be a risk of other, less law-abiding states using the doctrine to legitimise aggressive force. For example, could India cite the right to take military action against Pakistan, or vice versa? Could China use the doctrine to justify an invasion of Taiwan? At the same time, we recognised the implications of new threats. At paragraph 161 of the report, we concluded that the notion of "imminence" should be reconsidered, and that international law must evolve to deal with new threats.
      The Government's response, produced in February this year, was clear. The right to self-defence is well established in international law, not only after attack but before, if an attack is imminent. In the Government's view,
      "this right applies as much to imminent threats from terrorism as to the more conventional threats of the past".
      I wonder, for example, whether Israel's action against Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981 would now receive the totally hostile chorus of disapproval from the Security Council that it received at the time. The threat would probably be considered insufficiently imminent, although under a more extended definition, it might be used as a trigger for action against Iran's nuclear reactor.
      The broader context of international law encompasses matters raised by Guantanamo bay and the rights of refugees deemed by the US to be unlawful combatants. International legal treaties since the second world war were conceived and drawn up in circumstances very different from the present ones. There is a powerful case, in our view, for revisiting that group of international laws, not to develop an entirely new system, but to build on and adapt existing law to a world where threats are often posed not by states, but by
      178
      non-state actors. International law is not static; it is a living body. It must, however, remain relevant. If not, powerful states will seek to ignore or circumvent it. The debate is only just beginning.
      More recently, I note the open letter by 16 lawyers with the view that a pre-emptive self-defence strike against Iraq would have no justification in international law. It is clearly important to have a wide-ranging and ongoing discussion on the subject. The real problem is perhaps illustrated by the failure in the United Nations to agree a definition of terrorism.
      I shall give a quick update since the report was produced last December. Clearly, the war against terrorism continues. In this country, there have been arrests, the discovery of ricin, and the death of DC Oake, and key al-Qaeda operatives have been captured in Pakistan and elsewhere. Iraq continues to dominate the headlines.
      How do we carry forward the war against terrorism? There are three major issues central to British security in the medium and long term. What are the implications of the strains in the international community for the longterm war against terrorism and international law generally? If it was the aim of Saddam Hussein not just to buy time, but to divide the international community, he has done so magnificently. We think of the blow to NATO, the divisions within the United Nations Security Council, with the risk that the United States will see the council as irrelevant and walk away from it, the developments within the European Union, making the evolution of a common foreign and security policy a more distant prospect, and EU-US relations at a very low ebb, with Secretary Rumsfeld castigating "old Europe". All those international networks are adversely affected by the crisis in Iraq.
      Mr. Hilton Dawson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the responsibility for the splits in the international community is due less to the work of Saddam Hussein and a great deal more to the partners, who should be able to work together much more effectively in those coalitions?
      Donald Anderson: That is a noble aim, but the divisions would not have come about without the crisis over Iraq, which was provoked by Saddam Hussein. All those relationships are adversely affected by Iraq. The Prime Minister said at his press conference that the most dangerous thing for international security would be a wedge between the United States and Europe. I agree with my hon. Friend that only together can we solve such international problems, as the Foreign Secretary emphasised in his statement to the House yesterday.
      The second issue is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. It is crucial for the international community to develop and agree on strategies to prevent proliferation. Iraq is but one of the many potential sources of weapons of mass destruction. Even if Iraq is disarmed, we must continue to think carefully about how to deal with the wider problem. We know that the cookery books are still available to those who want to use them. We cannot disinvent that which has already been invented. We need renewed international co-operation.
      Mr. Salmond: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have read the report. At paragraph 172, on page 48, the Committee unanimously concluded that
      "Security Council Resolution 1441 would not provide unambiguous authorisation",
      and called upon the Government to seek a resolution including the words "'all necessary means'". When the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) asked about that, the right hon. Gentleman did not seem to give the answer that is in the Committee report. For the avoidance of doubt, can he say whether he stands by paragraph 172 of the report, adopted unanimously by his own Committee?
      Donald Anderson: I emphasised that the report was produced in December, and that that was the unanimous view of the Committee at that time. I would not like to anticipate the views of the Committee today. We are dealing with an evolving situation, as different drafts are tried at the Security Council.
      Is regime change the best way to reduce the combined threats of weapons of mass destruction and international terrorism? If the Iraq campaign is perceived to go well, can we expect the United States to continue with a series of regional wars against the "axis of evil", within or without the UN context? We must consider very carefully indeed what role Britain can play as the key ally of the United States.
      If we take action in Iraq we will face the challenge of peacekeeping and reconstruction on two fronts—Afghanistan and Iraq. Will that take the focus and vital resources away from the war against terrorism? We asked whether the implications had been fully thought through. With regard to reconstruction, a genuine, well planned and truly multinational effort to keep the peace in Iraq, and a commitment to restoring the livelihoods and rights of the Iraqi people, would help the people of Iraq and their Arab neighbours to see the positive consequences of any intervention., but we cannot overstate the importance of winning the peace. Those who go into Iraq should be seen as liberators, not victors.
      Dr. Jenny Tonge: Was the right hon. Gentleman's Committee able to establish whether the reconstruction costs after a war with Iraq will come out of Treasury contingency reserves or out of the reserves of the Department for International Development? If the latter, does he agree that that is extremely unfair on the poorest people of the world, who hoped to receive those funds?
      Donald Anderson: The short answer is that we produced the report in December, when the costs of reconstruction were not high on the agenda. The matter is foursquare within the remit of our sister Committee, of the Department for International Development. The question should be addressed to that Committee.
      Other challenges include how Britain can best help the reformers in Iran to strengthen their democratic structures and promote transparency. We need to ensure that the situation in North Korea is defused peacefully. There must be a different approach there, as it can be argued that North Korea is invulnerable because of the amount of artillery pieces directed against
      180
      the south. Without disarmament, that could be the position in Iraq in a few years' time. We also need to take careful note of both the achievements and the failings of multilateral arms control regimes, and of measures to destroy stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union.
      Thirdly, on the middle east, I recalled the statement made to the House yesterday by the Foreign Secretary. What can we do to minimise instability in the wider middle east region and reduce the level of threat from al-Qaeda? Our report considered the effect of any military action in Iraq on the Arab world. I draw attention to paragraph 200. Images of Iraqi civilian casualties, combined with the voices of al-13;Qaeda claiming that that is further evidence of the US colonisation of Arabia, could have a powerful effect on disillusioned young people in the Islamic world generally, and even in this country. We need to think carefully about how to ensure that western involvement in the middle east region is seen as positive. There is also a need for a new realism in the Arab world—people there should not see themselves as victims, as many of them do. I refer to the recommendations in paragraphs 209 and 210. I commend to the House the United Nations Development Programme's Arab human development report of 2002, which stresses the need for good governance and economic development in the Arab world.
      We also need to persist with efforts to restart the middle east peace process. In our report, the Committee praised the Government's commitment to pressing forward with negotiations and concluded:
      "this policy must be pursued in parallel with international efforts to address the threats from al Qaeda and from the Iraqi regime."
      The US Government have perhaps been much stronger in declaring the viability of the state of Palestine than in exerting any serious pressure. It may be that President Bush has weighing on his mind the electoral consequences of what his father did in withdrawing loan guarantees in respect of settlements.
      The Government have pushed hard for Palestinian reform. The publication of the Quartet's road map, the long-awaited route towards a final two-state solution, is emphasised by Washington. Of course, there is continuing violence in the region. Progress on this issue is crucial. There was some recognition of that fact in President Bush's recent statement, but it is clear that we are far from having a very serious US commitment to bring to bear all the leverage and pressure that it can to bring an end to the continuing conflict in the region.
      In conclusion, I should like to quote Burke:
      "You can never plan the future by the past".
      Certainly, 11 September proved that that is the case. We entered a new era and uncharted territory as we embarked on the war against terrorism. We will need new thinking on the problems of global security. As I said, that includes revisiting the raft of treaties on international law conceived in the post-second world war settlement. Our report commends the Government for their firm and continued leadership in the war against terrorism. Britain has contributed substantially to ensure that the coalition remains a reality. My personal opinion—I think that the Committee would agree—is that much credit lies with the Prime Minister in respect of his tireless efforts and total commitment.

      181
      We also commend Ambassador Greenstock, who has done an outstanding job at the UN in chairing the Counter-Terrorism Committee.
      These are difficult days and we face very difficult decisions, but we cannot wash our hands of our duty. As Ambassador Greenstock said on Friday,
      "the Security Council cannot afford to look the facts in the face and turn away from its responsibilities."
      Saddam Hussein may not be the only one who is facing a choice of survival. In many ways, this is also a watershed for the international community. Multilateral institutions must be and remain relevant. The only way in which we can overcome the unprecedented challenges of international terrorism and proliferation is if the international community seeks to remain united.
      In our judgment, a key task of the Foreign Affairs Committee is to inform the House of the work that we do and provide a platform for informed debate in the Chamber. I believe that we have done that. We will continue to monitor the situation closely and, I hope, publish a further report in the same series in May. I commend our report to the House.
      1.33 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I congratulate the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs on a very thorough report on the war against terrorism. With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I intend to speak relatively briefly at the beginning of the debate in order, perhaps, to seek your indulgence in allowing me to respond in detail at the end. In dividing up my contributions, if you agree, I shall deal first with the broader aspects of the war on terrorism and deal in my other contribution with some of the issues relating to Iraq.
      On the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) about the legal complexities of the doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence, those issues are indeed important, but they are none the less enormously complex. As a lawyer, I know that if one puts two lawyers in a room, one gets an argument. Indeed, the reason why we have so many court cases is that lawyers often cannot agree on the law. In the present context, going back to the main case of 1837—the Caroline case—it is clear that issues of legality have arisen that will need to be explored for many years to come in order to arrive at a clear and final view. No doubt, many lawyers will venture their deeply considered views in the meantime, but I suspect that final definitions will take a long time to be accepted.
      In the next decade, our country faces two key threats—terrorism and the development by dangerous states of weapons of mass destruction. Problems do not come one at a time and they have to be dealt with when they come. On this occasion, two problems have presented themselves and they need to be dealt with. Obviously, we are also concerned that, at some stage, those two issues—terrorism and weapons of mass destruction—may well become linked, and we need to be prepared to deal with that as well.
      182
      The terrorist threat from al-Qaeda and related groups remains extremely serious, despite the fact that we have had some significant successes. The detention of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in particular is a major blow to al-Qaeda, but we must not delude ourselves that it is some sort of mortal blow. Al-Qaeda has been dispersed and disrupted, but not decimated. It is ingenious, dedicated, persistent and global, while the loose, secretive nature of the networks makes them difficult for us to target. It will recover and adapt; the threat will continue and we must be prepared to address it.
      All indications, including intelligence and al-Qaeda statements, suggest that high-profile political and economic targets remain in al-Qaeda's sights. It poses a threat to the United Kingdom regardless of what happens in Iraq. The past year has shown that terrorists will attack western interests, including British people, in an ever more indiscriminate way. To record but a few recent attacks, 18 people including tourists were killed in Tunisia in April 2002; 17 people died in Mombasa in November; and, most infamously, 202 people, many of whom were tourists, including Britons, were murdered in Bali on 12 October. Churchgoers have been bombed in Pakistan on a number of occasions. Voluntary health workers, diplomats and expatriates have been murdered in the middle east. If terrorist plans had come to fruition more often during the past year, many more people, including Britons, would be dead. It is thanks to the work of our intelligence services and others throughout the world, as well as to the co-operation that has developed between them, that a number of those terrorist threats have been frustrated.
      Mr. Gordon Prentice: I have in my hands the Government's document on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, which was published last September. Does my hon. Friend still hold the view that everything in that document is accurate, even including the references to Iraq's nuclear weapons?
      Mr. O'Brien: The document was published on the basis of the intelligence information available to us at the time. Obviously, when we have published information about particular aspects of Iraq's development of weapons of mass destruction, I very much doubt that, the next day, Iraq will leave in place whatever items it has previously had in place so that they can be discovered. Obviously, therefore, there is a time limit on the value of intelligence information, and we were aware of that when we published the document.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Mr. O'Brien: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), but I shall then move on, as I want to make my remarks brief and stick to the issue of terrorism at this stage.
      Mr. Andrew Tyrie: Further to the intervention of the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), the same document stated that Iraq might be capable of developing nuclear weapons in as little as a year. Yet specialists have given the Select Committee comprehensive evidence to show that it would take at least several years, and that even then it

      183
      would be difficult for Iraq to develop such weapons. Was that specialist information available to the Government when they produced their report?
      Mr. O'Brien: I said earlier that when two lawyers are together in a room, an argument ensues. The same applies to specialists. We must take account of the various intelligence reports that we receive, and the assessment of the value of the information by the experienced specialists whom the Government employ. We also take account of the reports of various academics. It is then a matter of making a judgment, and the Government have reached a clear judgment.
      In 1990, Iraq was within between 18 months and three years of developing nuclear weapons. Clearly, if it had developed that capability, it would have used the resultant power to intimidate others. That was a serious matter. It is also clear that Saddam Hussein has not changed his spots and suddenly become a peacenik. He remains determined to develop weapons of mass destruction if he can. I therefore have no doubt that, without constraint, he would try to develop nuclear weapons. We have an assessment, which we have published, of the length of time that it would take him. Others will take a different view.
      Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. O'Brien: I am trying to deal with the intervention and I want to make progress.
      Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Will my hon. Friend give way on the specific point that he is considering?
      Mr. O'Brien: No.
      Mr. Savidge: Will my hon. Friend give way in view of what was said yesterday?
      Mr. O'Brien: I am trying to deal with the intervention of the hon. Member for Chichester. I want to do that and subsequently proceed.
      We accept that, at the moment, Iraq does not have a nuclear weapons capability. There is no doubt about that. Its efforts to develop such weapons have been frustrated in the past 12 years, initially because of the inspectors. However, we believe that Iraq has taken steps to try to get around the restrictions, and that, had he the ability, Saddam Hussein would try to develop nuclear weapons.
      Paul Flynn: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. O'Brien: Perhaps I can deal with Iraq in my closing remarks rather than answering all the questions now.
      I want to focus on terrorism, which is the other issue that is important to British foreign policy. We face a genuine threat. Al-Qaeda may seek cynically to use any military action in Iraq as an excuse for further attacks in
      184
      the short term. However, if such action proves necessary, we believe that it would remove a large threat to stability in the region.
      In the current decade, the threat from terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction are our two top priorities. We have helped to shape and maintain the international consensus on terrorism that is essential to change the odds in our favour so that the British public can go about their lives freely and with confidence.
      Counter-terrorism operations are being maintained throughout the globe at an unprecedented level with unprecedented co-operation between countries. We shall continue to work with our traditional close partners—the EU, the United States, the G8 countries, NATO and the Commonwealth. However, we have also built on new relationships that we forged in counter-terrorism to ensure that the United Nations Counter-Terrorism Committee continues to deliver. We have developed new relationships with countries such as Syria and Libya. They, too, perceive al-Qaeda as a threat.
      We are backing our commitment with technical assistance to several countries that would benefit from our help. We are currently helping more than 70 countries to improve their counter-terrorism capabilities. We shall also continue to focus on wider issues, including Palestine, about which many of us feel deeply. The injustice done to the Palestinian people must be remedied and we must seek a peaceful resolution in the middle east. That is in the interests of Israel as well as the Palestinians.
      The position in Palestine is an underlying cause of terrorism. We must deal with other underlying causes such as poverty and political exclusion.
      Joan Ruddock: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. O'Brien: I shall give way on poverty.
      Joan Ruddock: Will my hon. Friend confirm that al-Qaeda is now broadcasting again in Afghanistan? Does he agree that it is vital that the warlords in Afghanistan are disarmed and that there must be a demobilisation programme? Unless that is done, there can be no democracy, which we have promised. Does he further agree that the reconstruction that is currently occurring is not sufficient to bring that country into a condition whereby al-Qaeda can be driven out?
      Mr. O'Brien: One of the key prerequisites for fundamental change in Afghanistan is ensuring that the transitional Government and any other Government elected after 2004 can deliver genuine change for the people of Afghanistan so that the economy is developed. Girls who were previously excluded from school have returned to education. That is enormously important and sends clear messages about the nature of the society that the current Afghan Government want to develop.
      However, much more remains to be done. We must extend the authority of the Karzai regime, and that of any other democratically elected Government after 2004, to the wider provinces. Many warlords currently acknowledge the legitimacy of the central Government, but the Government are not capable of exercising their

      185
      authority by forceful means in all the provinces. Giving them the capacity to do that by training an Afghan national army is important.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) knows, our Government and many others, including the United States Government, want to place various groups of armed forces from Britain, perhaps Germany, and the United States in various provinces. The groups will be small and their objective will not be enforcement. However, they will convey a signal to the warlords of our determination that the process in Afghanistan will be completed. We are determined that there will be a genuine opportunity for democracy, and we want it to be taken. Much work remains to be done in Afghanistan. We can ensure that al-Qaeda does not return only when that work is completed.
      Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that one method of sending a signal to the warlords in Afghanistan is to stop giving them money and arms? Will he comment on American policy, which is to continue to give arms and money to warlords in Afghanistan?
      Mr. O'Brien: We are attempting to build consensus in Afghanistan. My hon. Friend appears to suggest that, rather than getting the warlords to support the central Government, the writ of the central Government should be imposed on the warlords. That approach could produce instability. We are therefore trying to feel our way towards getting the warlords to acknowledge not only the central Government's legitimacy, but their authority. That will take time.
      In the meantime, we need to exercise some control over the warlords to stop them causing problems until the central Government have sufficient power and authority to enforce their writ more effectively throughout the country. It will take time—there is no point in suggesting otherwise to my hon. Friend. However, I believe that it is possible to fulfil our programme in Afghanistan. We shall make every effort to do that. The United States, Germany, the Netherlands, Japan and various other countries are making substantial contributions to trying to give the Afghan people the opportunity that they deserve. We shall keep working on that.
      Patrick Mercer: The Minister mentioned the possibility of small numbers of extra British troops being deployed to Afghanistan. I assume that they will extend the international security assistance force-type mandate into other cities and regions. Will he comment on the possibility of deploying greater numbers of British troops if the position deteriorates further?
      Mr. O'Brien: I must decline that invitation. Obviously we hope that the situation in Afghanistan will remain relatively stable. All these things are relative, and despite the civil war, the difficulties that have afflicted Afghanistan for 25 years, the number of terrorist incidents and the fact that the writ of the central Government does not run throughout a country that remains unsafe, a certain level of stability exists relative
      186
      to what existed before. We hope that that level can be raised, and that therefore no further commitment of British troops will be necessary. We hope that as things develop we can show that the central Government are capable of delivering, with international help, and that that can bring about the change of attitude that we seek in Afghanistan.
      The Bali atrocity confirmed that the divide in the modern world is not, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East suggested, a clash of cultures between Islam and the west, but rather a clash between order and chaos. As he said, we must tackle the mistrust and misapprehensions that bedevil relations between the Islamic world and the west, and in turn allow the terrorists to secure new recruits to their cause. We are determined to work towards that, and we believe that we can do it. We will put in every effort.
      We are grateful for the assistance, advice and wisdom of the Foreign Affairs Committee. We will certainly take on board substantial parts of its report, which makes a significant contribution to the development of British foreign policy.
      1.51 pm
      Mr. Richard Spring: I pay tribute to the Chairman and members of the Foreign Affairs Committee. They have produced an impressive document, which we debate at a crucial and tense time. In some ways the report's title, "Foreign Policy Aspects of the War Against Terrorism", does not do justice to the wide range of issues covered by the Committee; but we should recognise that the issues of global terrorism, Iraq, Afghanistan and the middle east peace process which are dealt with in the bulk of the document—albeit indirectly in some instances—are interrelated, and that their impact on international security and stability is vastly important.
      Conservative Members welcome the Government's dedication and, in particular, that of the Prime Minister, who managed to build an international coalition after the terrible events in the United States involving the twin towers and the Pentagon. As the Committee says, that has helped to build on the special relationship that has proved so valuable in securing resolution 1441, which outlines the dangers presented by Iraq. It has also built a degree of international consensus on actions in Afghanistan.
      In the aftermath of the horrendous terrorist attack on Bali, to which the Minister referred, the Foreign Secretary took up a number of suggestions from many Members—including Conservative Member—about facing down terrorism and ensuring the security of British citizens abroad. We welcome the Government's response, which symbolises an approach to the threat that transcends party political considerations.
      The continued need to root out terrorist groups is as urgent as the need to expose Saddam Hussein. It is not a question of either/or; we must strive to do both. The problems are not mutually exclusive, in that both have resulted in the death of thousands of innocent people.
      The Committee was right to conclude that any military action against the Iraqi regime must be justified on grounds other than its past or current involvement with the al-Qaeda network. That is exactly the approach that the Security Council's members have adopted by

      187
      unanimously agreeing to resolution 1441. Iraq's biological and chemical stockpiles and its illegal weapons remain the reason for international action, as does its refusal over 12 years to disarm willingly and transparently. I fully support the Foreign Secretary's statement that we must
      "also guard against the terrifying prospect of Saddam Hussein passing weapons of mass destruction to terrorists such as Al Qa'ida."."
      The possession of weapons of that kind by a man such as Saddam Hussein always leaves open the possibility that they will fall into the hands of terrorist groups. They are united in one respect: both hate the west and western values.
      Dr. Julian Lewis: Is not one of the strangest and most naive arguments that we have heard during the debate on Iraq and al-Qaeda the suggestion that because they have sometimes been politically opposed they could not co-operate in precisely the way my hon. Friend described? Often, a common enemy brings people with diametrically opposing views together. They want to destroy that common enemy, even if they hate each other as well.
      Mr. Spring: I entirely agree. As my hon. Friend knows, the Iraqis have already used their resources to finance terrorist groups, including those involved in suicide bombings in Israel.
      Mr. Savidge: I entirely accept that it would never have been predicted that, for example, Hitler and Stalin would get together at the start of the second world war. When we discuss the concept of pre-emptive war, however, is it not rather frightening to suggest that because at some stage two people who completely oppose each other might get together we should attack them?
      Mr. Spring: My point is that there is already evidence of the Iraqis' supporting terrorist groups. The possibility of a marriage at some time is entirely likely given the desire of organisations such as al-Qaeda to obtain these weapons, and their wealth. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman read a speech made in the other place by Lady Nicholson about the horrific attacks on Iraqis particularly Marsh Arabs—by Saddam himself, using these atrocious weapons of mass destruction. It has been a wicked act of genocide, which underlies the reasons for our concern about Saddam's position in the world.
      We need only consider the arrest of a senior al-Qaeda leader last week to recognise the important work—much of it necessarily behind the scenes—being done by our intelligence services. It is often dangerous and often unrecognised, but it helps to keep us safe. I pay tribute to those men and women in our intelligence agencies, whose work is often unsung.
      As the Committee says, much remains to be done in the tackling of terror, but with the international community united in the task, we can minimise the threat. What assessment has the Minister made of the likelihood that Osama bin Laden is still alive, given reports that the recently arrested Khalid Sheikh Mohammed met him, or was in contact with him, not long ago?
      188
      Terrorism of the sort that we have seen in America, Bali, Kenya and off the coast of Yemen is a scourge that we must be resolute in tackling. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), the shadow Foreign Secretary, said back in September 2001,
      "terrorism depends on three elements to succeed: it needs the oxygen of publicity, it needs to show that it works and it needs safe havens in which it can hide."
      He spoke with all his experience as a former Northern Ireland Minister who understood the phenomenon all too well.
      Such horrific attacks are bound to receive publicity, but we must show by fighting terrorism and never appeasing it that it cannot succeed. Along with the international community, we must make sure that in territories where terrorist boltholes exist, those boltholes are blocked; and we must work with countries where terrorists hide to ensure that the terrorists can find no comfort or shelter from international pursuit and justice. There simply cannot be a hiding place for such people.
      Let me now deal with a number of specific topics covered by the Committee's report. As the report says, the Government must show that the United Nations Counter-Terrorism Committee is effective in the long run, and continues to foster international co-operation and good will. In their response, the Government set out many ways in which they intend to do this. However, during his wind-up I hope that the Minister will be able to restore the Government's commitment to the CTC, recognising its important co-ordinating work under the chairmanship of Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the UK representative at the United Nations. What evaluation has the Minister made of its success to date in achieving what the Foreign Secretary describes as
      "marked advances in their overall counter-terrorism capacity",
      especially with regard to legislation and countering the financing of terrorism?
      We welcome the passage of the chairmanship, in April, to the Spanish permanent representative, given Spain's strong support for resolution 1441 and for the war against terrorism, and given its role as a close EU and NATO ally. Of course, cutting off the funding of terrorist groups is one of the most effective ways of hitting these organisations, and of causing their operations to wither. The report recommends that the Government set out what further measures they will take to encourage and assist Governments, particularly those in the middle east and Gulf region, to stem the flow of terrorist financing.
      I hope that the Minister will agree with me that we must maintain a constructive but robust and critical dialogue with countries that allow money to be funnelled to such groups—whether those groups are characterised by different Governments as terrorists, or as freedom fighters. We welcome the Government's commitment to Security Council resolutions 1373 and 1390. What is the Minister's latest estimate of assets frozen under those resolutions, and has this initiative been judged a success?
      It is also, as the report says, important that Britain work constructively with our EU partners on some critical aspects of foreign policy. In the first debate after

      189
      11 September, my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary welcomed the way in which the EU had
      "in no uncertain terms declared its determination to combat international terrorism."—[Official Report, 14 September 2001; Vol. 372, c. 621, 623.]
      I urge it to maintain that commitment. The EU's work with Iran is particularly important, but we must also be realistic—this point has already been alluded to—about the limits of effective EU co-operation. It must never be at the expense of undermining our historic and valuable relationship with the United States, which is of itself such an asset to Europe.
      NATO is an organisation that has proved effective in the past in meeting our defensive security needs. At Prague, it showed a willingness to change and to adapt to those needs, as those needs themselves change. The safeguarding of NATO is crucial, given existing tensions within the alliance. As the Foreign Affairs Committee concluded, the Government need to illustrate more clearly how the new focus of NATO, as outlined at Prague, will be implemented to make the organisation relevant in the modern world. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) will want to return to this aspect of the report when he winds up, given his particular knowledge of defence matters.
      The Foreign Affairs Committee also concluded that
      "international law must evolve to meet new challenges such as the unprecedented terrorist threat".
      As foreign policy has evolved to meet this increased threat, as well as the threat posed by rogue states, the doctrine of pre-emption has been much debated. Such a doctrine as it is applied today raises many questions and challenges, in terms of how it fits in with international law. Does the Minister have any suggestions as to how international law can be changed to meet this specific challenge? Has this issue been discussed with any other interested international parties? In particular, will he outline how the Foreign Secretary intends to
      "strengthen the credibility of multilateral institutions—and, in particular, the United Nations",
      as noted?
      Of course, much of this debate will inevitably revolve around Iraq, which features prominently both in the report and in current public debate. On Friday, Dr. Blix told the UN that Iraq had failed to produce evidence that tonnes of chemical and biological stockpiles have been destroyed. His comments support the Committee's conclusion that
      "evidence of Iraq's retention and continued development of weapons of mass destruction is compelling and a cause for considerable concern".
      Dr. Blix outlined areas in which Iraq had not shown "immediate and full" co-operation. Again, this supports the Committee's conclusion that the difficulties facing the UN weapons inspectors in Iraq "are formidable". It is a depressing picture in terms both of weapons, and of non-co-operation in their removal.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to comment on the latest
      190
      revelation that Dr. Blix did not reveal some of the things that he discovered, and which were a cause of great concern?
      Mr. Spring: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. There have been some additions to Dr. Blix's original report. That simply strengthens the argument that, apart from that which we know exists in Iraq—we do not believe that it has been destroyed or abandoned—there may well be other elements in its armoury that we have yet to discover.
      Despite all this, many argue that the inspectors should be given more time; they, like me, would prefer to see war avoided altogether. However, to avoid war at all costs, even when Saddam's non-compliance is evident, would be to preserve what would ultimately prove a false peace. It is Iraq's attitude, not more time, that matters. Saddam is still the one man who could prevent war.
      We welcome the report's assessment that a
      "failure to address the threat from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction could pose very high risks to the security of British interests in the Middle East and the Gulf region".
      No hon. Members of this House want or seek war. We welcome the Foreign Secretary's assurance that the Government will
      "only take military action in these circumstances as a matter of last resort".
      We also welcome the fact that both the United States and the United Kingdom have engaged fully in the UN process to find a peaceful solution to this crisis. We look forward with interest and concern to the outcome of the current deliberations in the UN, and we hope that consensus may indeed be found. Should Saddam fail to disarm—I regret that the signs are not hopeful—we must be prepared to use force, if necessary, to disarm him. This remains our objective, and it is the threat of this that caused at least some co-operation from him in the first place.
      We must have a clear contingency plan for both the future of Iraq and for humanitarian aid if we are to win over Arab opinion and fulfil our obligations to the people of Iraq, who have suffered so much under Saddam's rule. We therefore welcome the Committee's recommendation that
      "the Government examine carefully the possible models for post-conflict reconstruction in Iraq, including a United Nations transitional authority".
      Have the Government any preference in terms of structure, given Iraq's complex make-up? We welcome the conclusion that
      "any military action against Iraq should be taken on the basis of Iraq's violation of successive Security Council Resolutions, culminating to date in UNSCR 1441".
      Indeed, as has been pointed out, Iraq is in violation of 17 resolutions already. We also welcome the Committee's recognition that the "obligation" is
      "on the Iraqi regime to disarm".
      Last Friday, we learned that a US-UK-Spain draft resolution will be tabled this week, giving Iraq until 17 March to begin to comply. Those countries that voted four months ago to give Iraq a "final opportunity" to disarm must now uphold that commitment. They must quickly lend their support to this second

      191
      resolution, making it clear that if Saddam Hussein does not disarm himself, the international community will do it for him.
      As the report notes, and as the Government also recognise, the backdrop to much opinion in the middle east is the whole question of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. The Prime Minister is right to pay such attention to this festering sore in the middle east, and we hope passionately that America's vital role in moving the peace process forward is recognised, and can be achieved. However, we, as a country, certainly have a role to play. A viable and independent Palestinian state, alongside an Israel secure within her own borders and free from the horrors of suicide bombings, is the only way that the future stability and prosperity of the region can be assured. Of course, that will not be easy. There is so much complex history, so much tragedy and so much historical baggage in the dispute, but ultimately the way to a settlement is not through violence. It will need a political solution that is based on dialogue and the rebuilding of trust. One can only hope that such a settlement will come sooner rather than later.
      Greater freedom and stability has undoubtedly been brought to Afghanistan by military action backed by the UN and NATO. We also have a duty to remain committed to the promise made by the Prime Minister last year when he said:
      "We will not desert the Afghan people. We will stick with them until the job of reconstruction is done." —[Official Report, 24 September 2002: Vol. 390, c. 6.]
      We should not, however, be sanguine about the situation in Afghanistan. We should recognise that many security problems still exist in parts of that country, and that much of the security and stability that exists is brought about by the presence of international troops.
      We welcome the Government's commitment in their response to continue their commitment to Afghanistan, including financial aid. The anti-drugs policies referred to are particularly important and welcome, although an article in The Economist on 10 October last year, which projected a big increase in opium poppy production since the fall of the Taliban, suggests that there is still a long way to go in tackling the heroin trade at its root. While many lessons have been learnt in Afghanistan from a humanitarian perspective, it is important that we sound a note of caution to those who might suggest that it offers a blueprint for humanitarian operations in Iraq. The situations are entirely different.
      Important though it is, I will not dwell on the recommendation regarding FCO travel advice, because we had a welcome opportunity to discuss the issue in the House last week.
      The importance of engaging public opinion, both here and in the middle east is vital to the future success of the war against terrorism, and equally vital to our own democratic process. Parliament has continued to be kept informed, and that is to be commended. Great efforts are necessary to communicate with the public at this most difficult time, and to keep them fully in touch as developments unfold over the next few days and weeks. I can, however, think of no more appropriate
      192
      conclusion than to echo the Committee's report and its recommendation in paragraph 11, which states:
      "We commend the Government for its firm and committed leadership in the war against terrorism … Britain has contributed substantially to ensuring that the 'international coalition' remains a reality, more than a year after the devastating terrorist attacks on the United States".
      I hope that it will continue to do so, especially with regard to Iraq.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I remind hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed a 15-minute limit on speeches from Back Benchers.
      2.12 pm
      Mr. Eric Illsley: I will keep my remarks relatively brief. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important debate on an important report. As a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I appreciate the comments made by the Minister and his opposite number about the significance of the report and its contents. I also commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) on the way in which he introduced the debate. The report and debate are timely, given that the UN is considering the issue in detail today and will continue to do so for the rest of the week.
      The report is entitled, "The War against Terrorism", and those who read it will see that the situation in Iraq took over whole sections of the report, in the same way as Iraq will feature heavily in the debate. I make no excuses for mentioning that situation.
      We consistently hear people referring to the crisis in Iraq. The only crisis is that Iraq is likely to be invaded in the next couple of weeks. There is no crisis coming this way from Iraq, but we tend to talk up the situation by using such emotive language. I wonder whether the urgency about dealing with the threat from Iraq—if it has weapons of mass destruction, which I question, given the most recent inspectors' reports—has more to do with the window of opportunity for military action before the summer months and the proximity of the US elections next year. The Americans do not want to wait until next winter to take military action. They have thousands of troops stationed in the Gulf—as have we—at significant cost, and the urgency relates to their wish to invade Iraq as soon as possible.
      One point made by the report is that we must not be distracted from the war against terrorism. The Iraqi situation takes up most of the foreign affairs debating time in the House, and I am pleased that the recent arrests of al-Qaeda operatives show that our focus on the war against terrorism has not been completely overshadowed by Iraq. The report mentions other areas of concern, including the idea of pre-emptive self-defence, which has been mentioned already. The Committee took much evidence on that, none of which was conclusive. It is questionable whether there is a legal right to pre-emptive self-defence.
      A related issue that has not yet been mentioned is targeted extra-judicial killings. Hon. Members may recall that on 3 November, a US helicopter fired a rocket and killed six suspected terrorists as they were driving through Yemen. Israel also performs extra-judicial killings in Gaza and the occupied territories. The report questions the legality of such actions.

      193
      The report also mentions the future of the detainees in Guantanamo bay. Those al-Qaeda and Taliban operatives have been detained for some time, with no prospect of a trial or legal action. The Government have responded to the Committee on that issue, but no action is being taken—with any urgency, at least—in respect of the detainees.
      Questions have also been posed about the links between terrorist organisations and Iraq, but no such link has ever been proved. It has been commented that there are no links between Iraq and organised terrorism, and the Government have now concluded that there is no link between 11 September and Iraq, although there are links between Iraq and other terrorist organisations. The Committee found no concrete evidence of that. Our report summarises the threat posed by Iraq as the Government set it out for us, and one of the three reasons that they gave was the opportunity to develop terrorist weapons.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am not sure that I properly understood my hon. Friend's point. Is he saying that there is no known link between terrorism and Iraq? The Mujahedin-e-Khalq—or MEK—is definitely a terrorist organisation, and we also have clear evidence of Iraqi support for Palestinian suicide bombers. We also have intelligence information about al-Qaeda people in Iraq.
      Mr. Illsley: My hon. Friend knows that the evidence shows that some terrorists are staying in Iraq, but in areas where Saddam Hussein's writ does not run. I have read the information about the other terrorist organisations and I remain unconvinced by it.
      I accept the argument about suicide bombings, and that payments are made to their families. I abhor suicide bombings as much as anyone else, but I also dislike Israel's response to them, as it has used tanks to fire on unarmed civilians.
      Mr. O'Brien: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Illsley: I have only 15 minutes, but I shall give way quickly to my hon. Friend.
      Mr. O'Brien: Is my hon. Friend saying that he accepts that the Iraqis are supporting the MEK, which is clearly a terrorist organisation?
      Mr. Illsley: I do not dispute that the Government have indicated that Iraq might be supporting that terrorist organisation, but I believe that the links are somewhat tenuous. If they were stronger, the Government might be believed.
      Mr. Savidge rose—
      Mr. Illsley: I am not giving way again.
      In the past two years, I have heard Ministers say at the Dispatch Box that there is no link between Iraq and terrorist organisations. As time has gone on, the Government have changed their argument. They have moved away from suggesting Iraqi involvement in
      194
      11 September and tried to establish that country's links with other terrorist organisations. To avoid further arguments with my hon. Friend the Minister, I say only that those links are somewhat tenuous.
      I accept that money has been given to the families of suicide bombers, but it is questionable whether that equates to funding terrorist organisations. Does the money go to the organisations or to the families involved? However, I shall again give the Government the benefit of the doubt, and I do not dismiss their contention out of hand.
      Another argument in connection with the threat from Iraq is that it has weapons of mass destruction. The inspection regime is all about those weapons, but my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary told the House yesterday that the International Atomic Energy Agency had found no evidence that Iraq had re-established its nuclear programme. He said simply that he welcomed that: he did not say whether the UN Security Council accepted it, or whether the Government now accept that Iraq has no nuclear programme. However, it appears that there are no nuclear weapons in Iraq.
      Hans Blix and his team of inspectors have asked for more time to try and establish whether Iraq will comply with the UN resolutions, and for inspectors to find evidence of biological or chemical weapons. I agree that there is some evidence that Iraq is dealing in such weapons—mainly because we have evidence of what was supplied to Saddam Hussein in the past. It seems that Iraq cannot win: if there is no evidence of nuclear weapons, and no such weapons to find, we cannot say that we believe that Iraq is not complying because we cannot find any nuclear weapons.
      The Government's third argument is that our policies towards Iraq are designed to strengthen the international rule of law and the credibility of multilateral institutions, notably the UN. My first reaction is that we are going a funny way about it if our aim is to strengthen multilateral bodies. I shall speak in a moment about NATO, the UN and the EU, but the Foreign Affairs Committee visited the US and was told that that country is now rather tired of multilateral organisations and treaties, and that it will seek to withdraw from them. It has shown its willingness to do that with its actions in respect of the anti-ballistic missile treaty. That shows that the Americans are not committed to strengthening multilateral organisations, and their attitude to the UN has been equivocal in the past.
      The Committee fully supports the commitment to the UN, but Britain and the US cannot say that we are upholding the UN by enforcing the resolutions and yet walk away from the UN when we do not get the resolution from the Security Council that we want. We cannot say that we are upholding the UN on the one hand, and then ignore it on the other. We must put our faith in the UN, or walk away from it—as the US probably wants—and allow it to fall into disuse and disrepute.
      It was disconcerting to learn from the radio this morning that a British Minister is visiting countries in Africa, just as the French Foreign Minister is doing. It seems strange that another scramble for Africa, to coin a phrase, is going on. Ministers are chasing around Africa, trying to drum up support for the various positions in the UN.

      195
      The UN's credibility is at stake. A considerable split is evident. We should give more time to the inspectors to find evidence of compliance and disarmament, and we should also allow a little more time to ensure that the UN Security Council does not fall apart. The proposed time limit expires on 17 March—in a week's time—and UN member countries are in a sorry state if Ministers are chasing around Africa drumming up support for their differing positions. If a second resolution is not agreed, or if the vote is so narrowly split that it will be argued that it does not constitute a mandate for any further UN action, it will be the worst of all worlds.
      If Britain or the US ignores the UN Security Council, or if we ignore a second resolution because it does not have the wording that we want, we will be giving the green light to any country or organisation to ignore UN resolutions. Last October, members of the Select Committee were sat in Richard Armitage's State Department office when the news came through that North Korea had told the American ambassador that it had a nuclear weapons programme, and what was the US going to do about it? I regard that as a credible and urgent threat—much more than Iraq.
      I have mentioned the danger of splits in the UN, but there is also a worry about splits in the EU and NATO. EU countries have lined up in little alliances. France is in alliance with Germany, while Britain is to some extent allied with Spain, which supports our stance. Divisions are opening up. Britain used to be at the heart of Europe and a leader of the EU, but our influence is being affected.
      Another crucial issue is the effect on NATO of Turkey's decision about its defence in the event of military action. The headlong rush to take military action in Iraq puts us in danger of causing real divisions in the organisations that I have mentioned, even though our stated policy is to strengthen them. We appear to be getting entirely the wrong result.
      The report states that any military action must be on the basis of UN resolutions. I fully agree: as a Committee member, I stand by that statement, and believe that there must be a second resolution before any military action is taken against Iraq. The Committee accepts that Iraq is in breach of several UN resolutions since 1991, but we heard evidence that suggested that the idea that we should take military action to support a resolution relating to the last Gulf war was somewhat tenuous.
      The report calls for a second resolution. That is crucial. I hope that the Government will take that on board, and redouble their efforts to achieve one. Moreover, they should accept the resolution as it is passed, and not make noises that any veto would be unreasonable, or that there would be unilateral action without a veto.
      The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) has already referred to the report's final paragraph, which states that the international coalition remains a reality. However, the way that we are going means that there is not likely to be an international coalition, as we are causing splits in so many of the international organisations in that coalition. The difficulty of achieving any such coalition will become greater if the US takes military action in the face of the UN's refusal to back such action, or if a further resolution is vetoed.
      196
      I urge the Government to look at some of those issues. They must consider whether there is an urgent threat from Iraq, and whether we should give more time to the inspectors and the UN so as to stop the damaging splits that are appearing in international bodies.
      2.30 pm
      Mr. Colin Breed: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) because I agree with much that he said. There is broad support for his views not only in this House but outside.
      We welcome the decision to discuss the report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs on the foreign policy aspects of the war against terrorism. It is timely and appropriate. We applaud the work of the Committee and welcome its many sensible and constructive recommendations. It is pleasing that the Government broadly agree with the Committee's findings. However, in some areas, the Government must sharpen their focus and be more active.
      We join the Committee in praising the Government for implementing many positive policies, such as asset freezing, which has made a major contribution, and the fostering of better links with the Arab world generally. Those policies are welcome. We remain convinced that the campaign against terrorism is best pursued through united and co-operative action with other states within an international framework that is transparent and that gives confidence to our allies and partners.
      It is not enough for the Government to say simply that they would always act within the boundaries of international law. As has been pointed out, and as the Committee acknowledges, such law must evolve to meet new challenges. So far, the Government have failed to address concerns over the legitimacy of pre-emptive action and the definition of what qualifies as an imminent threat. As the Minister acknowledged, those issues are important. Many hon. Members would like to know the Government's view on the Committee's recommendation calling for the evolution of international law to reflect the rapidly developing threats that terrorist attacks now represent.
      More specifically, will the Government give their views on three perceived aspects of that evolution of international law that seem to have arisen during the past few months as the international community has grappled with the Iraq problem? First, it is widely acknowledged that so-called regime change is beyond the scope of the United Nations; it is specifically excluded in article 2 of the UN charter. Do the Government propose to evolve international law to include circumstances where regime change would become a legitimate reason for intervention—military or otherwise?
      Secondly, the United States and perhaps a coalition of the willing—or perhaps even a coalition of the coerced—may be embarking on a pre-emptive strike against another nation state on the premise of a perceived threat. That may be considered as revolutionary rather than evolutionary, but what clear evidence and justification ought to be provided and made public before any such pre-emptive action is authorised or commenced?
      Thirdly, we have heard the Prime Minister use the concept of an unreasonable veto when considering whether he feels bound by the decisions of the United

      197
      Nations Security Council. Such qualification surely undermines the whole validity of a veto. Either a veto is a veto or it is not. Is this a further example of the evolution of international law that the Government are seeking? If so, it needs to be much more clearly defined. In particular, the circumstances under which any such qualification can be invoked, and by whom, must be much more sharply defined.
      In their response to the Committee, the Government claim:
      "Disarming Iraq removes the very real and catastrophic threat of international terrorists getting hold of weapons of mass destruction."
      That denies the possibility that the opposite will happen—that terrorists will take the opportunity to lay hands on hidden reserves of such weapons under cover of the fog of war. Why do the Government believe that Saddam Hussein, who has spent so much time, effort and energy in keeping hold of his weapons, might give them up to a terrorist organisation?
      Dr. Julian Lewis: It is not a question of Saddam Hussein giving up his weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. If he has retained a large quantity of anthrax, for example, he could easily spare some of it for terrorists, if he wanted to, without giving up the potential to use it himself.
      Mr. Breed: I accept that it depends on how much he has. He may retain some and give up some; however, we have yet to determine whether he has any. He has made strenuous efforts not to divulge his weapons and to keep them as secret as he can.
      The Liberal Democrats remain concerned that the Government's Iraq policy may exacerbate, and not decrease, the threat from terrorism, on the one hand by increasing antipathy towards the west among many communities, and, on the other, by fracturing the carefully constructed alliance against terrorism that has achieved much in the past 18 months. We need only look to Afghanistan to see an example of how military attack, when not backed with a commitment to security and substantial financial and humanitarian aid, can provide only a short-term solution. The current situation in Afghanistan is shameful. When put into context, the Government's pledge of £200 million looks modest. The total $5 billion of funds that was pledged at Tokyo was only half the estimated necessary cost of rebuilding Afghanistan, and most of that has already been spent on emergency humanitarian aid.
      The Prime Minister promised not to let the world
      "walk away from Afghanistan, as it has done so many times before."
      What evidence can the Minister provide to reassure the House that that promise remains true with regard to Afghanistan—and then with regard to Iraq in the event of military action?
      Finally the Government have made it clear that they will continue to tackle what they see as the linked problem of rogue states and the sponsorship of terrorism
      "until the threat to this country is dealt with."
      198
      In the context of the questions I posed earlier, will the Minister outline some of the specific criteria that the Government will use when assessing whether a country is a sufficient threat to this nation to justify unauthorised pre-emptive military action?
      The chairman of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson), gave us a text and a quotation. I will end with a sentiment with which I know he is familiar. It is the peacemakers who are blessed.
      2.38 pm
      Mr. Malcolm Savidge: I congratulate the Select Committee on producing an admirable report. Even though it contains items with which some people may disagree, it is, as the Chairman said, very informative and useful at this time. I agree with the Committee that the UK was right to take a leading role in the campaign against terror. We were right, after the terrible events of 11 September, to identify fully with the United States. It was also right to say that 11 September should not be regarded solely as a US tragedy but as a global tragedy that the world should work together on. In many ways, it is a pity that the Bush Administration have not recognised that sufficiently.
      The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) spoke graciously about the way in which the Prime Minister helped to build a broad international coalition. We have a major danger to tackle, and the greatest danger of all is the possible combination of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. As I have previously suggested in this place, a suicide bomber driving around this neighbourhood with a nuclear device in the back of his van could wipe out the whole of Westminster, Whitehall and Buckingham palace, creating a major disaster against which we could do little to defend ourselves.
      It is terribly important to use accurate definitions. There is an important difference, which was well defined in what the Prime Minister said immediately after 11 September, between unconditional terrorists and political terrorists, although both are appalling. By unconditional terrorists, I mean groups such as al-Qaeda, the Aum sect or other apocalyptical or fanatical sects, whose goals are not really attainable and which feel that destroying vast numbers of people is a desirable aim.
      We should distinguish between that form of terrorism and political terrorism, such as that of the Northern Ireland paramilitaries and some of the other groups that have been mentioned in the debate. As such groups have specific political aims, it is not in their interest to try to destroy large numbers of people. That would counteract their aims. Evil though all terrorism is, it is important to make those distinctions, despite the fact that there can be overlap between the bad acts that such people commit.
      It is also important to define the term "weapons of mass destruction" much more carefully. The US National Academy of Sciences has said that it is dangerous to use that term because it blurs the distinction between nuclear weapons and the whole range of radiological, biological and chemical weapons, many of which are not really weapons of mass

      199
      destruction. A tremendous fuss has been made about ricin. It is lethal as a means of assassination but it is not particularly easy to use as a weapon of mass destruction. It is important to make that distinction clear.
      Dr. Julian Lewis: Surely the distinction is not between nuclear weapons and the other weapons that the hon. Gentleman describes but between the lethality of the weapons concerned. Just as there are nuclear weapons that kill many people and mini-nuclear weapons that are not weapons of mass destruction, so ricin is not a weapon of mass destruction, but anthrax is.
      Mr. Savidge: Experiments in the US suggest that even anthrax needs to be highly weaponised. There are considerably difficulties in using it as a weapon. The distinctions are important.
      International unity is vital in the campaign against terrorism. There is no doubt that Iraq has been a great cause of division in the international community. However, its military forces are weak and the missiles that it has retained are limited in range, accuracy and number. Its unmanned aerial vehicles—UAVs—can travel 500 miles at most, so it is absurd scaremongering on the part of the United States President to say that Iraq could attack the US with biological and chemical weapons at any moment.
      The Iraqis do not have nuclear weapons—they were destroyed—and the impression formed by the inspectors so far is that the nuclear weapons programme has not been restarted and that the evidence produced to show that it had was fake. That point is crucial and I thought that it had been accepted by the Foreign Secretary, although the Minister seemed to question it.
      On biological and chemical weapons, dossiers have been produced by the Government, the International Institute for Strategic Studies and the CIA. I do not accuse them of not making intelligent guesses, but the evidence from the inspectors tends to the view that we have probably overestimated the number of such weapons that remain in Iraq. Certainly, the amount is considerably less than it was in the 1980s and 1990s.
      On Iraq's links with terrorism, there are no proven connections between Iraq and 11 September. Connections with al-Qaeda have usually proved false. Havel denied the truth of the Czech connection that he had previously suggested. The video of Osama bin Laden was absurdly latched on to by Colin Powell; it gave no proof.
      Mr. Paul Tyler: Was the hon. Gentleman as impressed as I was by the clear definition given by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) during our debate on Iraq of the dangers of creating an even more fertile atmosphere for terrorism by a pre-emptive strike from the United States, possibly supported by the United Kingdom? Terrorism and Iraq are two connected yet separate issues.
      Mr. Savidge: I take the hon. Gentleman's point completely and will try to deal with it at the end of my speech.
      Our intelligence services say that there are no current links between Iraq and al-Qaeda. It is unfortunate that the Prime Minister has found an ambiguous
      200
      formulation, which seems to imply that there could be links although there is no evidence for them. In fact, the strongest link between Iraq and al-Qaeda is that at one time both were supplied with weapons by some of the right-wing hawks who now demand war against Iraq.
      There are links with certain terrorist groups, but I would make the distinction that those groups are political terrorists. George Tenet was forced by the Senate to declare the results of the CIA investigations, which were that the CIA believed there to be no evidence that Saddam Hussein was currently likely to use whatever weapons of mass destruction he held, or to pass them on to terrorists, but that the risk of that would be greatly increased by an invasion.
      As the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson), the Chairman of the Select Committee, pointed out, Iraq is only one of the many sources of weapons of mass destruction, but others are more likely to pass them to terrorists. The hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) referred to an unfortunate phrase in the Government's response to the Select Committee report, which stated:
      "Disarming Iraq removes the very real and catastrophic threat of international terrorists getting hold of weapons of mass destruction."
      That is extreme and dangerous language. It removes only one of the lesser threats. Of course, it is vital that Iraq should be disarmed, and that will be achieved by the military pressure that is being applied.
      The choice is not between going to war and doing nothing; it is about continuing with intrusive inspections and proper flight surveillance. The inspectors say that can be achieved within months with the degree of co-operation that has been obtained. There can then be monitoring and constant verification and containment.
      The demand that Saddam give positive, active and enthusiastic compliance like South Africa did is meaningless. South Africa was getting rid of weapons voluntarily; we know that Saddam is not doing that. The proper comparison would be with decommissioning in Northern Ireland.
      The difficulties of decommissioning have been grossly exaggerated. We have much better technical facilities and much more intrusive inspections are being undertaken than in the 1990s. Terrible exaggerations are being made. Everyone believes that Iraq is the same size as France, yet France is a quarter as large again. Saddam controls less than half of Iraq and most of that is sand and desert where the type of cat and mouse game suggested by Colin Powell is much more difficult to play.
      Continued exaggeration and distortion is a tragedy and a cause of grave, grave worry. The Select Committee found that the dodgy Downing street document was accepted by the Prime Minister; it was commissioned by his office and presented by him to the House. That is a matter of grave concern when we are discussing something as serious as being led into pre-emptive war.
      I fear that in the US scaremongering is leading to warmongering, and we must not let that happen. There is danger in the fact that the arguments for war are constantly being changed, especially when we are talking about that dangerous concept of pre-emptive war to which the Chairman of the Select Committee referred. The UN resolutions are not sufficient grounds

      201
      for starting a war. There is no immediate or imminent threat of attack from Iraq. We need evidence of a real threat, plus a second resolution, for war conceivably to be justified.
      I do not know what talk of "unreasonable vetoes" means. Perhaps we should be talking about "unreasonable proposed resolutions" or "unreasonable presidents". I hope that we do not have to talk about "unreasonable Prime Ministers".
      If there is no second resolution, it is surely not acceptable that this country should be led to war without Parliament at least being consulted first. That is absolutely vital. We do not want this country to he led to a war without a second resolution and then Parliament to be told that we would betray our troops if we criticised the war. Frankly, if we were led to war in those circumstances, that would betray the troops. It would betray the British people and the principles that we should be standing for, and it would certainly betray the UN.
      I want to conclude by giving some of the reasons why this would be an extremely dangerous war to get involved in: it would be in breach of international law—that is certainly what most international jurists have said—and it would be terribly damaging to the UN. There is the danger that, if biological and chemical weapons were used against Israel and that led to a nuclear response, the human catastrophe, plus the follow-on effects, would be beyond belief.
      If Iraq is invaded, there is a much greater danger that whatever personnel or materials Saddam has from a weapons of mass destruction programme will be dispersed across the world. In fact, the danger is that, by that very attack, we will increase the push for proliferation, particularly given the US policies suggesting that it might break its agreements under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Invasion could open the Pandora's box in the middle east referred to by King Abdullah of Jordan. It could distract from and undermine the campaign against terrorism. It could provoke much greater resentment in the Arab countries and perhaps the whole Islamic world and, for that very reason, it could inflame terrorism, rather than reduce it.
      We face a particular threat in Britain. While in the United Kingdom most people may regard the Prime Minister as having played a moderating role in relation to the Bush Administration, people elsewhere will see him as the essential co-conspirator in bringing about a war, so we will have an extra threat of suffering from terrorism.
      Let us suppose that most of the fears that I have expressed were not realised and that there was a quick war. I would still say that there are two other appalling dangers, the first of which is embarking on the whole concept of pre-emptive war. Whom does the west attack next? Who follows our example? What is the difference between this and what was condemned in the first two counts of the Nuremberg tribunal in 1946—conspiracy towards war and crimes against the peace?
      The final point that I would make is that if, as Nelson Mandela has suggested, this is a recipe for international anarchy, in a world where we cannot disinvent weapons of mass destruction, surely the future for the whole of humanity would be extremely bleak.
      2.53 pm
      Mr. John Maples: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) has pretty effectively exposed most of the chinks in the Government's case. I listened with interest to what he had to say, but I hope that he will forgive me if I do not follow him down that path. I wish to deal with two aspects of the Select Committee's report in relation to development in the Arab world and the Arab-Israeli peace process, but before I do so, I should like to follow up a point that I made with the Foreign Secretary yesterday.
      One of the things that bothers me about all that is going on with Iraq—by and large, I support the Government's policy on Iraq—is the damage that it appears to be doing to the western alliance. We have the spectre of a German political leader running his general election campaign on an anti-American platform. We have the absolutely preposterous fact of a French Foreign Minister travelling the world, drumming up opposition to their main and supposed allies.
      It is easy to indulge in a lot of French bashing about that, but we must rebuild some of those bridges. If we believe in multilateralism, all of us have to play our part in that. One can lay some of the blame at the door of the United States for not mounting a big enough diplomatic effort before it launched this policy. The policy seems to have come first and a lot of diplomatic effort came second. That was perhaps a mistake. There should have been more diplomatic effort earlier. It seems that the policy was led not by the State Department, but by the Pentagon. If it had been led by the State Department, perhaps there would have been more diplomatic bridge building beforehand, and perhaps the French and Germans would not have behaved in quite the way they have done.
      It is difficult to understand what the French are trying to achieve. My belief is that the Germans will come back on side fairly quickly—they have gone rather silent recently—but I do not know how the French will extricate themselves from this mess. There seems to be a delusion in the Ely see palace—perhaps if someone is going to have delusions, that is the place to have them. Nevertheless, there seems to be a delusion that France is still a great power. It certainly has not been a great power since 1918; it certainly has not been a world-beating great power since about 1815. That is an extraordinary policy for France to pursue, and it has left the common foreign and security policy in ruins.
      The likelihood of France being the leader of European foreign policy, particularly in the new European Union with 25 or 26 members, is now completely unrealistic. That may put us in a rather stronger position, although it may make the common foreign policy meaningless. By and large, I am not a huge supporter of that policy, but European countries need to do some things in common where they have common interests. The prospect of that has been seriously damaged. Perhaps more worryingly, NATO has been damaged. The Select Committee is going to visit NATO tomorrow, so perhaps we will return with a better impression of what is happening.
      After this is over, we have to try to rebuild the western alliance. If we succeed in Iraq at the expense of permanently damaging the western alliance, it would be

      203
      a very high price to pay indeed. I hope that the Government will devote considerable effort, along with our American colleagues, to preventing that, and I sincerely hope that the French and German Governments will realise that they have damaged themselves and the western alliance in pursuing their policies and that they will participate in that effort, too.
      Mr. Tyler: The hon. Gentleman's thesis is perfectly proper, but does he agree that it is no more acceptable to bash the French than to bash the Americans if we are trying to rebuild the bridges, as he suggests? Does he accept that the Americans also have a responsibility in this matter?
      Mr. Maples: I thought that I had said that. I tried to be fairly even-handed by saying that the American diplomatic effort should have come earlier and been stronger.
      Mr. Tyler: That does not seem to be the hon. Gentleman's colleagues' view.
      Mr. Maples: I am speaking for myself in this debate. One of the luxuries of being a Back Bencher is that I can be dangerous and irresponsible if I want to be, but I do not have to express anyone else's views. Of course multilateralism requires everyone to behave like a multilateralist.
      Sir Patrick Cormack: My hon. Friend is a very valued member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, but does he not agree that many of us believe that the French have behaved utterly disgracefully, and it is not the first time that they have endangered NATO either?
      Mr. Maples: I thought that I had said that; I did not put it in quite the words that my hon. Friend uses, but I said that it was pretty preposterous for the French Foreign Minister to be doing what he is doing, that I do not understand how the French will get out of the mess, and that that has seriously damaged the western alliance. However, after this is over, we have to try to rebuild the alliance, so we cannot indulge in bashing anyone; our Government and those of the other countries involved will have to start rebuilding the bridges.
      I turn now to the development of the Arab world, which we addressed in the report and in the previous one, too. The Government have responded positively to the concept of needing to help our allies in the region to become more stable and better allies. We believe that that needs to be done through political and economic development in those areas. A lot has been said about that recently, and the United Nations Development Programme report on Arab human development is a damning indictment of a part of the world that democracy and free markets seem to have bypassed completely. We have had a revolution in the past 13 or 14 years, in which the world has been overwhelmed by democracy and free markets, but somehow the Arab world has been exempt from that—it has bypassed it—and we have to ensure that that does not continue.
      The report highlights deficiencies in the education system and in the involvement of women, as well as the lack of basic, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law.
      204
      It highlights the problems that are being presented by demography. An incredible percentage of the population is under the age of 20. Gross domestic product per head, even in a prosperous country such as Saudi Arabia, is half what it was 20 years ago.
      We are seeing the difficulty of rentier economies living off oil incomes, trying to convert themselves into industrial economies. They are simply not setting about that in the right way. We are seeing corruption, the confusion of Governments with ruling elites, as well as the confusion of their money, and the complete absence of democracy, although we are seeing tentative steps to change that in Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait and Jordan; perhaps those steps can be built on and will be examples to others.
      There are 260 million people in the Arab world, but they produce less than 40 million Spaniards do. The Arab world represents only 1 per cent. of non-oil world trade. Those are damning figures for countries that, on the whole, have long histories of being civilised and educated, and of having educated elites.
      As I said, we have raised these issues twice, and the United States has started to address them. Both Richard Haass, the policy director in the State Department, and Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, have made interesting speeches recently on this subject. The US-middle east partnership initiative has been established. I hope that we are supporting that, and perhaps we could even have one of our own. Colin Powell said:
      "The spread of democracy and free markets, fuelled by the wonders of the technological revolution, has created a dynamo that can generate prosperity and human well-being on an unprecedented scale. But this revolution has left much of the Middle East behind … Still, too many Middle Easterners are ruled by closed political systems. Too many governments curb the institutions of civil society as a threat, rather than welcome them as the basis for a free, dynamic, and hopeful society. And the language of hate, exclusion, and incitement to violence is still all too common throughout the region."
      He continued:
      "The authors of the Arab Development Report have found that 'education has begun to lose its significant role as a means of achieving social advancement in Arab countries, turning instead into a means of perpetuating social stratification and poverty.'"
      That is a long list of things that need to be done.
      What worries me, however, is that Saudi Arabia seems ripe for an Iranian-style revolution unless it mends its ways. In those circumstances, it is not a stable ally. We want it to remain a friend and an ally, but sometimes we must tell our friends that they must change their ways if they are to be useful in that partnership. We are seeing possible developments in Iran that are very encouraging: we do not know whether the democratic forces will win out in the end; I suspect that they will, but it may take longer than we think. Perhaps, however, we are seeing the development of the rule of law and democracy in Iran. It has taken 24 years since its revolution to even start to see the glimmerings of that, but we need to encourage those moves. We need the Arab word to start to feel some self-confidence and pride in developing its economy and institutions. It must not identify itself with Osama bin Laden, terrorists and suicide bombers in Israel.
      When the Minister replies, I hope that he will tell us in greater detail and more specifically what the Government are doing, in conjunction with European

      205
      Union partners, in conjunction with the United States initiative that I mentioned, or on their own, to encourage this process. They responded in warm but generalised tones to our report on the matter, but I would be interested to hear a more specific response.
      Thirdly, I want to ride a hobby-horse that I have been riding for some time, but there is no harm in repeating such points—I am sorry if anyone present has been in the audience before. The Arab-Israeli peace process is going nowhere. Anybody who thinks that the Quartet group, its road map, all the other pretentious trappings that go with it, and its international conferences, will get Ariel Sharon and Arafat to do a deal that could not be done by Barak and Arafat at Taba in the spring of 2001 is deluding themselves. There is some diplomatic value in pretending to go through a process, and appearing to take it very seriously, but a solution to the problem will not be achieved through the Quartet group. People say that it will come only through dialogue, agreement and confidence building. It will not come through any of those things. It will come if it is imposed by the rest of us. It is time we addressed that as a serious alternative to years and years of international conferences, initiatives, and confidence-building measures, none of which have worked.
      President Clinton devoted an enormous amount of the time of his Administration to trying to solve this problem. The talks at Camp David collapsed—or did not succeed—and they were reinstated at Taba a few months later. We all know that the deal on the table at Taba is the deal that is going to be done: two states; capitals in Jerusalem; and a limited solution to the refugee problem. All those were on the table, but Arafat and Barak could not do that deal. The reason Arafat could not do that deal is domestic; it has to do with his constituency. Either he is terrified of getting assassinated if he does the deal, or he does not want to be the Palestinian leader who finally sells out and agrees to a permanent state of Israel in the middle east.
      If Barak could not persuade Arafat to do that deal, it is highly unlikely that Sharon will persuade him to do it, as my guess is that there is no way Sharon will ever offer as good a deal as Barak offered. We are therefore stuck. The idea that the Quartet group will solve the problem by marching through the diplomatic niceties of international conferences is not realistic. Some very serious arm-twisting will have to be done.
      I do not feel that I am taking sides by proposing that we should seek to enforce the deal that was on the table at Taba. It is as fair a deal for both sides as it is possible to conjure out of the difficult history and strong feelings that abound in this dispute. I suggest to the Government—the Minister has heard me make this point before—that it is now time for us to use the United Nations to pass a mandatory resolution under chapter VII imposing that settlement. More negotiation could go into the niceties of which settlements are in or out, and whether the borders are 1 km this way or that way. Basically, however, we know what the deal will be, and we need a UN Security Council mandatory resolution passed under chapter VII saying, "That is the deal. You can decide whether you accept it or not, but you can no longer use some minor negotiating point as an alibi for not agreeing or implementing it." That is what they all
      206
      do at the moment. They say, "We couldn't agree with that because it didn't deal with this settlement," or "We couldn't agree with that because it didn't deal with the refugees." If all those issues were dealt with in the resolution, the parties would then have to consider whether to implement it or not. If we had the United Nations Security Council and the leading countries in the Arab world on side—in this context, that means the Governments of Saudi Arabia and Egypt—that would be enough diplomatic pressure to twist their arms into accepting it.
      Mr. Breed: If such a resolution were vetoed by the US, would the hon. Gentleman consider that unreasonable?
      Mr. Maples: I am trying to construct a solution to a problem, and the hon. Gentleman is throwing an artificial hand grenade into the middle of it. Of course, if somebody vetoes it, and the UN Security Council cannot agree to it, it cannot happen. The United States, however, wants and needs a solution to the problem. It has difficulties, as we all do, with the history of the problem and how we approach it. It can work only if the UN Security Council agrees and if Saudi Arabia and Egypt agree, too. At the Beirut Arab summit, back in the autumn of last year, Israel was essentially offered that deal, under which, if the various conditions were accepted, the state of Israel would be recognised. Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has said the same thing. There is real mileage in that.
      It is time our Government, the United States Government and the UN concentrated on trying to find a solution in that way. If, in the context of having to concentrate on the problems of the middle east, we could help to find a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, and help the development of civil society, freedom, and, eventually, democracy in the Arab world, we would have a chance of bringing stability to a region that has troubled our security and our interests for far too long.
      3.7 pm
      Richard Burden: I join other Members in congratulating the Select Committee on a comprehensive report. Perhaps unsurprisingly, I will address the majority of my remarks to the sections of the report dealing with the situation in Iraq and some related issues.
      One of the strengths of the report is that it avoids some of the caricatures that are creeping into comments being made on both sides of the debate on Iraq. I am one of those who voted for the amendment two weeks ago and who are sceptical about military action. But those who take that view need to be cautious about characterising all those who take a different view as people who think that war is a desirable outcome. Those of us who argue for a different course must also avoid caricaturing us as soft on Saddam and not willing to face up to responsibilities.
      There are things on which we all agree. We can all agree that Saddam is duplicitous; there is no doubt about that. We can all agree that he has failed to meet, and has tried to avoid, his obligations under UN resolutions for many years. We can all agree that his regime is brutal and ruthless, particularly towards his own people. When the Prime Minister posed the

      207
      question on several occasions—whether we honestly believed that the weapons inspectors would be back in Iraq today without the threat of force—he was right to do so. Pressure on Saddam has been vital in getting the weapons inspectors back into Iraq. That brings us to the nub of the argument: how can that pressure be used and best be taken forward in a way that achieves the results that we want and does not produce unwanted results that could be serious not only for Iraq but for the entire world?
      As the world stands on the brink of a possible war, the international community is divided in a way that could threaten the credibility of the United Nations as a multilateral institution for many years to come. We should not be surprised by that or by the fact that Saddam is trying to exploit the situation. However, no one has a monopoly on seriousness in saying how we deal with the issue. That is why we should take account of the messages that are being sent.
      We must recognise that the international community has perhaps avoided for too long facing up to how it deals with Saddam. That is the first message that we need to understand. However, I say to the Government in all seriousness that they need to understand that many people in the House and outside do not accept that the United States Administration want to use force as a last resort or use the threat of force as a means of pressuring Saddam into achieving disarmament by peaceful means. They believe that the Administration in the White House decided almost a year ago that military action would be taken. That Administration decided to pause to go down the UN route, and all credit to the Prime Minister for his efforts in achieving that. However, it was a just a pause.
      The United States has not treated the United Nations as a partner. It has issued ultimatums to the UN for a course of action that has already been decided. The result is not in doubt—there is an inexorable move towards military action. That is why some of us found it chilling to hear President Bush say a month or two ago that he was bored with the results of non-military action in the same way that he gets bored with watching a tired old B-movie. That is no way to build consensus in the international community about how we confront Saddam.
      The real tragedy is that we have backed ourselves into a corner. We are reluctant to admit that our actions are producing results, albeit partial results. Instead of considering how we can take the pressure forward and use and exploit the movement by Saddam that has occurred, we are reluctant to admit that movement is even taking place. We are almost saying that anything short of an invasion will somehow let Saddam off the hook or will involve easing the pressure on him even if, objectively, we ratcheted up the pressure on Saddam. The end result is that the United States and, sadly, our Government have ended up at odds with many of their greatest supporters in this place and many people outside. We must move beyond that.
      The question often asked is, "All right, what would you do?" I shall therefore make a few points about what we could do. The beginnings of a solution can be found in the Blix report of last week. He did not talk about refusing to face up to Saddam; he talked about a clear work programme, based around inspections—not for weeks, not for years, but for months—that could keep
      208
      up the pressure on Saddam. That could be compatible with the UK proposal that I thought I heard on the airwaves today about setting a series of tests for Saddam to establish how far he is prepared to face up to his obligations. There is a slim chance at the eleventh hour that a consensus could build around such a proposal.
      It would take two things for such a proposal to work. The first is that those of us who take a different view from the Government must be clear that the pressure must be kept up and must be real. There is no doubt that Saddam will continue to try to avoid his responsibilities. However, the UK and US Governments must also stop basing everything around ultimatums and predetermined time scales, even if those ultimatums and time scales are time scales plus one or two weeks. In other words, the tests must be real rather than hair triggers that are set up to fail.
      The authority for such tests is there and ready for us to take. It lies with the Blix team. The UK and US Governments cannot set themselves above the process by setting their own tests and almost challenging the Blix team to go along with them. We must recognise that Blix has the expertise and that his team is the route that we should use.
      Let us not just be cautious about ultimatums towards Saddam. Let us also be cautious about ultimatums towards our allies. If we are to avoid the risks of such ultimatums, we must stop sending mixed messages about the role of the UN. Somehow, the impression has been given that we will go along with the UN when that suits us, but that we will not if it does not suit us. It is not the prerogative of the US President to arbitrate when global pre-emptive strikes are appropriate and when they are not. That is the UN's prerogative. That is why we created and fashioned it.
      My second suggestion about what we could do recognises that it is not enough just to tackle the issue of disarmament. There is also a moral case for considering how the international community can give practical assistance to the people of Iraq to help to protect them from Saddam and, I hope, to rid themselves of such a tyrant. There is certainly a case for ensuring that the emerging democracy that is developing in north Iraq and in the Kurdish areas is supported and protected. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) has spoken graphically and eloquently on the issue, and we need to be firm in relation to the no-fly zone.
      That also means that we should consider creative ways of changing the sanctions regime to ensure that aid goes to those areas. In doing that, we could issue a challenge to Saddam. He must co-operate and allow us to get supplies and aid into the emerging areas of democracy in Iraq. That would pose him with a dilemma. If he allowed that to happen, his regime would start to get a bit shaky. His authority in his country would be undermined, and a good thing too. If he did not go along with us and blocked the convoys and aid and perhaps even attacked them, there would be a different case for military action. That case would command wide support in the House and internationally.
      No one will be surprised to hear that my third suggestion relates to tackling the issue of double standards. The problem is real and it will not go away. Those people who say that the road to peace in the

      209
      middle east goes through Baghdad are not only a bit geographically challenged but a bit politically challenged as well. Perhaps it is not surprising that people keep talking about road maps. Someone would need a road map of the middle east to work out where such a road would go.
      The charge is real that we have not treated Israel and Palestine in the same way. Time and time again, we are told that we need to get the peace process going. Yes, that is true. We are told that the answer is more talking and, yes, we need more talking. We are told that Iraq is subject to chapter VII resolutions that require enforcement, but that the resolutions for the situation in Israel and Palestine are chapter VI resolutions that do not carry the same enforcement mechanisms. Technically that is absolutely true. It is also absolutely true that chapter VI resolutions are as equally legally binding as chapter VII resolutions.
      Thousands of people died in the twin towers in America and the fact that so many people died rightly had a cataclysmic effect on American public opinion. However, what do we say to the Palestinians given that more than 2,000 of them have died since September 2000, or to the Israelis given that 700 of them have died since then? If that happened in Britain, the equivalent figures would be 7,000 Israelis or 37,000 Palestinians dying. If that happened in the United States, it would be the equivalent of 33,000 Israelis or 174,000 Palestinians dying. Faced with those figures—those lives—try telling anyone in the Arab world that the place for action is in Iraq and that all the people in Israel and Palestine need are words. If we look at the problem that way, we begin to understand why they are so bothered and angered about double standards.
      I support the efforts to get the peace process going. I also support my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary in calling for early publication of the road map, but we need to do more than that. We need to consider how the will of the United Nations will not just be talked about, but upheld. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) had some interesting ideas on that. We need to face up to the fact that we have a responsibility to achieve results. It is not enough merely to engage in talk that makes us feel better, and the United States has the clearest responsibility of all.
      We all rightly condemned the appalling Haifa attack last week. It was also the first fatal attack on Israeli civilians since the middle of January. During that time, 174 Palestinian men, women and children have died in attacks from Israeli tanks, missiles and aircraft, many of them supplied by the United States. There is effectively an arms embargo against the Palestinians—we know that from the furore arising from an allegation of arms shipments going to them last year—but there is no arms embargo against Israel. Faced with carnage on that scale and the Sharon Government, who refuse to respond even when there is a lull in fighting, the time has come for the United States to do something. If it means what it says about wanting peace in the middle east and about its actions in Iraq not being an attack on Islam, it must face up to the consequences that flow from that.
      210
      One of those is that it is time that the United States stopped its arms shipments to Israel, and we, as its closest ally, may be best placed to tell it that.
      3.22 pm
      Dr. Julian Lewis: I would have been more impressed with the analysis of the middle east by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) had he addressed what my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) said about a middle east settlement. The settlement is on the table and is clear. It was nearly achieved before and the only way in which it will be achieved in the foreseeable future will not be as a result of recriminatory speeches about one side in the middle east dispute, like that of the hon. Gentleman, but for both sides to be forced to reach a compromise agreement so that they have their own states and the security that they require.
      The Select Committee produced a thoughtful report that was thoughtfully presented by the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson). However, I do not agree that the problems raised in it are entirely new-except, perhaps, in one respect: the threat that terrorist organisations might acquire weapons of mass destruction that have so far only been available to state actors. Some of the problems are similar to the age-old problems that have faced democracies in conflict situations whenever they arise, such as how far a democratic country should go down the route of the enemy that it is striving to defeat in time of war or other conflict.
      Hon. Members may know that, during the second world war, the film producers Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger created a masterpiece, "The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp", based on David Low's famous character of a stick-in-the-mud, though brave, British officer. Churchill was said to be very upset about the film being produced in wartime because it portrayed a German, who was one of the main characters, extremely sympathetically. Churchill had not seen the film, as is so often the case with people who criticise in ignorance, but the sympathetic German character was saying that the Colonel Blimp approach—the honourable approach; the play-it-by-the-rules-in-time-of-war approach—could not always be sustained in moments of grave crisis. Indeed, the German character argued that total war meant that difficult decisions which would not be regarded as acceptable in times of peace might have to be taken in times of war.
      Mr. Tyrie: My hon. Friend has mentioned one of my favourite films and he makes an interesting analogy. Does he take that logic to mean that we should justify the use of torture on terrorist suspects?
      Dr. Lewis:That is precisely one of the dilemmas that countries face in such circumstances. It would not be right for a country to institutionalise the use of torture to extract information. However, I defy my hon. Friend to deny that that will not happen under the pressure of events if that pressure is great enough. I am glad that he has raised that example. Some hon. Members would undoubtedly find it easy to say that under no circumstances should improper pressure ever be applied to a prisoner; but if bin Laden had been in American

      211
      hands shortly before 11 September and it had been known that al-Qaeda was about to launch a deadly attack, although it was not known when or where it would fall, who could say that it would be a cut-and-dried recommendation that under no circumstances should he have been subjected to what we would usually regard as improper pressure? The truth of the matter is that there can be no absolute rules in such cases. Each case has to be judged on its merits in the circumstances that apply at the time. If people say that that is totally unacceptable, I say that their attitude is totally unrealistic.
      I remember reading how, at the start of the second world war, British bombers were not allowed to bomb anything other than German ships at sea because only then would they have the assurance that innocent civilians would not be caught up as casualties. How long did that restriction last under the pressure of war?
      Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: Leaving aside the fact that the United Nations charter explicitly rules out the use of torture and that the hon. Gentleman seems to advocate a relative morality that would sit ill with him on other occasions, may I posit another possibility? He will have read what Prime Minister Sharon said at the weekend about potential nuclear facilities or developments in Iran. In that instance, does he accept that another pre-emptive strike would be acceptable on the grounds that Iran may or may not develop nuclear weapons from its civil programme?
      Dr. Lewis: That is a very good scenario to consider, and I shall do so in a moment. I should like to correct the hon. Gentleman. I am not trying to say what is or is not acceptable; I am trying to make the House think about what is or is not realistic. It is not realistic to think that in issues of war and peace, even the finest rules, the finest laws and the finest conventions drawn up by the finest lawyers will be enough to ensure that every circumstance is catered for because, believe me, under the pressure of events, we find that they are not.
      In giving the example that he did, the hon. Gentleman anticipated that I was about to refer, as the right hon. Member for Swansea, East did in his opening remarks, to the Israeli bombing of the Iraqi reactor in 1981. That is a classic example of a case that is not open and shut. At the time, I felt that the Israelis had a pretty good case for doing what they did. Retrospectively. more people believe that, but it is clear from the thoughtful remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, the Chairman of the Select Committee, that although the Committee thought that there was an arguable case for the action, on balance it felt that the Israelis were too pre-emptive in acting against a possibility that was too far in the future.
      I return to the main point of this part of my presentation, which is that these matters are not black and white; they are not open and shut; and they cannot be decided by rules alone. There will always be scope for argument within the circumstances of the particular case. I shall give another example: the question of targeted assassination. One could say that a double standard has been applied by our American allies in this matter. They have, as far as I know, consistently condemned the Israelis for using targeted assassination against Hamas militants. Yet the Americans were over the moon when, not so long ago, they had a successful
      212
      similar attack against a number of leading al-Qaeda suspects in a car. The truth is that when one is at war those rules will be stretched to the point where sometimes they will be broken.
      There is nothing new in talking about targeted assassination. Which is better—targeted assassination against a known Hamas leader, tanks rolling into a base where Hamas people are mixed in with innocent civilians, or doing nothing and letting one's own people be attacked with impunity? Such dilemmas have come up time and again, and there are arguments for all those courses. The issue goes back a long way. Sir Thomas More, writing in his famous book "Utopia", recommended as one solution to the problem of war that when armies formed against one another, a group of shock troops from one's own army should target the enemy general and attack him, and only him, in wave after wave until he was eliminated, and thus bring the battle to a speedy end—a policy of targeted assassination.
      Churchill, in 1944, faced with the V-weapon threat, ardently advocated the use of gas against the V-weapon sites, pointing out when people objected that in the first world war there had been an absolute bar on the bombing of cities but gas was used freely, and now, in the second world war, every one was bombing cities, but no one was thinking of using gas. In the end, the reason that gas was not used was not a moral one: the chiefs of staff convinced Churchill that gas would be less effective in those circumstances than ordinary high explosive. Let us not fool ourselves into thinking that such dilemmas, conflicts and wars can be resolved by sets of rules. Rules help us but they cannot do the whole job.
      Mr. Kilfoyle: It is highly erroneous of the hon. Gentleman to suggest that what would be, in modern military parlance, an attack on the command and control centres—the general in charge—is targeted assassination. It is far removed from that. Targeted assassination was the subject of much debate in this House in relation to the shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland. Does he accept that it was right to shoot to kill in Northern Ireland?
      Dr. Lewis: It would depend on the circumstances. If an IRA cell, as at Loughall, was trying to mount a lethal attack and was ambushed, I would not shed any tears for the people whose lives ended under such circumstances.
      The hon. Gentleman has brought me neatly to my next point. Terrorists cannot have it both ways. They cannot claim on the one hand to declare war on people but, on the other, that they should be immune from the lowering of standards that inevitably occurs during war. Make no mistake, war has been declared by terrorists who have rightly been described by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) as apocalyptic. In war, some liberties are inevitably sacrificed to preserve liberty overall. My argument is simple, and I shall reiterate it—there are no easy answers, each case must be considered on its own merits, and the application of abstract principles can never be absolute, however desirable that may be.
      There is a war on two fronts. There is a war involving rogue states that are creating weapons of mass destruction, and there is a war involving terror groups

      213
      hellbent on using them. The ability to fight a war on two fronts is often called into question, but in this case entirely different resources are required to fight on each front. The resources required to fight the rogue states creating weapons of mass destruction are conventional, but the resources required to fight groups such as al-Qaeda are intelligence and security measures. The two battles that are being fought simultaneously are complementary—they are not in competition with each other.
      Terrorism has complicated the problem of Iraq and has proved retrospectively that it was wrong to set the preservation of the coalition in 1991 above the desire to topple Saddam Hussein at that time. Because of terrorism, it is wrong to put all our faith in the United Nations now, just as it was wrong to put all our faith in the League of Nations in the 1930s. The United Nations, like the League of Nations, is not a world government and is easily undermined if its members fail to face up to the need for action. Future generations will find it incomprehensible as well as bizarre that a lethal, tyrannical bully like Saddam should have been tolerated for so long by so many people who created so large a protest in such a thoroughly bad cause.
      3.38 pm
      Mr. Hilton Dawson: It is remarkable that I should follow the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). I will not join him on the slippery slope. Considering his history of CND-baiting, he has just made a tremendous if oblique plea for the principles of pacifism.
      We have had an excellent debate on a very good Select Committee report. As someone who has listened for some hours on this and other occasions to debate on Iraq, I am pleased finally to have the opportunity to say something about the situation there. I pay tribute to several of my colleagues, including my hon. Friends the Members for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) and for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge), but particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden). I very much agree with all their excellent contributions.
      We should recognise the progress that has been made on Iraq. Thanks in large part to the efforts of this Government, United Nations resolution 1441 was passed unanimously. We also have United Nations weapons inspectors back on the ground doing an effective job. The most recent report from Dr. Blix engages with the whole range of difficult issues and problems that he faces, but he reports that, at least in part, disarmament is taking place.
      We have a clear way forward, and it is not one that accepts that a vile regime can carry on pursuing the repression and weapons development that it has been conducting. We need to keep up the pressure, and it is military pressure that has got us to the current position. We need to set Iraq rigorous targets for further disarmament and for improving the well-being of the people who are living in the most dire circumstances in that appalling country. To do that, however, we need to maintain the international coalition, and to build respect for United Nations resolutions and a
      214
      commitment to the institution of the United Nations. We also need to put ourselves in a position in which we can effectively move on to build peace across the middle east and to address realistically, properly and emphatically the issues of Israel and Palestine. We cannot do any of that if we make the colossal mistake of rushing to war, because that will destroy thousands of civilian lives—those of children, women and men. I would argue that, even with the support of the United Nations Security Council, rushing to war is no answer.
      What credibility will the United Nations have if it allows vast pressure to be brought to bear on small nations by bribing, bullying and coercing them to fall into line? What is the point of a UN that sets its inspectors to do a job, but calls them off before they have finished because the imperatives of a war machine cannot be kept waiting? Warts and all, the UN is doing a fine job. Let us just allow it to get on with it. I believe firmly, as I did a couple of weeks ago, that the case for war has not yet been made. We can still work together to ensure that the world comes together to disarm Iraq without the need for war.
      My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is a fine leader, a great leader, and I think that he will go down in history as a great Prime Minister for this country, but he should not lead us into war now. He should use his great leadership skills as much as he possibly can to persuade George Bush that to go ahead with war now might advance the hegemony of the United States and advance a new world order in which a military America tried to dominate a world run for its benefit and the benefit of a small coterie of allies, but that to do so would make the problems of terrorism worse. It would increase the alienation of people in ways that have already been graphically described this afternoon. In destroying the United Nations, it would destroy the chances of peace in Israel and Palestine, and the hopes of so much of the world.
      I shall be 50 later this year, and I shall soon have been a member of the Labour party for half my life. I did not join the Labour party, work for the Labour party for many years or work to become a Labour Member of Parliament in order to be in this position, and I do not support a fine Labour Government in this position.
      We should consider the case of our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development. There has been, without exception, no finer member of the Government than her. She is renowned across the world. She has brought hope, passion, commitment, and enormous development and hope of progress to people living in the most appalling poverty and in the most dire circumstances across the world. We should all listen to what she says, and ensure that she is supported so that she can carry on doing the magnificent work that she has done so far.
      If my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wants to be in the present situation, he, as much as my excellent right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, should consider his position. In going into any war without the sanction of the United Nations, the prospect of another fine Labour Government will disappear, and there is the distinct possibility of the Labour party being brought to its knees.

      215
      There is no case for war with or without the United Nations at this stage. Our Prime Minister has succeeded in a very important goal: the weapons inspectors are doing their job. We should reunite around the United Nations. We in this country should support all pressure to keep the United States of America working for a peaceful resolution of the crisis, and we should all move on. I firmly believe that via the United Nations, working together in the institutions of the international community, we can disarm Iraq without necessarily going to war. The Government are a fine Government who could yet be a great Government.
      If we get to the point where we are at war, my constituents who fight in that war—women and men—will be able to rely on my 100 per cent. support, but until we recognise that we can disarm Iraq without necessarily going to war, I will not support the Government on this matter.
      Mr. Kilfoyle: We all aspire to the removal of weapons of mass destruction, but following the logic of the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) and tracing those who provided such weapons to terrorist organisations—the weapons all emanate from somewhere—does my hon. Friend agree that the countries that provided those weapons or the wherewithal for other countries to propagate such weapons, including France, Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom, ought to be arraigned in a court before international public opinion?
      Mr. Dawson: I cannot go into that, as I have almost finished speaking. My hon. Friend makes an important point. The issue of arms supplies and arms exports needs to be addressed even more fundamentally than we have done so far.
      3.49 pm
      Mr. Andrew Tyrie: This is an outstanding report. It provides much of the material that we all need to form a judgment on what our foreign policy should be in the months and years ahead. First, I should like to set out why I think America's foreign policy on Iraq has been a miscalculation. Secondly, I will try to suggest what British foreign policy should be now and what the stance of this Chamber should be. Thirdly, I want to address what I think is the most important question of all—what kind of western foreign policy will best enhance our security after Iraq? Will the new world order, conceived by George Bush since 11 September and energetically supported by the Prime Minister, enhance or imperil our security?
      First, on Iraq, most of the arguments have already been well rehearsed. For my part, I am not convinced that Iraq is planning or even capable of an imminent attack on the west or western interests. Virtually no evidence has been produced to show that Saddam Hussein has sought to develop links with terrorists, apart from the Palestinians, in respect of whom almost all the Arab states, many of which are our allies, are also complicit. Nor am I convinced that the policy of containment and deterrence has yet failed. War in Iraq may well create the conditions for more extremist fundamentalism and terrorism, not least by alienating moderate Muslim opinion throughout the middle east, as well as Muslims in Europe. An invasion of Iraq is also
      216
      more likely than not to destabilise the whole middle east. It could shake apart the pro-western Governments in the middle east on whom the west has so painstakingly worked since the Yom Kippur war, just as the Suez crisis and invasion fuelled middle eastern nationalism in the 1950s and 1960s.
      I recognise that I might be wrong about all that. It is possible that, although the evidence has not been forthcoming, Iraq has plans to engage with global terrorists. That would represent an imminent threat. It is possible that the vigorous and muscular deployment of American force could coerce extremists and trigger the spread of democracy throughout the middle east, as several in the US Administration claim it will. It is possible that, with the removal of the potential threat to Israel posed by Iraq, the conditions may be better, not worse, for a Palestinian settlement. That is the kernel of the argument that we have heard from President Bush and Prime Minister Blair. I disagree with it and so does middle England, much of America and a good deal of the mainstream foreign policy elite in Washington. They do not believe that the case for war has been made.
      In parenthesis, I feel that, to some extent, attempts have been made to manipulate public opinion by, for example, binding together talk of biological weapons with talk of nuclear weapons, which pose a quite different order of threat, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) pointed out, alleging that there is a far greater risk than in fact exists at present of Iraq obtaining nuclear weapons and linking strategic and humanitarian justifications for action. None of those things has helped to win the argument, but I think that it would have been lost anyway.
      But saying that does not take us very far. The next question is: what should the UK do right now? In that regard, it is worth bearing in mind some crucial and basic points. First, our security and prosperity depend on the United States. We share its open society values, and I personally feel that extremely strongly.
      Secondly, we owe the Americans a great deal. To take one analogous example, they were there for us when we needed them in respect of the Falklands, even though they thought that we were foolish to try to liberate what they considered nothing more than a few sheep and said that our demands for their support would tear up their Latin American foreign policy. In the end, they backed us. They are true friends and allies, and it is worth bearing that in mind in this discussion.
      Thirdly, whatever we may do or say, the Americans are going to go ahead unilaterally anyway. If we let them do so, that will imperil everyone's security, including theirs, leaving the west divided and weakened and emboldening its enemies.
      Fourthly, there is no European defence initiative worthy of the name, and nor will there be. There is no substitute for a foreign policy based on security provided by the United States. It is absurd to imagine that we should try to rely on the quasi-pacifist continental Europeans for our defence or on the viscerally anti-American French.
      For all those reasons, we cannot afford—and should not try—to walk away. The Americans may have taken themselves and us to the top of the wrong hill, but we cannot simply leave them there. If that is Tony Blair's private reasoning for backing America, he deserves

      217
      credit. He deserves even greater credit if he persuaded the Americans to go down the United Nations route and abandon their initial unilateralism. Consequently, resolution 1441 at least provides what my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) revealingly described as some legal cover for action.
      The House of Commons also deserves credit. The threat of MPs' support for an amendment may have spurred Tony Blair to fight more vigorously against American unilateralism.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman must not refer to hon. Members in that way. He must use their correct parliamentary titles.
      Mr. Tyrie: I meant the Prime Minister. I beg your forgiveness, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      In the past few weeks, the House of Commons has played a crucial role in international affairs. That has probably not happened often in the past 50 years, and it is to be commended.
      Britain's stand now gives us greater scope for a privileged dialogue with the United States. For what should we press? Certainly not the foreign policy of George Bush. The US Administration's rhetoric to justify military action is dangerous for us all. They are adopting a foreign policy for creating a new world order, based on the twin doctrines of pre-emptive action and regime change. If that rhetoric becomes reality in the years ahead, we will put ourselves on the road not to a new international order but to new international anarchy. We all have a huge interest in orderly relations between states. That applies especially to America. Order is a value, and when it is put at risk, so are we.
      The international system's stability depends on the mutual recognition of states' legitimacy. It is a common-sense principle: do not invade my house and I will not invade yours. George Bush is setting that doctrine aside. The doctrine of regime change advocates the removal, by force if necessary, of the leaders of states who do not share western values.
      Mr. Kilfoyle:The hon. Gentleman and I have held conversations along similar lines. However, does he accept that matters are even more disturbing when one considers the military policy that underpins the developments that he describes? It includes "Joint Vision 20/20", which aspires to full spectrum dominance of air, sea, land, space and communications, and the repudiation of the no nuclear first strike policy. The latter policy had been in place for more than 50 years.
      Mr. Tyrie:I am worried about many aspects of the new American foreign policy. The hon. Gentleman refers to a number that need careful attention. I want to concentrate on the two key new doctrines that the American Administration have espoused and articulated in detail.
      The doctrine of regime change is inherently destabilising because it implies removing by force the leaders of states who do not share western values.
      With the doctrine of pre-emptive military action, the Americans argue that they may take military action even in the absence of a clear and imminent threat to
      218
      their interests or those of their allies. If pre-emptive strikes are undertaken without evidence of an imminent attack, we shall be in a global free-for-all.
      The doctrine of regime change is just as corrosive. It prompts the question of who should decide whether a country's leadership should be changed. Other countries are on to this. The Foreign Ministry of North Korea recently suggested, using similar language to that of the American Administration, that it may need to engage in a pre-emptive strike. Even more recently, Vladimir Putin virtually read out part of one of George Bush's speeches on pre-emptive strikes to justify his recent bombing of Georgia. Militant Muslim fundamentalists also argue for regime change.
      Mr. George Osborne: Does my hon. Friend claim that the sovereignty of nations should always take precedence over humanitarian concerns? Were we therefore wrong to intervene in Kosovo and right not to do so in Rwanda, where most people believed that we should have intervened? Should vile regimes always be left in place simply because that preserves the nation state?
      Mr. Tyrie: Shortage of time prevents me from developing a detailed argument in response, but humanitarian intervention can and should be justified when a very broad-based international coalition can be assembled in favour of it. That is what happened in the case of Idi Amin: all countries supported Tanzania's action to get rid of him.
      Mr. Osborne: Kosovo?
      Mr. Tyrie: Kosovo is a more complicated example, as in that case there was no such universal support. A crucial member of the Security Council dissented. It is actually not clear that the humanitarian intentions of those who invaded Kosovo—us, basically—secured an improvement in humanitarian conditions in the region. Nor am I certain that we precipitated the fall of Milosevic. That might have happened had we not intervened; in fact, as many leading Serbs argue, it might have happened more quickly. I am sorry that I cannot develop the point further, for it is a crucial point, but of course there is a role for humanitarian intervention in the world, both within and beyond what is prescribed by law under the United Nations.
      What we must do now is also consider what effect some of these doctrines will have on weaker countries that do not share American values, and how they may react to the coercion implied by America's new doctrines. I believe that it will encourage them to seek protection in the possession of nuclear weapons. A protective proliferation would be a huge price to pay for America's new rhetoric. The difference between the treatment meted out to North Korea, which has just expelled inspectors, and the treatment of Iraq, which has just let inspectors in, sends a clear and dangerous signal about the value of nuclear weapons to small countries.
      The long-run price of George Bush's new world order may well be the opposite of his intention: a new global disorder. President Bush does not seem to realise how unsettling his rhetoric is for much of the international community. He does not seem to see that pre-emptive

      219
      military intervention and regime change can never become accepted doctrines of the international community. They are inherently revolutionary in scope, even if inspired by benign motives.
      In justification of the new doctrines, the US Administration say, and the Prime Minister says, that the threats of terrorism and nuclear proliferation are new, and that a new order is required to counter them. I believe that both assertions are wrong, although I have little time in which to explain why.
      What certainly has changed is the United States. The harsh truth is that the Americans have overreacted to 11 September. In dealing with terrorism they are on a steep learning curve, on which we have been for many more years. They seem not to have grasped the most basic point—that an overreaction is exactly what terrorists seek. Force has a role, but it can also be counterproductive. By alienating moderate Muslim opinion, and much western opinion too, George Bush's new world order may be playing straight into the hands of Muslim extremists.
      Our Prime Minister has a difficult judgment to make. If by ensuring that there is not even a chink of light between us and the Americans he has acquired a greater leverage on the US Administration behind the scenes, he can do us all a great service. What worries me is that I have seen no evidence that he is clear about what he needs to tell the Americans, and about how to use that leverage. On the contrary, from time to time he seems to indulge in the rhetoric of new world orders that concerns me so much. I hope that he will use the extra influence that he may have over the Americans to remind them that America's current global ascendancy is not a result of sheer force, but the product of decades of careful alliance building and restraint in the exercise of power. The greatest casualty of all may turn out to be the western alliance—an awful prospect.
      In that regard, let me read part of the letter of resignation written by John Kiesling, a senior American diplomat, to his boss. He said:
      "The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America's most potent weapon … We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security."
      I believe that that American diplomat got it exactly right. That is precisely what concerns me most.
      It was primarily by winning the argument about the superiority of open society values, backed by military containment, that the Americans won the cold war, bringing freedom and democracy to half the continent. It is by returning now to that policy of containment and deterrence—by returning to America's post-war global conservatism, rather than turning to messianic radicalism, that the world can be made a safer place.
      4.5 pm
      Ross Cranston: In 1956, the then Government tried to justify their actions in the Suez canal. Led by Lord McNair, who had just finished serving on the International Court of Justice, international lawyers said that the Government were wrong, and they were right.
      220
      Last Friday, The Guardian published a letter from some of the leading international lawyers in this country. They wrote:
      "On the basis of the information publicly available, there is no justification under international law for the use of military force against Iraq."
      After setting out the "only two exceptions" for the use of force that are allowed under the charter—self-defence, and action authorised by the Security Council—the letter continued:
      "Before military action can lawfully be undertaken against Iraq, the security council must have indicated its clearly expressed assent."
      In my view—I state it bluntly, even though some of the signatories to the letter are friends and colleagues—that is wrong. In my view, the Government have been, and continue to be, legally correct in the course that they are pursuing over Iraq.
      The excellent Foreign Affairs Committee report that we are considering today provides a springboard for consideration of some of these important legal issues. That report and the Committee's fourth report on Kosovo, from the 1999–2000 Session, are a mine of information on the legal arguments. It is not at all clear that anyone who read those reports could reach the absolutist conclusion contained in the letter in The Guardian. Let me try to consider that letter in the light of the justifications in international law for the use of force, the first of which is self-defence.
      Individual and collective self-defence are recognised expressly under article 51 of the UN charter. The Committee's report contains a useful discussion of the right of self-defence, and especially the notion of pre-emptive self-defence as set out in the American document entitled, "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America", which was published last year. Pre-emptive self-defence seeks to address potential, not just imminent, threats. On self-defence in general, I agree with the views of Professor Greenwood as set out in paragraphs 146 to 148 of the report. He argues that the law in relation to article 51 has to be interpreted in the light of the world that we now live in, which is different from that of 1945, and in the light of common sense.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) mentioned the Caroline case. The world has certainly moved on from that 19th century decision in terms of the gravity of the threats that we face—from nuclear weapons, and so on—as opposed to the cross-border raids then contemplated. Secondly, the method of delivery of the threat has changed. It is now more difficult to determine the time scale within which a threat of attack by terrorist means will be launched.
      So far as pre-emptive self-defence is concerned, the Committee pointed out the dangers of that doctrine. It cited the situation in India and Pakistan, and in China and Taiwan. It concluded that, if the Governments of the United States, Britain and other countries should seek to justify military action against Iraq by using the notion of pre-emptive self-defence, they would be in serious risk, and I agree with that. In responding to the Committee's report, the Government have taken the conventional view—which I agree with—that it is well established in international law that there is a right to take necessary and proportionate military action in self-

      221
      defence, but that that applies only when an attack is imminent. Self-defence in that way does not arise in the current Iraqi crisis. There is some discussion in the report about that, but I shall pass over it and move on to the second justification in international law for the use of force: action authorised by the Security Council as a collective response to a threat to peace, to a breach of the peace, or to an act of aggression.
      I dealt with that issue in my contribution to the debate on 22 January and set out the basics of chapter VII enforcement action. I asked two questions—what would happen if the UN did not explicitly authorise the use of force, and could one or a number of states take enforcement action to give effect to a Security Council resolution? I said that those possibilities could not be ruled out.
      The example of Kosovo has been mentioned and is referred to in the report in paragraph 143. The signatories to the letter in The Guardian claimed that the UN charter outlaws the use of force with only two exceptions, as I have outlined. However, neither exception applied in Kosovo, although some Security Council resolutions were agreed. For example, resolution 1199 of September 1998 called for a ceasefire, recognised the impending humanitarian catastrophe and affirmed the threat to peace and security, but it did not authorise the use of all necessary means.
      Resolution 1203 of October 1998 affirmed the existence of a threat to peace and welcomed the agreement that had been achieved through the threat of force. Resolution 1244 of June 1999 authorised the international security presence in Kosovo to use all necessary means to fulfil its responsibilities. However, there was no express approval by the Security Council of the action that NATO had taken. The reason was simple, and it was the threat of a Russian and Chinese veto.
      How do we justify what happened in Kosovo?
      Mr. Savidge: Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that there was an ongoing pattern of aggression in the area at the time? The action was taken in response to a series of wars and acts of aggression.
      Ross Cranston: Our justification was that a humanitarian catastrophe was occurring. The UK has consistently used that reason to justify what we did in Kosovo, but not everybody agrees. One of the most eminent international lawyers in this country, Professor Brownlie, still doubts the legality of what happened in Kosovo. Other international lawyers say that one can draw out from the Security Council resolutions that I mentioned an authorisation—to some extent, post facto—of what was done. However, that humanitarian intervention is no justification for what might happen in Iraq, although its record of human rights abuses is appalling. My point is that the letter in The Guardian is wrong to suggest that the use of force can never be legitimate unless it is in self-defence or expressly authorised by the Security Council. The case of Kosovo also demonstrates that international law has to move with the times and in accordance with state practice.
      222
      I turn to the issue of express authorisation of enforcement action under chapter VII. It happened before the Gulf war in Iraq. Security Council resolution 678 authorised all necessary means to liberate Kuwait. The Security Council has expressly authorised enforcement action in a range of other resolutions, for example in Somalia and Haiti. The letter in The Guardian also said that there was no case for disregarding a veto. However, it seems to me that such an argument might be made for disregarding an arbitrary veto. An example that could be cited is the Chinese veto in February 1999 against the extension of the term for the UN preventive deployment force in Macedonia. At the time, it was commonly believed that China had imposed the veto because Macedonia had just established diplomatic relations with Taiwan.
      I do not believe that that example is arguable in the present context. I do not think that we can regard any veto imposed by France, Russia or China, either individually or collectively, as arbitrary. Any veto imposed by those countries would be a considered veto. There might be an argument that a veto could be disregarded, but I do not think that it would apply in that case.
      I have mentioned Kosovo, but there are other examples of force being used without the express authorisation of the UN Security Council, and I shall give two. The first example occurred in west Africa in 1990, when the Economic Community of West African States intervened in Liberia to stop a civil war. There was no explicit Security Council authorisation for that, although subsequent actions by the Security Council tacitly accepted and praised the intervention.
      The second example occurred in 1991, in the context of the first Gulf war. Russia and China opposed the deployment of military forces to protect Iraqi civilians without Iraq's consent. The US, the UK and France took action to provide safe havens for Kurdish refugees in northern Iraq, and to enforce the no-fly zones. However, there was no express Security Council authorisation.
      I turn now to Iraq, in relation to which there have been 17 UN Security Council resolutions. They include resolution 678, to which I have referred already and which authorised the use of all necessary means. On the ceasefire, resolution 687 of 1991 imposed an obligation on Iraq to disarm. The ceasefire was based on Iraq's acceptance of that disarmament obligation. I do not have time to go into the other resolutions that followed, although I referred to them in the debate in January.
      We then come to resolution 1441, which is discussed in the report from the Foreign Affairs Committee. The nature of the substantive provisions of resolution 1441 is well known. For example, paragraph 1 states that Iraq
      "has been and remains in material breach",
      while paragraph 4 deals with
      "false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq",
      and states that any failure "at any time" to comply or co-operate with the resolution will be a further material breach. Also, paragraph 13 recalls that the Security Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face "serious consequences" as a result of its continued violations of its obligations.

      223
      One element of resolution 1441 has not been discussed. Recital 10 in the preamble contains an express invocation of resolution 687—the ceasefire-disarmament resolution in 1991. Recital 10 recalls:
      "in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein."
      Recital 11 states that the Security Council is determined to ensure
      "full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991)".
      It seems to me that resolution 1441 revives resolution 687 and the obligation imposed on Iraq. Also, it reminds us that the ceasefire, under 687, was based on Iraq's acceptance of that disarmament obligation. My conclusion is that the use of force in enforcement action, other than in self-defence or in accordance with an express authorisation by the UN Security Council, can be legitimate in international law. I have given a number of examples of that—including Kosovo, west Africa, and the protection of the Kurds after the Gulf war. Resolution 1441, coupled with resolution 687, provides a legitimacy for action to disarm Iraq if there is non-compliance with its obligations. There is no absolute necessity for a second resolution. Any action that follows must, as in Kosovo, bolster legitimacy. A UN administered Iraq would be one contribution to that.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: The hon. and learned Gentleman has treated the House to a valuable opinion. He justified resolution 1441 but cited the article in The Guardian and the views of other eminent lawyers who take a different view from his. Who, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, determines what constitutes the correct interpretation of international law?
      Ross Cranston: One of the difficulties with international law as opposed to domestic law is that no body has jurisdiction over the whole range of issues. In some situations, the world court can come in, but many issues are not justiciable.
      My party has always had a strong internationalist bent, part of which has been an abhorrence of armed force. That is as it should be. War is a failure and a terrible thing—both for those who are actively involved and for those civilians who are caught up in the conflict. Even those who escape physically unscathed can be mentally affected by the horrors that they experience for the rest of their lives. However, sometimes war is necessary to deal with an aggressor or tyrant, to avert a humanitarian catastrophe, or to uphold good order in the international community. Parts of my party have always found that difficult to accept. When, in 1934, the party produced a document entitled "War and Peace", which recognised that British armed forces might need to be used against an aggressor, people such as Stafford Cripps opposed it. In defending the document, Clem Attlee said that, in the light of what was happening in the world, the party could not wash its hands of its responsibilities. So too today.
      4.22 pm
      Rev. Martin Smyth: It is a privilege to follow the hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston), who gave us a balanced argument.
      224
      Earlier, the argument seemed to be over whether there is any justification for war and, specifically, for pre-emptive strikes. In a moment of cynicism, I might say that the only time that war can really be justified is if it is successful. In such situations, the winner takes all. One has only to consider a situation such as that with China and Tibet. The world has kept very quiet about the mammoth Chinese takeover of little Tibet.
      People have spoken about humanitarian issues. We have gone into action in Europe but we have failed lamentably to deal with what we might call "black upon black" issues in Africa, where millions have perished with no world intervention—other than some humanitarian aid to put a little bandage on a deep sore.
      I wanted to speak because I have growing concerns. At the beginning, I supported the Government but I also made it plain that colleagues and friends in northern Iraq among the Kurdish people were concerned about what might happen when Saddam was set aside. We always have to think of the consequences before we start action. There may be unforeseen consequences. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) spoke about developments in Iran, saying that things had taken 25 years. It could take even longer than that. I could not help but think about how long it took us, as a kingdom, to come to a full sense of democracy.
      Wars were fought among different groups in Scotland, England and elsewhere to bring about democracy. The process took many, many years, so we should not expect the warlords of Afghanistan suddenly to settle down, be good boys and listen to a central Government when they might want to take over and govern by their own traditional methods. Sometimes, we need patience and understanding.
      We are debating a very good report on international terrorism prepared by the Foreign Affairs Committee and we have spent a lot of time discussing Iraq. It was interesting to hear Labour Members give illustrations based on Northern Ireland. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) is no longer in his place. He asked whether the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) accepted that the shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland was justified, which implies that there was such a policy. That has been alleged over the years, but I recall my father, who was a sharpshooter during the first and second world wars, asking me, "How are they training the British Army these days?" I said, "Why, dad? What's gone wrong?" He said, "It's been reported that they were fired at and returned fire, but claimed no hits".
      When we talk about a shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland, we do a disservice to the men and women of our armed services and of the police, who conducted themselves tremendously well and made sacrifices to protect culprits. In that context, I recall a person who undertook security duties with me. He had formerly been a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment and had actually saved the life of Gerry Adams.
      Donald Anderson: There is another possible parallel with the situation in Northern Ireland. For example, if the hon. Gentleman and I were asked whether the IRA still retained Semtex, we should probably agree that it

      225
      does, but if someone asked where the Semtex was, we would not know. The same argument could be used about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: Recently, at business questions, I asked whether a Foreign Office Minister could answer questions about the international impact of terrorism in Northern Ireland. The answer that I received from the Leader of the House was surprising, although it did admit that there was an international aspect. He said:

      "internal terrorism in Northern Ireland is not an international matter but is firmly one for the United Kingdom Government to pursue as a domestic issue."—[Official Report, 6 March 2003; Vol. 400, c. 966.]
      The fallacy is that we can pick and choose when dealing with international terrorism; we fail to recognise that, by neglecting the international aspect and branding terrorism in Northern Ireland as merely a domestic issue, accusations of double standards can arise.
      To answer the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson), the authorities have a fair idea where the weapons are. The papers are full of it. Republican sources admit that many of the weapons are hidden around Monaghan and Cavan. On the international connection, tonnes of weapons came in from Libya, which was especially due to our nation's identification with the United States in its bombing missions against Libya. As a result, both in England and in Northern Ireland we suffered because of weapons from Libya.
      I repeat a question that has been asked previously. What contacts have Her Majesty's Government made with the Dublin Government to ensure that the hiding places in Munster are put out of action? Their existence is contrary to the Dublin Government's obligations to their own people because, according to the laws of the Irish Republic, there can be only one standing army and weapons should not belong to others.
      Mr. Savidge: On the hon. Gentleman's subject of double standards, does he see a contrast between what is accepted as decommissioning in Northern Ireland and what is accepted as co-operation with decommissioning in Iraq?
      Rev. Martin Smyth: I do see a double standard. In Iraq, the Government want weapons to be decommissioned, handed over and destroyed; in Ireland, particularly Northern Ireland, they have placated terrorism by providing places in Government without seeing the decommissioning taking place. There is even speculation from the pen of one of leading apologists for the IRA, Danny Morrison, suggesting that we are not likely to see much going on in the next few weeks. So there is a double standard in which our American cousins have been involved. They have said that Iraq continues to purchase and procure arms; we have been party, even in the Florida situation, to acknowledging that the IRA was rearming with modern weapons while it was supposed to be decommissioning.
      We speak of the international impact, but to suggest that the IRA had no international context is to live in cloud cuckoo land, when it has held courses in Dublin,
      226
      Belfast and elsewhere, as well as internationally with ETA, the Palestinian Liberation Front and others. I must confess that, at times, the FBI does not seem to know who people are, as was shown by the recent case in South Africa. The FBI identified a person from Iraq who was moving into the FARC area, and the Colombian authorities did not arrest him, but exiled him to Ecuador.
      When we speak of the international connection, we must face the fact that the bombings that have caused tremendous havoc in Israel and Colombia have all the hallmarks of the terrorist school of car bombings perpetrated by the IRA. Although it did not provide suicide bombers, it tied people to a lorry and compelled them to drive and blow themselves up in a bombing escapade.
      Leaving aside Northern Ireland for a moment, I wish to raise an issue to which the Minister rightly referred: the attempt to say that this is a campaign between the west and Islam. The reality is that Iraq is technically not an Islamic country. Yes, Islamic people live there and some of them, especially Marsh Arabs, have suffered at the hands of Saddam's regime. However, his regime is not Islamic; it is a reactionary socialistic regime, perhaps more in the style of Nazi Germany than what we would call modern socialism.
      When we think of the religious context, we should bear it in mind that the Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister, a former Foreign Minister, comes from one of the Christian community groups in Iraq, so we must send the very clear message that this is not a campaign by the west against the Muslim community because the Islamic community, which has another axe to grind through al-Qaeda, are taking out Hindus, moderate Muslims, Buddhists and Jews, as well as Christians. One of the messages that we should send out from the Chamber today is that some of the emotional, superficial arguments against taking action against Iraq should be re-examined.
      I never rise to speak in the House without seeing Airey Neave's coat of arms and realising that, in my judgment, the IRA declared war on our people and the nation and that one of my predecessors was murdered by the IRA as he was serving his people. Other Members have been put to death by the IRA terrorists, but their coats of arms are not here to give them a place of honour in serving their country and their people.
      I can understand the emotion, but there is something naive about a person who says to the Prime Minister, "We do not want to see another Bali bombing." Turning one's back from al-Qaeda and allowing despotism to reign in Iraq will not save us from further bombings. It will only encourage people. Tragically, there are those of us in Northern Ireland who believe that, by paying off the terrorists and acceding to their demands, we have encouraged international terrorists to keep at it. If they play by the rule of law—this was the point of the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis)—they lose. I ask the Minister to consider the implications of international terrorism continuing even after Iraq.
      4.36 pm
      Mr. David Chaytor: I congratulate the Chairman and all the members of the Foreign Affairs Committee on producing such an excellent report.

      227
      I endorse and identify myself closely with the views and sentiments expressed by several of my hon. Friends, especially those of my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge), for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) and for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden). I also recognise the enormous difficulty faced by the Government, and especially by the Prime Minister, and the great skill with which the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and his team have pursued their course of action over the past few months, particularly in the way that they have brought the United States within the United Nations framework.
      Although the report is about all aspects of terrorism, I want to speak specifically about Iraq, as I have not yet had the opportunity to do so during the past five or six months. I fully supported the use of force in the Gulf war in 1990, in the Balkans in the mid-1990s, and, later, in Afghanistan, and am completely prepared to support the use of force to deal with the problem of Iraq—in the right circumstances, at the right time, and with the right authorisation. At the moment, none of those three conditions applies, which is why I have serious reservations about the course of action that seems likely to be pursued in the very near future by the United States and possibly the United Kingdom forces. That is also why the overwhelming majority of my constituents and the British people share those views and that scepticism.
      After the awful events of 11 September, I visited my friends in New York and saw the devastation that had been wrought by the terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre. In the last week of January 2002, I visited my American friends again, this time in Washington DC, during the week in which President Bush made his state of the union speech. On the evening of the state of the union speech, I was on Capitol Hill as a guest of the American embassy, along with a small number of colleagues from the House and a small number of Canadian MPs, and we watched the President's motorcade drive up to Congress. We enjoyed the hospitality of the Canadians, and we watched the speech on large-screen television—I mean extremely-large-screen television. Having watched that speech, there was no doubt in the minds of anybody—the British delegation, the Canadian parliamentarians present or any American politician or citizen—that the axis of evil speech amounted to a commitment there and then to regime change and to a declaration of war, and, implicitly, that it recognised a timetable for that war, as the timetable had to be completed before the start of the 2004 election season, which I judge to be autumn this year. This is the difficulty that we all face. Whatever our Government have done with the very best of intentions over the past few months has been constrained by the fact that the United States effectively announced the decision to attack Iraq in the state of the union speech in the last week of January 2002.
      I mentioned my visit to New York after the attack on the World Trade Centre, because the link between that act of terrorism and the multifaceted problem presented by the Iraqi regime has determined the terms of the debate over the past few months. It also explains why our Government have not been able to convince a majority of the British people that unilateral action against Iraq is justified. I shall focus on why I believe that the majority of the British people and the majority
      228
      of my constituents do not believe at the moment—this may change—that unilateral action by bombing Iraq to deal with terrorism is justified.
      We must understand that the electorate in Britain and western Europe are probably more sophisticated than at any time in our history. They certainly have far greater access to a wide range of information about world affairs than ever before, including the previous Gulf war in 1990. We have ignored the impact of the growth and accessibility of satellite television. It enables western electorates to gain a perspective that previously had been held only by people in other parts of the world. We have also ignored the impact of the internet, and we have done so at our peril.
      The speed and comprehensiveness of the new communications technologies mean that citizens in all countries can instantly gain access to original source material—speeches, documents and research papers—that were previously the preserve of Governments and their propagandists. One of the difficulties that the Government have faced over the past few months has resulted from their use of material to justify their actions. That material has immediately and rightly been challenged by leading opinion formers throughout the United Kingdom. I shall return to that point later.
      The lack of clarity about the precise objectives of the military action has also been our downfall. The Americans clearly want regime change, but UN resolution 1441 speaks solely and entirely about the need for disarmament. It does not authorise regime change. In fact, a succession of UN resolutions seem implicitly to reject regime change as they lay the conditions for the future inspections that will continue after the disarmament process has been completed. There has been confusion about whether the objective is eliminating weapons of mass destruction, bringing an end to international terrorism, liberating the Kurds, human rights, or simply removing the leader of a regime without whom everyone agrees the world would be a far better place.
      On the basis of a series of flawed statements and dubious evidence that has been provided by our Government and by the US Government, the public have concluded that, at this stage, war in Iraq will not solve the problem of terrorism. In fact, it is far more likely to exacerbate the problem, encourage the growth of new terrorist movements and inspire a whole generation of unskilled, uneducated and unemployed young men from throughout the middle east to be attracted by the possibility of taking up arms against the west.
      That is a dangerous course of action.
      The Government have not succeeded in persuading the electorate of the solidity of their case, but there are ways of doing that. Apart from underestimating the growth and importance of satellite television, the internet and the better-informed electorate, we have also underestimated the extent to which electorates defer to authority figures. The growth in scepticism—justifiable, in my view—about leadership figures and authority means that people are more prepared to question what they are told.
      The American Secretary of State told us about satellite images that reveal attempts by the Iraqi regime to disguise and conceal installations related to weapons

      229
      of mass destruction, but that was almost immediately countered by Dr. Blix in his statement to the Security Council. In such circumstances, the case presented by the United States crumbled. Equally, the dossier presented to the House last autumn by our Government emphasised the acquisition by the Iraqi regime of aluminium tubes, but Dr. el-Baradei countered that in his report last Friday. He said that there is no evidence that the tubes were acquired by Iraq for the purpose of uranium enrichment, and that increases public scepticism.
      There is however a way for the Government to persuade the majority of British people that military action may ultimately be necessary. We must almost forget what has happened and the tactics that have been used over the past few months. We all know that truth is the first casualty in war, and in the war against terrorism it has been an early casualty. We need to focus entirely on the process that has been set in place. Much has been made of the phrase in resolution 1441 about the "final" opportunity. We should dwell on what constituted the final opportunity. It was clearly not the passing of 1441, because otherwise military action would have started the day or week after that. Resolution 1441 merely authorised the process that is taking place.
      It is clear in earlier reports by Dr. Blix and Dr. el-Baradei that they saw the final opportunity as the beginning of a substantial and detailed process. Any hon. Member can get a copy of their reports off the internet. Many millions of our citizens can download such documents and read them for themselves. They are not inaccessible or difficult to read. In the reports of 27 January and 14 February, Dr. Blix in particular referred to his plans, which implied that there would be weeks and weeks of inspections. He referred to opening a new office in Basra, which clearly had not been completed by 14 February, to the help that the New Zealand and German Governments were giving, and to the new supplies and specialist equipment that were due to arrive in the near future. Dr. Blix recently published his substantial 173-page document, authorised by a resolution in 1999, which sets out the process to be pursued to pick up and deal with the remaining issues.
      In my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's statement to the House on Monday, he referred to the 173-page document. He said that he had read it. I took up the challenge and got my copy from the Library. Although I did not read all 173 pages, I had a good look through it. It is clear that Dr. Blix sees it as a summary of the existing position. There is an interesting and informed statement on the unanswered questions, but the report is the beginning of a further process to deal with those. His report to the Security Council last Friday used the same terms. He said:
      "While cooperation can and is to be immediate"—
      and everyone must agree with that—
      "disarmament and at any rate the verification of it cannot be instant … It would not take years, nor weeks, but months … it must be remembered that in accordance with the governing resolutions, a sustained inspection and monitoring system is to
      230
      remain in place after verified disarmament to give confidence and to strike an alarm, if signs were seen of the revival of any proscribed weapons programmes."
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: My hon. Friend is ignoring the fact that the requirement for the inspectors to carry out their task is that Saddam Hussein should immediately provide a full and complete declaration of all his weapons of mass destruction, and he has simply failed to do that. My hon. Friend is assuming that Dr. Blix, by providing the report, is suggesting that the declaration is unnecessary. That is not my understanding of the report; Dr. Blix wants compliance with resolution 1441, as does the Security Council, and that requires a full declaration to be made now.
      Mr. Chaytor: With respect to my hon. Friend, I am not ignoring that. Indeed, it is self-evident that Iraq has not yet fully complied. The issue is whether a declaration of war at this stage is a proportionate, effective response to that lack of compliance or whether the existing bureaucratic procedure authorised by the UN would be more effective.
      Mr. O'Brien: That is not the issue. The issue is compliance with resolution 1441. My hon. Friend is suggesting that the resolution does not have to be complied with. He ignores the fact that it requires an immediate declaration. Will he deal with that part of the argument? Without that declaration, Dr. Blix is obliged to act like a detective looking for clues as to where the stuff is buried, rather than auditing a declaration, which is the job that the Security Council gave him.
      Mr. Chaytor: The Minister is trying to make me an apologist for Saddam Hussein's regime, and I shall resist that. I am trying to argue the case for the most effective way of dealing with the problem that the regime presents to the international community. That is the only point that I am making.
      Without question, the declaration required by resolution 1441 has been made, but it is inadequate. The issue is whether the response by the international community to the inadequacy of the declaration is immediately to take military action or whether it uses other, long-established means to secure a fuller declaration from Iraq. I do not know whether the fuller, accurate declaration can be obtained in the next few days or weeks. All I am saying is that we ought to give Iraq the opportunity to make that full declaration before taking action of last resort, which would be military action.
      Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for indulging me by giving way again. Does he not understand that the nub of his argument is that Saddam Hussein does not have to comply with the requirement to make an immediate and full declaration? We are saying that Saddam Hussein has to comply with resolution 1441, but my hon. Friend appears to be saying that if he does not want to comply by providing that full declaration, we should find a different, bureaucratic way for the UN to stave off the requirement for him to do so. My hon. Friend is trying his best to put together an argument, but it simply does not add up unless we invalidate resolution 1441.
      Mr. Chaytor: I am not saying that we should try a different, bureaucratic way; I am saying that we should

      231
      persist with the process that we have already established. In the Foreign Secretary's statement on Monday, shortly after he accepted, rather reluctantly I thought, the evidence in Dr. el-Baradei's report that the Iraqi nuclear weapons programme had been terminated in 1998 as a result of the inspection regime from 1991 to 1998, he argued that it was useless to continue with inspections because the inspection regime had no effect. There is a contradiction there, because we know that the work done by the inspectors between 1991 and 1998 had some effect, although obviously not the total desired effect. We also know that the work done by the inspectors in the past few weeks has had some effect—
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order.
      4.54 pm
      Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I express my appreciation of today's debate and the report produced by the Select Committee. The subject that we are debating today was last debated in Westminster Hall on 31 October, when I made it clear on behalf of Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party that the Government had not begun to make a case for military action against Iraq. That debate followed the publication of the first dodgy dossier, an entirely unpersuasive document if ever there was one, of dubious veracity and authorship. It was followed by a second dossier that has been largely discredited.
      Plaid Cymru and the SNP continue to believe that the case for war against Iraq has not been made, and have been utterly consistent in that belief since talk of action began. Contrast that with the Government's action after 9/11, and the first scenario that they supported of war on terrorism. War on terrorism is a misnomer, as war cannot be declared on a concept. However, as some of us pointed out at the time, the wording was intentional, as we were meant to believe that war was inevitable. The initial targets were bin Laden and al-Qaeda, but bin Laden could not be found, so it became necessary to find a causal link between al-Qaeda and Iraq. The Prime Minister is on the record as saying in November 2001 that unless a clear and unambiguous link between al-Qaeda and Iraq was found, there would be no justification for action against Iraq. Needless to say, that is not the current position.
      It is little wonder that no link has been found, as al-Qaeda has more than once attempted to assassinate Saddam Hussein. Little by little, the ground has shifted, and the hunt for a link between al-Qaeda was, we believe, put on the backburner. A second scenario was then created—regime change, which has been referred to today on several occasions. It is a novel concept in international law and involves the right to take precipitative military action to enforce regime change, pure and simple. A similar form of de facto action was taken in Afghanistan, but the result there could not be described as encouraging. Someone, somewhere could have disabused the United States and the Government of the notion that it was encouraging, but that seems to have gone out of the window.
      In the next linked scenario there was a so-called moral case against Iraq because of Saddam Hussein's behaviour towards his people. I fully accept that the man is an evil dictator and that his treatment of his own
      232
      people, the Marsh Arabs and the Kurds, within the borders of Iraq is deplorable. No sane person could ever try to defend that action or mount an apology on Saddam's behalf. However, the very people who have been harmed by Saddam have, in the past 10 years, been harmed by the joint sanctions that the Government have helped to impose, so double standards are operating.
      Another scenario followed—Saddam is in breach of resolution 1441, so immediate military action can be taken. As we know, Dr. Blix has reported on several occasions that definite progress is being made. I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), and the Minister's attempts to try to get him to say that he is calling for nothing to be done. That was far from the truth—no sane person would be saying that.
      Recently, missiles have been destroyed and, at this juncture, we should remember that 90 per cent. of Saddam's armaments were, in fact, destroyed in 1992. Let us also remind ourselves that the apparent policy of containment has ipso facto succeeded since then. In any event, the weapons inspectors say that Saddam is co-operating at the moment and are asking for more time.
      Who is to be the judge of whether Saddam is co-operating? Clearly it is the Security Council, on the advice of the weapons inspectors. President Bush and the Prime Minister seem to think that they are in charge, and that it is their decision. That is very dangerous. The Prime Minister moved from a position of confirming that a second UN resolution was necessary, to saying that it would merely be preferable. Now, apparently, it would simply be as well if one were possible. On "Newsnight" on 6 February, the Prime Minister said that the only circumstances in which force would be used without a further UN resolution would be if the inspectors concluded that they could no longer do their work, and if a further resolution were passed by a majority of the Security Council but was subject to an "unreasonable" veto by a single country. Will the Minister tell the House whether that is currently the Government's position? There has been a considerable amount of vacillation between one justification and another all along the line.
      The fourth scenario put forward by the proponents of military action and their apologists is that, having failed to find a link with al-Qaeda or a trigger in resolution 1441, there is always the inherent right to self-defence under article 51 of the United Nations charter. I submit that that is a preposterous argument, coming as it does at the very end of all other discussions. It does not stand up to legal scrutiny. There has to be a real, palpable, urgent threat to the UK or an ally for that provision to come into play. To come to rely on it at this late stage is nonsense, for obvious reasons. However, it forms another part of the Government's vacillations on this matter. It seems strange that Iraq is currently perceived as a threat to the United States when it has 10 per cent. of the military strength that it had in 1990 before the Gulf war, and has lost 90 per cent. of its armaments since then.
      It is indeed ironic that a Government reared on the power of spin cannot give a clear and credible message on this exceedingly important issue. Let us consider the mixed messages sent out by the botched second dossier borrowed from a research student and dressed up as intelligence material, and the different emphases on the

      233
      second resolution over the past few months. Let us contrast that with the anti-war view, which I am proud to say that my party and the SNP share. For the past six months or so, we have consistently said that resolution 1441 does not contain a trigger for military action. I would go further and say that it is nothing short of disingenuous for the Government to allege that it does, when everyone knows that the compromise words "serious consequences" were negotiated into the resolution at the behest of China, France and Russia as a price for their support. Those words were never meant to be an automatic trigger for the right to engage in military action, and there is really no point in arguing that they were. The words "all necessary means" have been taken to mean that in the past, but they are clearly absent from resolution 1441. I have put forward this argument in the House on at least two previous occasions, and I believe that it is right to argue it again. I have been greatly assisted by the opinion fone Of the experts in the field, Rabinder Singh, QC.
      The Minister, who entered the House at the same time as I did, is a lawyer. He was careful to say at the beginning of this debate that if two lawyers are put together in a room there will be an argument. He has jumped up and down about 30 times this afternoon whenever anyone on his side had anything critical to say about the Government. He is obviously still a lawyer.
      Reference has been made to the letter in The Guardian, and to the eminent international jurists.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: The hon. Gentleman has made the case that the words "serious consequences" do not, in his view, justify resorting to military action. Will he share with the House what he believes the words to mean? I, for one, would be interested to know. He suggested that some kind of negotiation had gone on behind the scenes, but, even so, those words were used. What do they mean?
      Mr. Llwyd: They mean that a further resolution would come before the Security Council, and that that resolution would give an automatic, clear indication of military action. That is not my view; it is the view of the international panel of jurists. Any one who reflects on it will see that it is common sense.
      Much has been made of the opinion of those foremost jurists from Oxford, Cambridge and London, and the eminent gentleman from Paris, that there is no right to take action under 1441. Professor Robert Black of Edinburgh expressed a similar view recently in The Times, where he dissected the words "serious consequences", arguing that the term was
      "not synonymous with, or a warrant for the use of, armed force",
      and contrasting it with the received meaning of "all necessary means". The argument has been advanced for many months; I make the point again in response to the hon. Gentleman.
      Those of us who oppose a military strike on Iraq have an advantage over the Government: we have consistency on our side, as well as growing support. The closer we are to a possible strike on Iraq, the greater the public concern in the United Kingdom and beyond, and rightly so. I hope that the Prime Minister takes note of
      234
      the fact that Mr. Bush senior has intervened to make it plain to his son, President Bush, that the UN road is the only way forward. If Mr. Bush senior can see that, why cannot the Prime Minister?
      If a second UN resolution that clearly and unequivocally specifies military action is not obtained, the Prime Minister and the Government will be acting illegally, and that will be the first stage in the destruction of the United Nations. There are those who say that because 30,000 of our brave troops are already out there, action is inevitable, but that is not the case. I, for one, would applaud and respect the Prime Minister if he decided to keep our troops there for humanitarian purposes only, in the event of a unilateral strike on Iraq.
      Even at this eleventh hour, I hope that conflict can be avoided. We know who will suffer if it takes place. Elizabeth Byr, the Geneva spokesperson for the UN humanitarian effort, said that an updated appeal for $120 million had been made in February, and so far $30 million had been received. The result of conflict can be seen outside the Kurdish town of Soran—no tents, no sanitation, just a vast muddy plain beneath a freezing, snow-capped mountain. That is the terrain that will be occupied by the 2 million Iraqis who will be made homeless by military action.
      The United Nations is concerned about the oil-for-food programme. About 16 million people, or 60 per cent. of the Iraqi population, depend on it. We in this place frequently discuss humanitarian aid—properly so. We recently heard the views of one member of the Cabinet who is not unconnected with that subject, whose opinion and whose work I greatly respect. If this illegal and immoral war occurs, the Government will be jointly creating a humanitarian disaster and committing a disgraceful act. Even at the eleventh hour, I hope that wise counsel will prevail and that the Government will draw back from what could be the most shameful hour in the history of this Parliament.
      5.9 pm
      Mr. David Chidgey: The debate has been thoughtful, sometimes challenging, and at times a little bizarre, but in general it has reflected the wide cross-section of opinion in the House on the grave issue set out in our Foreign Affairs Committee report. I am very proud to have been a member of the Committee and to have helped to produce that report. In particular, I should like to refer to the contributions of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden). who made a telling speech, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge), who made a challenging speech, and my colleague on the Committee, the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), who said in the early stages of this debate—it seems some hours ago; indeed, it probably was—that the real crisis was the imminence of the invasion of Iraq. He also said that that was being accelerated by the fact that, to use his words, Iraq was being pressed to prove a negatxive.
      I think that I am making a valid point in saying that it appears to me and many colleagues that the United States sees Iraq and the war against terrorism as synonymous. It is revealing that opinion polls conducted at the beginning of the week in the United States showed that most Americans believed that the

      235
      terrorists who attacked the World Trade Centre were Iraqis. As we all know, not a single Iraqi was involved. Before anybody gets the impression that I am having a pop at our American cousins, let me say that I am sure that we would get the same result if a similar opinion poll were held in this country.
      Members of the Foreign Affairs Committee were fortunate in having many valuable and expert resources available to us. They allowed us to gain an insight into the thinking of the political establishments on both sides of the Atlantic. I want to concentrate my remarks on the conclusions of the report in connection with disarming Iraq. Followers of the report will know that I refer to paragraphs (p), (q), (r) and (s). I shall not repeat those conclusions, which deal with the need for our Government to work closely with the US to produce a strong and unanimous United Nations resolution. That was written in December; oh how hopeful things seemed then. The report also concluded that the difficulties facing the weapons inspectors were formidable. Of course, that has proved to be precisely the case.
      In particular, I want to address how disarming Iraq appears to have come about as an issue because President Bush designated it as a member of the axis of evil. We all remember from that famous speech that the axis includes North Korea, Iran and Iraq, but the question that I want to test is why those three countries were chosen. Many other nations could be added to the list of potential rogue states and harbourers and supporters of terrorism. As the report says,
      "there is no compelling evidence linking the Iraqi regime to al Qaeda."
      We know that there has been some evidence of involvement with middle eastern terrorism in Iran, but I am not aware of any such evidence concerning North Korea. Why are those three countries linked together as the axis of evil? Other countries have supported terrorism in the past and may still be doing so. Hon. Members have mentioned in other debates the training by Libya of terrorists who have been active in Northern Ireland. We know for a fact that there has been an amazing amount of fundraising in Saudi Arabia—I am not suggesting that it is Government-inspired—to support al-Qaeda, but we are not suggesting that that country is part of an axis of evil. Why have Iraq, Iran and North Korea been put together by President Bush as an axis of evil?
      I believe that the key link between those three countries is their involvement and interest in the development of weapons of mass destruction. We are well aware that, as has been mentioned, North Korea is now flaunting its emerging arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. We also know from evidence to our Committee that Iran has developed its civilian nuclear programme to the point where it will have the option of creating nuclear weapons at short notice. The history of Saddam Hussein in Iraq is well known. His well-documented desire to possess nuclear weapons as soon as possible remains.
      The common factor in President Bush's axis of evil is the desire to secure, pursue or possess weapons of mass destruction—nuclear, biological or chemical—and thereby pose a threat to the ability of the United States
      236
      to defend its interests. The evidence of Dr. Stephen Pullinger, director of the International Security Information Service, is tucked deep in the report in appendix 9. Paragraph 21 of evidence 80 states:
      "The US does not want a nuclear-armed Iraq to use its military muscle to acquire control over a vast portion of the world's oil reserves and then to hold the world to ransom through threat of nuclear or biological use if anyone tries to reverse Iraqi conquests. Under this scenario it would be the rest of the world, including the US, that would be deterred from acting."
      Paragraph 23 states:
      "Yet, it is beyond peradventure that Iraq's possession of WMD, especially if capable of reaching major European targets and beyond, would at the very least destabilise the region and prove a constant source of political and economic uncertainty."
      The United States' future inability to defend its interests not only in the middle east but throughout the world is the crux of the matter.
      The current position arose after 11 September when it became clear that the United States was alarmed by the threat of acts of terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to its ability to defend its interests at home and overseas. The greatest perceived threat to US foreign policy was the capability of rogue states that possessed weapons of mass destruction to provide an effective deterrent to the prosecution of US policy.
      A good example has been mentioned in previous debates. Immediately after the Gulf war, one brave journalist interviewed Saddam Hussein and had the courage to ask whether he believed that he had made any mistakes in invading Kuwait. The journalist lived to tell the tale. The answer was that Saddam Hussein had made the mistake of not waiting until he had weapons of mass destruction—nuclear weapons—before invading.
      Evidence from the International Institute for Strategic Studies was interesting. It suggested that had Saddam possessed nuclear weapons before invading Kuwait, there would have been no Gulf war. Iraq would not have been invaded to restore the statehood of Kuwait, which would remain an Iraqi enclave. For the United States, the axis of evil is shorthand for an axis that is capable of thwarting the Americans' policy of defending their interests throughout the world.
      I am not going off on an anti-American tangent. I merely try to draw hon. Members' attention to what lies behind American foreign affairs policy and has led to our current position.
      Mr. Hugo Swire: The hon. Gentleman talks about the destabilising effect of American interests in the middle east, but is not Saddam's continuing presence a destabilising factor in a possible middle east peace process? We know that his ambitions in the first Gulf war extended far beyond Kuwait to Saudi Arabia and other countries. His presence was destabilising then and remains so.
      Mr. Chidgey: I accept the hon. Gentleman's comments. I am not presenting a case for no action; I am trying to understand why we are in a position whereby America leans heavily towards overrunning Iraq.

      237
      I am trying to get the message across—to convey why we are where we are. I am not saying that Saddam Hussein is not a huge threat to the stability of the region, but it is the effect on America's foreign policy interests that has put us in our current position.
      Mr. Swire rose—
      Mr. Chidgey: I want to make progress, as time is limited.
      We are talking about extending the concept of an axis of evil to that of an axis of capability to deter the United States from acting to maintain its interests. That capability has been confirmed by intelligence sources. Furthermore, given Iraq's capability to do that—as a member of the axis of evil—we must ask whether it has the intent. Intelligence sources can identify its capability, but it is for politicians and diplomats to decide whether there is the intent. In that context there is a lack of mature reflection and ability among those who advise our Governments, particularly the counsellors of the Government on the other side of the Atlantic.
      In the axis of evil, only Iraq has demonstrated a willingness to use weapons of mass destruction. Iran and North Korea have yet to join that category: as the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) said, it is Iraq that has established that willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, against its neighbours and against its own citizens.
      That brings me to the nub of the issue. We know that Iraq has the capability; we know that it has demonstrated the intent. It poses a threat to American interests, and America is clearly not prepared to accept that. Moreover, the United Nations clearly cannot accept the continued flouting of resolutions requiring Iraq to disarm. The inspection regime is in place with the task of verifying Iraq's compliance with resolution 1441, but how can that compliance be verified? Who will confirm it? What constitutes a full declaration?
      Yesterday the Foreign Secretary said that he profoundly hoped that the Iraqi regime would, even at this late stage, seize its chance to disarm peacefully. When I raised the issue of measuring compliance, however, the Minister's reply seemed to rely on a checklist prepared by Dr. Blix—a dossier consisting of a cluster of issues.
      Let us take one example of a weapon of mass destruction. Dr. Blix says that 10,000 litres of anthrax may be unaccounted for. Is that since 1998? Would the amount be added to by estimates of production since 1998? How can the inspectors verify compliance? We already know that we would never have found chemical weapons in the first place if one of Saddam's sons-in-law had not defected to the west to tell us where they were.
      As evidence given to the Committee shows, it is not possible for inspectors to find substantial amounts of biological weapons. What, indeed, do we mean by substantial amounts? According to Dr. Blix, 1,000 litres is a substantial amount. That is one tenth of the known stocks, let alone what may have been produced later. Just one litre of anthrax is enough to kill thousands of people.
      The Minister has argued many times that Saddam has demonstrated his intent to use weapons of mass destruction. The inspectors are unable to find them,
      238
      certainly in the case of biological weapons. It is virtually impossible to ensure that Saddam will comply with resolution 1441. The logical extension of that, in terms of American foreign policy, must be that if America is to achieve its policy aim of protecting its interests in the middle east, it is unlikely to believe for a minute that it can rely on the UN inspectors. America will not even rely on an invasion, because even that will not discover the weapons. It is clear to me that the United States will rely, in its interests, on regime change. That is the only logical conclusion. The challenge for this Parliament, and for our Government, is to use every effort to deflect the United States from pursuing that draconian measure. If we do not do that, we will lose the struggle between conflict and diplomacy, the struggle between international law and the power of a single massive state, and the struggle for the survival of the United Nations.
      5.25 pm
      Mr. Fabian Hamilton: I commend the many Members who have said their piece about the war against terror and commented on the Foreign Affairs Committee's report on the foreign policy aspects of that war. Many have referred to the current crisis in Iraq, to what the United Nations, the USA and Great Britain are trying to do, and especially, of course, to the imminent threat of war in that country. I simply want to add my few words, and express my deep concern not by saying that Saddam Hussein is not evil or does not possess weapons of mass destruction, nor by saying that Iraq itself is not a huge threat to regional, and even world, stability and peace but rather by arguing that, as the amendment to the Government motion a fortnight ago stated, the case for military action has not yet been made. That is not to say that the case will not, or may not, be made but it has yet to be made, and I voted for that amendment accordingly, along with many colleagues and other Members of this House.
      The press has often portrayed this so-called rebellion as anti-Blair or anti-Government, but that is wrong. Many of us support the strength and conviction that the Prime Minister has shown in trying to fight for the United Nations to resolve this crisis. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) said so clearly, we are concerned about rushing to military action when there could be unforeseen consequences.
      One scenario that I have been describing for the past few weeks is this. Let us imagine that, with his back against the wall, Saddam Hussein fires missiles at Tel Aviv, as he did in 1991, with the sole intention of getting Israel embroiled in the conflict—only this time, they are armed not with explosive-tipped warheads, but with chemical, biological or even nuclear warheads. What happens then? Does Ariel Sharon react in the same way that his predecessor Yitzhak Shamir reacted, under strong influence from the United States, and take no action at all? Alternatively, does he take what is in my view the much more likely action of firing equally destructive weapons back at Iraq, producing a conflagration that the United States and the allied forces advancing into Iraq did not intend and cannot control? That is one of my big fears, and it is shared by many of my constituents: the unpredictability of military action

      239
      once it starts. One cannot know how even the best plan in the world will unfold, even if one is the greatest military nation on earth, as the United States is.
      Mr. Eric Joyce: Does my hon. Friend recognise that, according to his hypothesis, he accepts that Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction that he is capable of deploying?
      Mr. Hamilton: Indeed. I and many of my colleagues who voted for the amendment believe that those weapons are there; our problem is the yawning gap between what the Government are saying about the need to disarm Saddam Hussein and Iraq immediately, and the public's belief that, although Saddam may well be a threat, they should be shown the evidence. Hans Blix has yet to come up with that smoking gun. I have received correspondence from many hundreds of constituents ranging right across the spectrum of beliefs—as hon. Members know, I represent many different communities—and the overwhelming view has been, "Show us the evidence of chemical, biological or nuclear warheads and yes, we will go along with you, even if it does mean military action."
      People want one other thing—I know that the Prime Minister and the whole Government are working very hard to achieve it—and that is a second resolution of the Security Council of the United Nations. In the end, the population of Great Britain—the constituents whom we represent—believe that this should be a United Nations action, with the world acting in concert to disarm a dangerous dictator, rather than the USA simply acting as the policeman of the world.
      Mr. Desmond Swayne: The hon. Gentleman expressed his fear that a missile tipped with a chemical weapon would be fired at Tel Aviv. If he is frightened by that possibility, why is he so reluctant to undertake measures that would remove it by disarming Saddam Hussein, even if the UN is unwilling to do so?
      Mr. Hamilton: The UN is willing to do so. It has inspectors in Iraq, but they have not found the evidence. Once they find that evidence, the opinion of many of the sceptical countries—even France and Russia—will change. If the evidence of weapons of mass destruction is clear, I am sure that all the Security Council nations will come on board. I am not reluctant to see Saddam disarmed, but there is a gap between public opinion—in my constituency and the rest of the country—and what the Government are doing.
      Lady Hermon: I apologise for not being in my place earlier, but I had other commitments. I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind the experience in the Republic of Ireland. In the mid-1980s, one shipload of tonnes of armaments was intercepted on its way into Ireland. It was known that three other shipments had already reached Ireland from Gaddafi and the Republic of Ireland was closed down for five days or so while the Irish army and the Garda swept the island. They did not find the weapons because there were too many places to hide them. Ireland is small and Iraq is huge. The inability to find the weapons should not be used as an excuse for not going to war and disarming Iraq.
      Mr. Hamilton: I hear what the hon. Lady says, but we should look not for excuses to go to war, but excuses not
      240
      to go to war. We have to remember the violence that war inflicts on the innocent. If war were a case of taking out Saddam Hussein cleanly and destroying his Government and weapons of mass destruction, I would be in favour. But it would not work like that. In a war, the innocent die and therefore before we embark on that course of action we must be sure that we have explored every avenue to try to avoid it.
      Patrick Mercer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Hamilton: I must make some progress. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
      The report also discusses the situation in the middle east with Israel and Palestine. We quote the views of Richard Haass, the director of policy planning in the US State Department. His bookcases were so full of books that I had to ask him if had read every single one and was impressed—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson), the Chairman of the Committee will recall—when he said that he had read them all, and many more. He has wide knowledge, reading and understanding and he says:
      "No one should confuse promoting democracy with holding parliamentary elections the next day—in which, yes, the Islamists would do well, because they're the only ones who are currently allowed to organise. Parliamentary elections are not the first step."
      Instead, Mr. Haass recommends several reforms that should precede elections, some of which are similar to those recommended in the Arab human development report. They include
      "educational reform, especially for girls; establishment of the rule of law; strengthening civil society; establishment of freedom of assembly and freedom of the press".
      In our debate some 11 months ago, I said that I am in an unenviable position in discussing Israel and Palestine because I represent about 10,000 Jews and 10,000 Muslims. I cannot win, whatever I say. That still applies, but the point is that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield said earlier, we have to pursue the course of peace between Israel and Palestine. That means the establishment of a state of Palestine. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), who is also a member of the Committee, suggested the Maples peace plan—if I can call it that—under which a peace solution might be imposed if the parties were unwilling to agree to discussions on peace and kept raising minor issues to try to stop the drive towards peace.
      That raises many unanswered questions. However, Amram Mitzna, the leader of the Israeli Labour party, met colleagues here in the House of Commons just before the Israeli general election. He failed disastrously to persuade the Israeli public to vote for him, but he came up with a similar approach. He used to be mayor of Haifa, a city where Arabs and Jews live side by side in peace—a model for what the region could be like. He said that if Arafat and the Palestinian Authority would not accept his proposals for a peace plan—and he advocated withdrawal of the settlements in the occupied territories—he would impose that plan on them.
      In many ways, it is tempting to go down that road. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will comment on the idea of an imposed solution. However, one can never impose a solution from outside unless one wins the hearts and minds of the people involved. That is my

      241
      deep worry. I pointed out at the time that we must ensure that a proper state of Palestine is established, with international co-operation and help. There must be a civil society, and all the reforms described by Richard Haass when we visited him.
      In last year's debate, I recounted what Jerusalem's Palestinian mayor, Ziad Abu Ziad, told me over lunch the last time that I visited his city on a Labour Friends of Israel trip. He said:
      "If you are truly Labour Friends of Israel, you must also be Labour Friends of Palestine. That means that you must support a Palestinian state, a true state that lives not back to back but face to face with Israel in peace."—[Official Report. 16 April 2002; Vol. 353, c. 507.]
      The only route for the people of that area is peace. It will come, eventually. As I said at the time, the only question concerns the number of people who will die in the meantime.
      I want to speak briefly about another topic discussed in the Committee—Iran, which is crucial to stability in the middle east. The Committee hopes to visit Iran later this year, and I hope that we will find out more about how it works and about the prospects for its transition from theocracy to secular democracy.
      Someone in the US State Department—I cannot remember who—told us when we visited last year that, in 10 years, Iran could be the west's greatest friend in the middle east. He said that we had to encourage the reformist elements centred on President Khatami and the reformist Majlis, or Parliament. We must encourage them to reform Iran and take the road to secular democracy. At present, 65 per cent. of Iran's population are under 25. They do not remember the 1979 revolution. They see the mullahs and the defenders of Islamic democracy as the conservative elements—I mean no slur on Conservative Members—in society, the ones who hold back economic reform.
      Iran's economy has suffered a huge decline since 1979. Its gross domestic product is some 30 per cent. lower than 24 years ago, when the revolution took place. That is unsustainable, and I am sure that—with encouragement from the west and, I hope, from our Government—the reformist elements in the powerful, cultured and historic nation of Iran will win through and push out the mullahs and the support for terror that has plagued Israel for the many years since the Islamic revolution. I want a genuine, secular democracy to be established in Iran, so that people can live in freedom, as Muslims, in a democratic country.
      5.39 pm
      Patrick Mercer: It is a pleasure to follow he hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Hamilton), and I will come back to his speech in a moment.
      There are two things that I regret very deeply. The first is that it seems that war is inevitable. Some might argue—and I strongly suspect that they are right that with the policy in the no-fly zones having gone from being strictly defensive to now being offensive, with holes being cut in the fence between Kuwait and the southern part of Iraq, and with rumours of an airfield at Ar'ar in Saudi Arabia being occupied by American
      242
      forces, making access to Baghdad very simple, that the first rounds in this war have been fired. I regret that. I support it, but I regret that it looks inevitable that we will take military action.
      The second thing that I regret is that troops from this country are being committed without the support of the Government firmly and unequivocally behind them. In the two campaigns in which I have taken part, I have always had the comforting feeling that, no matter what my enemies may have been up to, and no matter how much we may have been undermined by things such as a wholly nonsensical, so-called shoot-to-kill policy, I had the support of my Government. I knew that there were no divisive arguments in the Cabinet. I very much regret that the men and women of this country look as if they will get stuck into a war with public opinion divided and with no firm resolve from the Cabinet to back them up. I ask the Minister to note what happened to the American military effort in Vietnam. That effort was defeated not militarily but emotionally, by the lack of support of the American people and, ultimately, the lack of support of the American Government.
      I have found it hard to be persuaded by any of the arguments for going to war—except one. I will not rehearse all the arguments. I think that I recognised that war in Iraq was going to happen one day or another, but I saw no reason for imminent war, except for one particular point. The humanitarian argument is good but it is by no means unique. Also, there is the argument on the use of weapons of mass destruction, and I do not doubt that Saddam Hussein owns such weapons. However, until the weekend at least, I doubted that he had the means to deliver them and I doubted the need for imminent action. I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East to the fact that, at the weekend, the first undiscovered weapons programme that had not been declared to the United Nations came to light. We are told that it concerns a number of drone aircraft that can be fitted to deliver weapons of mass destruction. The Government Front Bench has been remarkably quiet about what some people call the smoking gun. I do not know, but it is interesting that so little has been made of that particular subject.
      The one thing that does convince me of the need for imminent action is the terrorist threat. If there is one thing that threatens this country and needs to be dealt with quickly, it is the ability of Baghdad and its associates to deliver a fatal, swingeing blow against this country. Interestingly, we have not heard anything tonight about terrorism, except about al-Qaeda. I want to quote from the report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and from the Government's response to it. The Committee said that
      "there is no compelling evidence linking the Iraqi regime to Al Qaeda."
      The Government's response was:
      "We have no evidence that Iraq was involved in the September 11 attacks. But there are links between Iraq and Al Qa'ida."
      Why have the Government not made more of what they say? Why have the Government been inconsistent? For insistence, Colin Powell talks not about al-Qaeda but about an organisation led by al-Zarqawi. In his presentation to the United Nations on 5 February, Colin Powell talked about al-Zarqawi travelling to

      243
      Baghdad in May 2002 and staying in the capital for months while he recuperated to fight another day. During his stay nearly two dozen extremists converged on the capital and established a base of operations there. Those al-Qaeda affiliates based in Baghdad now co-ordinate the movement of people, money and supplies into and throughout Iraq for his network. They have been operating in the capital for more than eight months.
      Colin Powell went on to point out that that organisation was behind the plots that so threatened north London a few weeks ago. Al-Zarqawi does not necessarily carry the flag of al-Qaeda, but he is a terrorist who has direct connections with Baghdad and if it were not for the work of our security services, he would have struck successfully at this country.
      People can rubbish what Colin Powell says; they can believe that his comments are a figment of the imagination if that is what they want to do. However, the fact remains that public opinion could be influenced if the Government made a compelling case—not the curious nonsense of the unconvincing dossier in which a student's information was used to try to persuade the public, but a convincing case that is not just touched on but stuck to throughout.
      I very much regret that the Government may end up by being convinced of the dangers of that terrorist organisation in the same way as the Australian Government were convinced: by a bomb in Bali that killed hundreds of their people. The Government should think carefully and be far more consistent in their case on terrorism. They should not be constantly hung up on al-Qaeda, but should look to the other organisations that threaten this country so very gravely.
      My next point relates to the Government's response to one of the Select Committee's report. The Government state:
      "Disarming Iraq removes the very real and catastrophic threat of international terrorists getting hold of weapons of mass destruction."
      That is wholly wrong. The situation in Iraq, if and when our troops properly go into action, will actually become more dangerous. We shall lay ourselves open to a host of terrorist organisations, operating both in this country and against our interests abroad.
      The Government have a duty to make it clear that, unless we do something about that threat, weapons of mass destruction will be handed, willy-nilly, to terrorists by a rogue state. If we take action now, we may be in a position to control what could be an extraordinarily difficult situation. We need look no further than the proliferation of fissile raw material that has come out of the former Soviet Union and consider how difficult that is to control. Let us not underestimate the threat that faces us. That is obviously an extremely good reason for not going to war at all, but I return to the fact that unless we take control and get a grip of the situation, it is likely to be wholly out of control rather than partially out of control.
      My last point relates to the Committee's conclusion that
      "the Government must continue to address with the utmost seriousness its obligation to keep the British public informed of developments in the war against terrorism".
      244
      My point to the Minister and to the Government is simple: let us not be mesmerised by that gentleman, bin Laden, or by the word "al-Qaeda", but let us see those people for what they are.
      This is not the first time that the British nation has been threatened by tyrants and bullies. We had a cure for that in the first and second world wars when we laughed at the Kaiser and at Hitler. Rightly or wrongly. that was how we dealt with those threats. I do not suggest that we laugh at the terrorists, but I suggest that we keep them in proportion.
      We should remember how we managed to handle the Irish Republican Army at the height of its campaign. We got used to the fact that any incident that looked as though it could be the work of the Provisional IRA would be claimed by that organisation, so we got our punch in first. So, for example, the British Government made it absolutely clear from the first moment that the infamous Chinook helicopter crash was not an act of terrorism. Again, we made it clear that the burning of Windsor castle was not an act of terrorism. We swept the ground from under the terrorists; we came to terms with the sort of tactics that they would use.
      These are not giants against whom we are fighting. Let us bear in mind the fact that, when Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was arrested, he had all his contact information on his laptop and a series of written notes around his bedroom. Let no one be in any doubt about where the information is coming from at the moment. That is not someone who is standing up against interrogation; that is a birdy that is singing. They are people who give things away and whose standard operating procedures are amateurish.
      Let us also bear in mind the fact that bin Laden was very nearly tracked down by using a mobile phone. The meanest tuppeny-ha'penny drug dealer in Nottingham knows not to use a mobile phone if he wants to carry on with his business. We are talking not about giants of terrorism, but about people who get things wrong, and I ask the Government to keep that enemy in proportion and to communicate sensibly and realistically with the public to diminish fear—by doing so, we stand a better chance of winning.
      Vernon Coaker: I had not intended to contribute to the debate, but having listened to some of the remarks and realised that there was an opportunity, I want to make a couple of comments and take up a few minutes of the House's time. It is always good to follow my colleague, the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), whose constituency neighbours mine, and it was interesting to hear some of his remarks.
      Clearly, any war against terrorism has many different sides and many rights and wrongs. One of the important things that has come out in the debate is that no one, on whichever side, has a monopoly of wisdom or morality, as the Foreign Secretary said yesterday. We all agree about the need in the modern world to combat terrorism. We sometimes disagree about how to do that, but we all accept that it is far preferable for any Government to take action through the UN. Wherever we end up with the Iraqi crisis, I hope that the Government will take the opportunity, when things calm down, to review the way in which the UN has operated so as to find out whether any lessons can be learned.

      245
      My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East ( Mr. Hamilton) highlighted one of the issues that we all face: UN resolutions need to be applied equally irrespective of the country to which they relate. He made a powerful speech in relation to Israel and Palestine. When people talk to me about the current crisis with Iraq, even people who believe that the Government are pursuing the right course and that there is a very real threat from Iraq, they ask why the international community—whether the US, our Government or the UN—does not bring the same determination, desire and passion to bear on resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict as it is currently bringing to bear in relation to Iraq.
      If people believed that there was a uniformity of desire to resolve such issues wherever they arose, the Government would not face some of the problems that they have in relation to Iraq. People believe that we are not demonstrating the same passion towards Israel and Palestine as we are towards Iraq, and it is important to deal with those problems even-handedly.
      The reason I wanted to contribute particularly to this debate—having made those few comments and given guarded support to the Government so far, and hoping very much, as are many of my colleagues, for a second resolution—is that we must also discuss and think about the humanitarian consequences of any war with Iraq. I have just been to a meeting organised by Save the Children, Christian Aid and other non-governmental organisations, and deep concern exists about the planning for the humanitarian consequences of any conflict. Clearly, it is difficult, as, if one starts to plan for a war, a presumption exists that war will take place. I can understand the dilemma felt by people in that situation. We must consider those humanitarian consequences, however, and start to think about answers to the problems that will inevitably arise.
      We know that millions of people may be displaced as they flee from war. Where will those people go? Will they be able to get into Turkey? Will there be safe havens in the northern part of Iraq and in the Kurdish area in northern Iraq? How will people travel the hundreds of miles across that part of Iraq that leads to Jordan? Will people have access there? What about the southern part of Iraq and people fleeing into Kuwait? What planning have the Government made with respect to that?
      If we are to have a war against terrorism, and it is against the regime of Saddam Hussein, the Government, the United Nations and others who will be involved need to plan for those consequences. That will demonstrate clearly in a practical way that the war is against the regime and what it stands for, and not against the ordinary Iraqi people. What discussions have the Government had with the aimed forces of this country and the United States about the preservation of vital infrastructure in Iraq, so that food aid or any other aid to that country can get to the people who need it? What planning have we made to get aid, whether food or medical resources, to the people of Iraq should conflict emerge?
      These are all questions on which Parliament has not had much debate. As much as people come to me to debate the rights and wrongs of whether we should go to war, many people also raise issues with me about the
      246
      humanitarian consequences of a war. Will my hon. Friend the Minister also say what kind of regime we would expect to see in Iraq following a war? What would be the involvement of the United Nations in that?
      In relation to the war against terrorism, the Chancellor has announced increases in the military budget: the latest, a couple of weeks ago, was an extra £750 million, taking to £1.75 billion the amount of money that the Government have set aside for military operations in Iraq. What increases in aid budgets have there been to tackle some of the humanitarian issues that I have raised? Are those increases in absolute amounts or diversions from one aid budget in one part of the Government's programme to the possible humanitarian consequences in Iraq? I know from the meeting to which I referred earlier what is happening to Palestinians in the occupied territories. One of the worries is that some of the money and aid programmes to that area will be diverted to Iraq.
      While we talk about the rights and wrongs of a war against terrorism, and about the military side of any campaign, it is important, if we are to demonstrate that what we are doing is against the regime in Iraq and not against the people, that we plan for the humanitarian consequences of any conflict, and that we do what we can to protect the ordinary people of Iraq.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East referred to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and to Iran. It is important to understand the consequences for the rest of the region, and we need clear policies on that.
      When we consider the foreign policy aspects of a war on terrorism, we must realise that poverty, inequality, social dislocation and a sense of alienation exist in some parts of the world. To combat terrorism we must, as a world order, do what we can through the United Nations to examine what we can do to alleviate the problems that provide the breeding ground for terrorists. To say that does not excuse terrorism or suggest that terrorism is the answer. However, we must try to resolve the difficulties that exist.
      Let us prosecute the war against terrorism through the United Nations as far as we possibly can, but let us not forget that, alongside the military preparation and planning, we need the same desire and enthusiasm to consider what we can do about the humanitarian consequences of any action. In that way, we will demonstrate that the enemy are the evil regimes that are found in many parts of the world, not the ordinary people who live in those countries.
      6.1 Pm
      Mr. Desmond Swayne: It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker). I hope that I will be even briefer, but I doubt that I will achieve the clarity of his speech. Like him, I did not intend to speak in the debate, but spotted the opportunity that resulted from one of the few benefits of modernisation.
      I wish to speak because my views on terrorism and how to deal with Iraq have changed in recent weeks. I started to receive considerable numbers of letters in the late summer, and the process has continued since them. Up to a few weeks ago, people would receive a fairly dusty response from me. I would say that I was far from persuaded that the war aims were clear, that there

      247
      certainly was not an exit strategy that I could discern and that I was not persuaded that there was an imminent threat to the United Kingdom or its vital interests that would warrant military action.
      I have changed my mind to a considerable extent, and I shall explain my reasons. The middle east has become almost the crucible of the world. For so long, it has been the focus of the three great monotheistic religions, but it is now the location, if not the cause, of most of the terrorism in the rest of the world, and particularly that which scars the middle east itself. For the war on terrorism to be prosecuted successfully and for there to be peace in the world, there must be progress and peace in the middle east. For there to be peace in the middle east, Israel will have to make substantial concessions. We have heard talk in the debate of the need for a Palestinian state with all that that would imply. However, I do not believe that that degree of concession—more than even Prime Minister Barak was prepared to make before the second intifada began—will be possible while regimes, such as that in Iraq, remain dedicated to the complete destruction of Israel and have the will and the intention to acquire aresenals such as we have heard described and such as those for which the weapons inspectors are searching. So regime change is, in addition to disarmament, a perfectly legitimate objective of our policy to secure progress in the middle east.
      We must consider to what extent military action is a legitimate tool in securing regime change in Iraq and other terrorist states because there are many ways to skin a cat. People often say that military action must be the last resort. I am not sure that I share that view. I understand why we might say that military action should be a last resort in practical terms because we have to weigh up the practicalities and make a decision that takes into account, for example, the humanitarian consequences, to which the hon. Member for Gedling referred. In those circumstances, we would have to weigh up the probabilities and the costs of military action against the benefits.
      In practical terms it would be legitimate to decide that military action is a last resort, but I do not understand why we would say in principle that it should be the last resort. There could be a humanitarian argument for precipitate military action. If we have made a proper estimate that military action is likely to be swift and believe that it will produce a relatively low level of collateral damage and civilian casualties, it might be preferable to entertain that action rather than putting up with years of a regime while we attempt to change it or disarm it by other means. We simply have to come to a judgment on such decisions. I must confess that while the regime in Iraq continues to export its poison to the rest of the middle east and to fund Hamas and the suicide bombings, the quicker we deal with it, the better it will be.
      Who should decide when military action is appropriate? Should it be the United Nations, or should there be unilateral action on the part of Britain and the United States? I am a member of the United Nations Association. I passionately believe that the time will come when the UN has immense authority and will be fit to take such decisions. At that time, it will be proper to challenge anyone who gainsays the United Nations, but that time has not yet come. The authority of the
      248
      United Nations does not stem from it just being a body that represents a number of nations; surely its authority stems from the nature of the regimes of which it is constituted. While it remains a fallible human institution, reflecting the fallible states that make it up—most of which are strangers to democracy—I do not understand why we should attach particular attention to its decisions.
      If we say that the United Nations second resolution is an absolute condition of any decision to attack Iraq, we effectively hand over the moral decision that we have made on whether that is right and proper to the processes and the conflict of interests that are the reality of debate and decision making in the United Nations. It stretches credulity to say that its decisions are based on an ideal that we might have of it representing the people of the world. I do not believe that a United Nations resolution is a necessary condition. It is for us to decide what we believe to be right and, having made that decision, to pursue it with all the consequences that that will entail having made a proper estimate at the outset.
      Hon. Members may recall that some years ago the state of Israel unilaterally attacked and destroyed Iraq's nuclear programme by taking out its nuclear reactors that were allegedly for civilian power generation. There was an absolute furore at the UN and enormous criticism of the state of Israel. The world is now rightfully thankful to Israel for having had the courage to take that action and to challenge the received opinion at the UN, and the world may in future be thankful to us for reaching similar conclusions in our deliberations over the next few days and weeks.
      6.10 pm
      David Burnside: My experience of terrorism, although big to me, is parochial and small in worldwide terms. It related only to Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom more generally until the mid-1990s, when I flew to Beirut for the first time. It was just at the end of the war there, and I saw what terrorism had done to a society that had been civilised for almost 20 years. That was part of an international conflict in the middle east, but it was also terrorism from all quarters. It was terrorism mixed with religion and fundamentalism from every sect and sector of society in Lebanon. That conflict in the middle east still exists in a combination of nationality and religious fervour, much of which those of us who come from a country with a great deal of religious fervour find distasteful and alarming.
      My experience at the end of the war in Lebanon in the 1990s led me, after the attack on the twin towers on 11 September, to ask myself many times what changed because of that event. In the House, many of my colleagues and I have often asked—perhaps we have been misleading ourselves—whether there is any difference between international terrorism of that size and magnitude of evil and the terrorism of the individual bomb, whether in Harrods, Canary Wharf. Enniskillen or the nightclub in Colombia only a few weeks ago. There is no difference in the degree of evil—all those acts are terrorism, justified in some way by the organisations behind them, but still terrorism.
      I believe, however, that there was a fundamental change after the tragedy of the twin towers: the world has changed in its fight against terrorism. That is why we

      249
      can now win. In the '60s, '70s and '80s, Members would argue in the House about whether individuals were freedom fighters or terrorists. The days of terrorists calling themselves freedom fighters are well and truly over. If, in the world order in the United Nations and the national order in the United Kingdom, we can have a set of conditions and criteria that define terrorism, and if we can maintain a national and international fight against it, proscribe it, ban it, stop terrorists being armed and put them out of business through intelligence and, if necessary, military action, good will have come out of the evil that took place in that massive act of international terrorism in the United States. That is why the world has changed.
      In addition, we now live in a different world order in which we no longer have a conflict between east and west in which terrorism is justified between western democracies and the eastern communist bloc. That is a major and fundamental change, which means that the world order, whether in western democratic countries or emerging democratic countries in eastern Europe, Africa and the middle east, can act internationally against terrorism. That is why 11 September changed things.
      I have at times been very pessimistic about the willpower of our Governments, Labour and Conservative, to defeat the terrorism that affected my small part of the UK for over 30 years and, I hope, is slowly but surely coming to an end. However, I think that international opposition from the world order, expressed, hopefully, through the United Nations, will defeat terrorism.
      That brings me to the current fear and uncertainty. If I belonged to a terrorist organisation in Iraq or Afghanistan, I would like the disunity and division that I see in the United Kingdom press and on CNN and BBC reports. In the past week, newspaper front pages have revealed major divisions in the Government, the media and the international community, with France—I believe that it has declared this—and Russia going for a veto. That is no way to run a world order, and the credibility of the UN institution is up for grabs in the next couple of weeks. Unless the UN stands by the United States and the United Kingdom, and hopefully a strong and united world order, terrorists, rogue states and the Saddam Husseins of the world will think, "Divide, rule and conquer." As they read the papers and watch the television, they see a weakening world order—we are not sending out a good message. Saddam Hussein poses a threat, as do international terrorists such as bin Laden and others. The world order should be united and stand together.
      I believe that good can come of evil, and I am optimistic that both fundamentalist terrorism and terrorism of the type perpetrated in Europe from the late 1960s by the Baader-Meinhof gang-we experienced the dreadful continuation of that for 30 years in the Provisional IRA—can be defeated. However, it can be defeated only by national unity in this country, a great deal more unity in the House than there has been in the past week, and much more unity in the United Nations, an organisation that should be a world policeman putting international terrorists out of business. I hope that we will have great unity in the House in the coming
      250
      days, weeks and months—if we send that message to terrorists, both at home and abroad, we will defeat them.
      6.17 pm
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: Before I speak about the Select Committee report, it is appropriate to point out that we are debating estimates that provide for a substantial grant of further resources, in this case to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to cover the excess expenditure that it has incurred on foreign policy aspects of the war against terrorism. The eighth motion on estimates, which cannot be debated, calls for the provision of more than £600 million of excess expenditure by the Ministry of Defence to be authorised by the House tonight. I am sorry that we are not going to have that debate; perhaps the Minister will convey to his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence the message that it would have been sensible for Parliament to have had such a debate, as we believe that some of that expenditure is the result of the withdrawal of the Sea Harrier, which is an important part of our defence system and maritime capability.
      We have had an excellent debate. The universal consensus is that the report of the Foreign Affairs Committee is comprehensive, thoughtful and, in the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), outstanding. In some respects, it is the counterpart of the Defence Committee's equally impressive report on defence and security in the United Kingdom, which was published last July. I, too, congratulate the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee and his colleagues on a first-class piece of work. Both reports illustrate some of the extremely impressive parliamentary work of Members who strive to reach a consensus across the political divide. Consequently, unless that work attacks the Government. it commands little or no press coverage.
      One merit of the Foreign Affairs Committee's report is that, despite the turmoil of recent weeks, it has in most respects stood the test of experience. That is no mean feat. The Committee raised a number of fundamental issues that the Government have failed to address in their response, and on which I wish to press the Minister. Before doing so, however, let me agree with the Committee's conclusion that the Government's decision to align themselves closely with the United States in the war against terrorism has enhanced Britain's influence over current policy decisions and helped to foster the special relationship in the long run. The United Kingdom has proved itself to be a real and valuable ally.
      British Ministers are now in a strong position to secure better terms of trade with the United States, but they need to take advantage of that position and to capitalise on it. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester said that we deserved a privileged dialogue with the United States as a consequence of our stalwart support—particularly that given by the Prime Minister. I make no apologies for raising a defence issue in this debate, because defence has frequently been mentioned in connection with the report. The United States should be pressed very hard to provide British industry with greater access to its programmes, not as subcontractors but as full partners. That is the very least that the United

      251
      States owes to an ally that has been so staunch when many countries on which it was entitled to rely for support deserted it.
      I am sure that I am not alone in expressing concern at the reports that I heard on the radio this morning about the construction contracts for the post-conflict reconstruction of Iraq being closed to all but United States companies. I hope that the Minister will make representations to his counterparts in the United States that British companies, at least, should get a look-in. I remember what happened in the Gulf war last time. The then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, David Mellor, wanted money from the Kuwaitis to bolster the United Kingdom's Exchequer, and the French wanted the contracts. If there are any contracts arising in the future, the United Kingdom should be the beneficiary of them.
      My hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), who so ably opened for the Opposition in the debate, referred to the need to strengthen NATO. The Committee has called for the Government to set out how NATO's new military concept for defence against terrorism will be implemented. In their reply, the Government stated that the NATO response force was intended to reach initial operational capability by next year, and to be able to respond to what they called "existing and emerging threats". That objective is laudable, and we take the view that NATO is the organisation best able to guarantee the protection of the member states. However, the recent serious divisions over defensive missile deployment to Turkey illustrate the reality of a post-cold war world order.
      The Committee described the emergence of what it called
      "significant differences between some EU leaders and the United States over the overall conduct of the war against terrorism…going to the heart of how to deal with threats of international terrorism."
      Can anyone, in the light of those remarks and of the debacle over Turkey, believe that there is the remotest prospect of establishing a common European foreign and security policy? I noted that the Le Touquet declaration from the Prime Minister and Mr. Chirac contained some extraordinarily high-flown remarks about the EU's worldwide ambitions. I found that rather chilling. If they cannot agree in the face of a clear threat from international terrorism and rogue states, the prospect of their being able, as a collection of sovereign nation states, to exercise worldwide ambitions is very remote. NATO is the tried and trusted guarantor of European security. My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) was entirely right to say that NATO was important, and that it was very bad for the organisation that those divisions had occurred. He talked about rebuilding bridges with our NATO partners, and he was right. It is imperative that we should do so.
      Until 1989, there was a clear, overt and unanimously agreed threat in the form of Soviet Russia. The terrorist threat that we now face is covert, asymmetric and more difficult to define. It is also more difficult to define the military capabilities necessary to counter that threat. For example, a chemical or biological attack on London would be unlikely to be delivered by long-range aircraft; it would be more likely by means of a suitcase.
      What about the press reports that have recently emerged, and to which my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) drew attention, about
      252
      drones—unmanned air vehicles? Hans Blix is reported' to have knowledge of a UAV capable of delivering biological agents, yet there was no mention of that in his report on Friday. What do the Government know of that? What of reports of a cargo ship containing Iraqi chemical agents? Are we sufficiently protected against that threat? What are we doing to try and deal with threats on the high seas? What would be the authority for intervention in such cases, and how do these developments affect the inspections regime?
      I note that the Committee's report concludes that the difficulties faced by the inspectors remain formidable, but that would not be the case if Saddam Hussein had offered full and immediate co-operation with them, as United Nations resolution 1441 and all 16 previous resolutions require him to do. We see further in the Government's response to the report that they believe that a material breach has occurred. What are the implications of that? Is Saddam to be given a further final, final opportunity, or do the Government believe that there is already sufficient justification for military action?
      The fact remains that whatever justification is offered for military action, large sections of the public will retain deep misgivings about it. That is understandable. However, the situation has not been helped by the Government's reluctance to address some of those misgivings head-on. The mistakes in the dossier were mentioned. The Government have refused to acknowledge that there has been a change in the regime for the no-fly zones. The no-fly zones were designed to protect areas from infiltration by Iraqi aircraft, and the arrangement was that there was justification for retaliation in the event that our aircraft came under attack or were locked on to by Iraqi missiles. Recently, surface-to-surface missile batteries have been taken out. What is the justification for that? Why do the Government not make it clear that there has been a change in policy because those batteries are identified as possibly putting our soldiers at risk?
      What about the refusal of the Foreign Secretary yesterday to answer the points made by the hon. Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), the Father of the House, about the forged evidence on uranium purchases that were submitted to the International Atomic Energy Agency, and that that was provided by the United Kingdom? Those were specific points raised by the chief weapons inspector in New York on Friday, and the Government have not given an answer. They are serious matters. What authority can the Government command in their campaign to win public hearts and minds if, on key issues, there is evidence that they have made a mistake or are not coming clean with the truth? We believe that the public should be brought onside on these issues. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity today to answer.
      The report draws attention to the possibility of a backlash in the middle east as a result of military action. It states:
      "A US-led war on Iraq could have a substantial impact on already tense and unstable societies in the Arab … world".
      such points have been made by hon. Members in the debate. Also touted is the prospect that war could result in a recruitment bonanza for al-Qaeda and other like-

      253
      minded organisations. We accept the Government's assurances in their response, when they state that they believe the long-term benefits of their approach will considerably outweigh any cynical move by al-Qaeda to exploit military action for its terrorist ends. That is a crucial point in winning over British public opinion if force is to be used, but there has not been sufficient discussion of it to date. Can the Minister elaborate and give assurances that the United Kingdom's safety and that of our citizens will not be compromised by the use of force, if it comes to that?
      The issue of legality has been an interesting part of the debate. In canvassing, it has been clear that there are conflicting opinions regarding the legality of military action to enforce resolution 1441 without a second resolution. The report concludes:
      "UN Security Council Resolution 1441 would not provide unambiguous authorisation for military action".
      The hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) made a very interesting speech in which he gave the Minister a valuable opinion that did not cost him a penny piece—[Laughter.] Of course, free advice is sometimes said to be not worth having. Nevertheless, in a carefully considered speech, the former Solicitor-General made some very interesting and persuasive points that the Government would do well to take on board. I asked him—I did so not to catch him out, but because I wanted to know the answer—who decides against all the conflicting opinion what constitutes international case law. Who decides on the international authority for taking such action? I am told by senior military people that the Attorney-General makes that decision, but we read that he has not got a lot to say about the matter. What would happen if he concluded that some lawyers—I have to say that they would mostly be left-wing ones—were suggesting that there was no justification in international law for military action?
      Mr. Savidge: Given that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) expressed the same concern that many people have expressed about pre-emptive war, does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in those circumstances, it is particularly important to have very solid grounds in international law before considering taking such action?
      Mr. Howarth: The hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North came up with a number of reasons as to why he felt that there was justification. He was very clear about that and I shall not rehearse his opinions for the benefit of those who were not present. They can read his speech tomorrow; it is certainly worth reading.
      There is a serious practical worry, as the Minister must also address the question of what happens in the event of a challenge or a suggestion that the United Kingdom has not acted within international law. I am advised that our troops are now so embedded in joint military structures with the Americans that the situation recently put to me by a soldier will be brought about, so he will be answerable to a United States senior officer. If the International Criminal Court were to feel in such circumstances that it had some jurisdiction regarding actions taken as a result of a conflict in Iraq, what would be the status of our soldiers? The United States has not
      254
      signed up to the International Criminal Court, Iraq has not done so and France has a seven-year exemption—not that we need to trouble ourselves too much about France in these matters. Nevertheless, those are serious issues that affect the confidence of our troops and could affect the manner in which they can conduct military operations if they are called upon to do so.
      I turn now to post-conflict reconstruction. Even if the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) made a late entrance, he certainly made some valuable points. It was well worth his while to come along and take pot luck as to whether he could get in on the debate. He took up an issue to which the Committee has rightly drawn attention. It states:
      "We recommend that the Government examine carefully the possible models for post-conflict reconstruction in Iraq, including a United Nations transitional authority. We recommend that, in its considerations, the Government bear in mind the necessity for country-wide peacekeeping, civil policing, transitional justice, and representation of all groups in Iraqi society".
      The Government's reply states:
      "The Government is carrying out prudent contingency planning, examining all the points raised by the Committee."
      Last week, I told the Secretary of State for Defence—and I tell the Minister now—that the Government are missing a trick. The hon. Member for Gedling is right. If we are to win the hearts and minds of the British people, let alone the Iraqi people, the Government and the Americans must make the case that they have the interests of the Iraqi people at heart. Detailed plans for dealing with post-conflict circumstances in Iraq are essential.
      When I was in New York and Washington, the Americans were much more forthcoming than officials here. They are working on detailed plans. We were told that no one could buy bottled water anywhere in the Gulf because the Americans had bought it all for providing essential supplies to the people of Iraq. Even Kofi Annan told us that he had briefed the United Nations that morning about the possibility of post-conflict reconstruction. That is not based on a presumption of war; it is simply a sensible precaution.
      The Government should be much more open. I appreciate that they have no firm plans yet and that there is a state of flux and uncertainty. However, I urge the Government to share the ideas that are currently being discussed to enable the transition from Saddam Hussein to a reasonable regime and to secure peace and prosperity for the people of Iraq.
      The Minister should also take it into account that a peaceful transition to a secure future for Iraq is likely to involve British troops. They are already heavily overstretched. From where does the Secretary of State for Defence believe that he will get extra troops to undertake that obligation, which will be part of reconstruction, especially if Afghanistan is providing further problems that he must take into account?
      Where do we go from here in trying to sort out future problems in the world? I believe that North Korea represents a threat and we should take it seriously. However, in the aftermath of whatever happens in Iraq, we must accept that there must be a limit on the number of sequential or simultaneous actions that one can take against regimes that one does not like. The United States must face that issue because it is the only

      255
      superpower in the world. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester made some interesting observations about that.
      It is also essential to address the Arab-Israeli conflict. I have a feeling in my bones—I cannot justify it further—that the United States acknowledges that if it is not to be reviled in the Arab world, it must bring as much pressure to bear as possible to try to resolve once and for all the problem of Palestine. The resolution must secure the borders of Israel, protect the Israelis from suicide bombing and give the Palestinians a proper stake. That must be done.
      We have had a good debate in which the Foreign Affairs Committee's excellent report has acted as a catalyst for a considered and measured assessment of the threat from international terrorism and the way ahead in dealing with Iraq. We have some way to go in formulating a comprehensive defence against terrorism. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) said, Irish republican terrorism has been the main threat to this country for the past 30 years. It remains, but we have been able to contain it in part, or at least come to terms with it.
      The new threat emanates from Islamic fundamentalism, which is willing to resort to chemical and/or biological weapons, and operates through networks that may be harder to penetrate. It is a tribute to the security services that they have secured such successes, but a formidable challenge lies ahead. My hon. Friend the Member for Newark made the important point that we cannot ignore the ability of Baghdad and its associates to launch an attack on the United Kingdom through terrorism.
      A wide range of views has been expressed articulately if predictably on Iraq. Some hon. Members argued for more time, but they are unwilling to specify its length. We all agree that Saddam Hussein is vile and that his time has come. If we are serious about upholding United Nations authority—resolution 1441 must be upheld—the Government owe it to the House to tell us what they intend to do if there is no second, or 18th, as the Americans call it, resolution. The Americans have taken the United Nations route. The Government must tell us what they plan to do if a second resolution is not forthcoming.
      As we sit here tonight, we should bear in mind the difficulties of our troops who are poised like coiled springs out there in the desert. It is not possible that they can be maintained at that tempo for ever. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say, but I think that we should end the debate by thinking of our troops out there, serving the interests of our country and defending our freedoms.
      6.40 pm
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall reply to some of the points that have been raised—and, as is the custom, leave a minute or two for my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) to comment. I echo the congratulations expressed to him and all Committee members by Members in all parts of the House on an excellent report. Our debate on terrorism and weapons of mass destruction has also been excellent, and serious. I am surprised that more Members were not present throughout.
      256
      I have many questions to get through. I want to deal with most of the initial ones quickly, and I will therefore respond to no interventions at that stage so that I may be able to respond to some on Iraq.
      I was asked a number of questions by the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring). Do we know whether Osama bin Laden is still alive? We believe that he is. We are still awaiting the results of the questioning of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. As for the nature of the relationship between the European security and defence policy and NATO, we are very pleased with the growing agreement and progress on that. I was asked how NATO would implement the Prague agreement. The Government's reply to the Foreign Affairs Committee's report makes it clear that detailed plans are being drawn up to deliver the new concepts for defence against terrorism. They include the development of the NATO rapid response force, a mixed force able to deploy quickly in the face of emerging threats. The changes will give NATO an enhanced capability to protect us from a range of threats, including terrorism.
      The hon. Member for West Suffolk asked how the Government would strengthen the United Nations. We are working hard to ensure that its resolutions are enforced, and if its resolutions are complied with, its authority will be enhanced. Countries will know that resolutions are not mere hot air. If resolutions on Iraq are important, so are resolutions on Palestine. If resolution 1441 is not enforced, what price resolutions 242, 338 and 1397?
      My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) raised the distinction between different kinds of terrorism. He rightly condemned all kinds of terrorism, but distinguished terrorists with a negotiable political agenda—an agenda making it possible to negotiate an end to their terrorism, as we hope we have done in Northern Ireland—from terrorist groups with whom we cannot negotiate because their demands are too extreme. Although he has a good point, he will surely agree that we must not fail to condemn all kinds of terrorism. As the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) pointed out, after 11 September, the days of the terrorist calling himself a freedom fighter are gone.
      The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) spoke of the need for political change in the middle east. We all need to see that there is political change in the middle east. The west needs to recognise that real, long-term stability in the middle east must rest not with regimes of stability—that has been the case all too often in the past—but with economic reform and democracy. Iran is an example, in that in the past we supported regimes like that of the Shah. We were wrong to do so: it produced political extremism. In the long term, the only way to deal with the middle east, as with any other part of the world, is to promote economic reform and the spirit of democracy. If we believe that that is best for our people, we should believe that it is right for all people. We must also recognise that in the future, stability will require real reform. That is right for the Arabs, and right for the west.
      The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) suggested that we should enforce a settlement in the middle east. I agree that the outlines of an agreement are clear, but the devil is in the detail, and it is the details that are crucial. He was unclear about the nature of the enforcement that he favours if, for

      257
      example, Israel or the Palestinians say no. Frankly, it is difficult to see what further sanctions could be applied against the Palestinians if they decided to say no, given the extent of the sanctions already against them. It is an interesting idea, but it requires agreement from the Security Council, and as we have seen, such agreement is not that easy to achieve.
      Mr. Maples: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. O'Brien: I will not give way on this matter, as I want to get on to Iraq.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Hamilton) said that we cannot impose a settlement that does not win the hearts and minds of the people, and my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) said that we should bring passion to the need to push forward the middle east peace process. However, I should tell him that that passion is there. The historical injustice done to the Palestinians must be dealt with, and the violence done to the Israelis must end. Peace requires a Palestinian state. We have respect in the middle east now because of the personal commitment of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the peace process, and I can offer an assurance that that will continue. However, we must ensure that we gel, the United States on board as well. The US is essential in ensuring that Prime Minister Sharon is delivered 10 the peace table, and I can assure the House that we will do all that we can to work with the United States on moving forward the middle east peace process.
      In turning to the points that were raised about Iraq, I should begin by making it clear that I do not want a war and nor does this Government. It is a matter of great sadness that we must even contemplate such a possibility. This is a Labour Government. We are a Government of the left, and our default position is to oppose wars, but sometimes we have to ensure that we deal with United Nations resolutions in a way that recognises their importance. After 12 years, 17 UN resolutions—we are now contemplating the 18th resolution—and more than four months since the adoption of resolution 1441, which gave Iraq a final opportunity to disarm, the time has come when we must decide where we stand.
      No one can seriously doubt that Saddam Hussein possesses a fearsome range of weapons of mass destruction and is a threat to his own people, to his neighbours and, ultimately, to the whole of the middle east. The basis of Saddam's regime is his possession of WMD. He has used them against his own people—notably in Halabja, in 1988—and against his neighbours, with horrific results in both instances. Much of his power comes from the possession of WMD, which are held by a small elite, and which he uses to intimidate his army and his people. Our aim is not regime change, but if Saddam Hussein does not disarm, we may have to change the regime in order to disarm him. If he remains in power with WMD, there is no question but that he will continue to murder his own
      258
      people and to threaten the region. WMD are an integral part of his regime. A Saddam Hussein without WMD is a weakened Saddam Hussein.
      Mr. Savidge: The Minister mentions 17 resolutions during 12 years. How many resolutions does he think that there would have been during three times that period, but for the US veto over the issue of Israel?
      Mr. O'Brien: Is my hon. Friend saying that, because the United States may have vetoed some resolutions, we must say that we will not seek to enforce UN resolutions on Iraq? [Interruption.] He shakes his head, and of course he is not saying that. No, let us focus on the issue that we have to confront in the next days and weeks, which is Iraq. I have no problem in agreeing with my hon. Friend that we need to move forward on the middle east, but we also need to recognise that we have obligations in relation to Iraq.
      Mr. Chidgey: The Minister says that Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction are integral. However, given that experts tell us that it is impossible to be sure that we can destroy, or even find, all those weapons, is not regime change inevitable in the light of America's policy as it relates to deterrence? If we cannot be sure that we have found all the weapons of mass destruction, surely America will press for regime change in defence of its own interests.
      Mr. O'Brien: I shall come to that point but Saddam Hussein knows what he has to do. He has to declare all the weapons of mass destruction. We have some information about what he has, and we can use that information to check how much he is holding back when he claims to make a full declaration, which he has not yet done. If he covers all the areas that we know about, we will know to some extent that he has made a full declaration. We have the capacity to make that judgment.
      David Taylor: The diplomatic code for the use of force is usually the phrase "all necessary means", which does not appear in resolution 1441 or the present draft resolution. Does the Minister believe that reference to "serious consequences" authorises force in this case under international law?
      Mr. O'Brien: If my hon. Friend had been in his place earlier in the debate he would know that we heard a learned opinion on that point. A number of legal phrases are used to authorise the use of force and no one can be in any doubt about the meaning of "serious consequences". Everyone who signed up to that resolution knew what that meant. They knew then and they know now.
      In a serious speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) asked about the UK's resolution and the inclusion of a number of tests. We are considering the inclusion of tests and how we can use Hans Blix's written report—his cluster document—which raised several specific questions, to bring the Security Council together.
      It is right that we are reluctant to threaten military action, but we have shown that we have been right in the past to take action, for example in Afghanistan, Sierra

      259
      Leone and Kosovo. We were right to take military action in those places, even though many people had doubts at the time. In each of those cases, we showed leadership in urging the international community towards resolute action and in being ready to take a key role in it ourselves. The alternative—doing nothing—was worse. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) explained, in the case of Kosovo and other situations, we did so without a UN resolution, because it was the right thing to do. The risk of military action must be measured against the risk that somehow inaction will make the world safer—it rarely does.
      No one who looks objectively at the record can doubt the great efforts that have been made, and that are still being made, to disarm Iraq peacefully. Since 1991, the UN has tried all the tools at its disposal, including inspections, sanctions and persuasion to disarm Iraq. Security Council resolution 1284, passed in 1999 after the inspectors had been forced to leave, offered Iraq the prospect of the lifting of sanctions in return for disarmament. We spent the next three years trying to persuade Iraq to co-operate, but it again refused.
      As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North said in an erudite exposition of the law, Security Council resolution 1441 gave Saddam a "final opportunity" to comply with the string of legally binding obligations imposed on him over the past 12 years. It is telling that, at last Friday's meeting of the Security Council, not one speaker—despite obvious differences of view—claimed that Saddam Hussein and Iraq had complied "immediately, unconditionally and actively" as required by resolution 1441. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East said, nothing was immediate, nothing has been unconditional and there has been precious little activity from Saddam Hussein. We have never had the full declaration of all Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. The inspectors have never had the basic document required to do their job. They have struggled along valiantly with a partial document.
      Dr. Blix reported to the Security Council that
      "while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some longstanding open disarmament issues, can be seen as 'active', or even 'proactive', these initiatives, 3–4 months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute 'immediate' cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance."
      Dr. Blix went on to report some of the small steps taken, only recently, by Iraq, including the destruction of al-Samoud missiles.
      He described that as a
      "substantial measure of disarmament—indeed the first since the middle of the 1990s."
      However, no objective observer can conclude that this patent last-minute window dressing amounts to anything like the immediate, unconditional and active co-operation demanded by resolution 1441.
      As someone said to me when I was in Damascus, Saddam Hussein is dealing with the matter as if he were a trader in the soukh. He wants the least possible amount of disarmament to get the UN off his back. He seems to think that he can negotiate, but resolution 1441 is very clear. Full compliance is required: that is what he must give, and it is what he has so far failed to give. That
      260
      is typical of the way in which Saddam Hussein has used tactics for the past 12 years. He dribbles out scraps of information and small concessions, but he continues to conceal the extent of his arsenal.
      If we believe that inspections with no firm end-date will achieve the complete disarmament of Iraq, then we deceive ourselves. Iraq has proved itself to be more than adept at exploiting the existing sanctions regime. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) said, Dr. Blix's report entitled "Outstanding Issues Concerning Iraq's Proscribed Weapons Programme" shows what Iraq is still up to.
      The report showed that Iraq repaired equipment in the chemical area previously destroyed by UNSCOM, and refurbished chemical facilities; in the biological field, there was a new emphasis on higher education in biotechnology, and a new genetic engineering facility was established. There was a surge of activity in the field of missile technology. The report identifies 29 specific areas in which Iraq is known to have engaged in prohibited activities. They include work on Scud-type missiles, VX gas, anthrax, tabun, sarin, botulinum toxin, and many other elements specifically related to weapons of mass destruction.
      Dr. Blix's report shows that a huge number of questions remain unanswered. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are there, and we need to find them. It sets out more than 100 specific actions that Iraq must take to resolve these issues. A spasm of activity is insufficient. We need more than that; we need full compliance by Saddam Hussein. He knows what he has to do, and what facilities he has to reveal. Sharing this information with the inspectors can hardly be said to require months of work. The evidence must be produced, and quickly.
      We need to present Saddam Hussein with a clear choice. We must therefore send him the message, "You will be disarmed—peacefully if we can, but forcefully if we must."
      If we fail in this effort, if we do not disarm Saddam Hussein, there will be three messages: UN sanctions can be ignored, international law will not be enforced, and other dictators with the political will and money to develop weapons of mass destruction—and there are many of them—will conclude that they can do so with impunity. The world would then be a much more dangerous place for our children than it has been for this generation.
      If we succeed in disarming Saddam—peacefully if we can, forcefully if we must—the messages will be: UN resolutions do matter, international law will be enforced, and other regimes contemplating developing weapons of mass destruction must think very hard before doing so.
      This is something that we must do. It is the right thing to do—and we had better get on with it.
      6.59 pm
      Donald Anderson: With the leave of the House, I rise to give a brief final blessing to the debate. It seems a long time ago that I rose to commend the report of the Foreign Affairs Committee to the House. I spelled out the aim of the Committee: to use our privileged position

      261
      to provide information to the House. I believe that it shows the relevance of Select Committees in providing that information, and in providing a monitoring device to place a check on the Executive. In a professional world, the legislative body must itself be expert.
      In my judgment, the debate has lived up to expectations. The many contributions have included the case for war and peace, a look at the law behind that case, a discussion of post-war reconstruction and the middle east peace process.
      I congratulate all hon. Members who contributed to the debate, which has been more reflective than the one that may take place in the next week or so. That will be a debate on whether there should be war or peace. We are at a crucial stage, and events taking place now in New York will determine the future.
      This worthwhile debate has given the House an opportunity to look at key issues. I congratulate all my colleagues, and I know that those hon. Members who serve with me on the Foreign Affairs Committee will be confident that our labours have been very well justified.
      It being Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Question relating to Estimates which he was directed to put at that hour, pursuant to Standing Order No. 54( 5 ) ( Consideration of estimates).
      Question put and agreed to.
      Resolved,
      That further resources, not exceeding £144,807,000, be authorised for use during the year ending on 31st March 2003, and that a further sum, not exceeding £26,460,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund for the year ending on 31st March 2003 for expenditure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
      It being after Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Questions relating to Estimates which he was directed to put at that hour, pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.)

    ESTIMATES, 2002–03 (NAVY) VOTE A
    Resolved,
    That, during the year ending on 31st March 2003, modifications in the maximum numbers in the Reserve Naval Forces set out in HC 376 of this Session be authorised for the purposes of Part III of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.

    ESTIMATES, 2002–03 (ARMY) VOTE A
    Resolved,
    That, during the year ending on 31st March 2003, modifications in the maximum numbers in the Reserve Land Forces set out in HC 376 of this Session be authorised for the purposes of Part III of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.

    ESTIMATES, 2003–04 (NAVY) VOTE A
    Resolved,
    That, during the year ending on 31st March 2004, a number not exceeding 46,025 all ranks be maintained for Naval Service and that numbers in the Reserve Naval and Marine Forces be authorised for the purposes of Parts I, III, IV and V of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 up to the maximum numbers set out in HC 377 of this Session.

    ESTIMATES, 2003–04 (ARMY) VOTE A
    Resolved,
    That, during the year ending on 31st March 2004, a number not exceeding 128,195 all ranks be maintained for Army Service and that numbers in the Reserve Land Forces be authorised for the purposes of Parts I, III, IV and V of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 up to the maximum numbers set out in HC 377 of this Session.

    ESTIMATES, 2003–04 (AIR) VOTE A
    Resolved,
    That, during the year ending on 31st March 2004, a number not exceeding 57,415 all ranks be maintained for Air Force Service and that numbers in the Reserve Air Forces be authorised for the purposes of Parts I, III, IV and V of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 up to the maximum numbers set out in HC 377 of this Session.

    ESTIMATES, EXCESSES, 2001–02
    Resolved,
    That resources, not exceeding £1,504,912,617.37, be authorised for use to make good excesses of certain resources for defence and civil services for the year ended on 31st March 2002, and that a sum, not exceeding £199,955,750.09, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to make good excesses of certain grants for defence and civil services for the year ended on 31st March 2002, as set out in HC 463.

    SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 2002–03
    Resolved,
    That further resources, not exceeding £21,242,681,000, be authorised for use for defence and civil services for the year ending on 31st March 2003, and that a further sum, not exceeding £7,471,054,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to meet the costs of defence and civil services for the year ending on 31st March 2003, as set out in HC 423, 424 and 484.
    Ordered,
    That a Bill be brought in on the foregoing resolutions relating to Estimates, Excesses 2001–02, and Supplementary Estimates, 2002–03: And that the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Paul Boateng, Dawn Primarolo, Ruth Kelly and John Healey do prepare and bring it in.

    SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 2002–03
      CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL
      Ruth Kelly accordingly presented a Bill to authorise the use of resources for the service of the years ending on 31st March 2002 and 2003 and to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31st March 2002 and 2003: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on 12 March 2003, and to be printed. [Bill 68].

Employee Health
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Stephen Twigg.]
7.03
Mr. Barry Sheerman: Few of my hon. Friends would disagree that workers' health is crucial in all the communities of our country. Having a healthy work force benefits individuals, employers and the United Kingdom as a whole. Tonight, I want to focus on a particular sector of that work force—people working in bars, pubs, clubs and restaurants. Employees in that sector are especially vulnerable. They are vulnerable because they are almost always on the minimum wage, or just above it, and because they are hit by serious health risks—risks that regularly affect 3 million people. The effects of those risks kill 1,000 people a year. I refer to passive smoking—something that is entirely preventable.
The debate is timely, as tomorrow is no smoking day, although I was not aware of that when I made my request for an Adjournment debate.
David Taylor: As my hon. Friend points out, national no smoking day is tomorrow and my early-day motion 833 refers to it. Does he agree that the sizeable group of workers to which he refers includes people in this place, the Palace of Westminster? Like those hon. Members who signed the early-day motion, does he lament the fact that smoke-free air is still not the norm in the bars, restaurants and corridors of the precincts of the Palace of Westminster?
Mr. Sheerman:I certainly agree with my hon. Friend, who is well known for his activity in and chairmanship of an all-party group on smoking and health.
My focus this evening lies outside the world of education. When one is the Chairman of a Select Committee, it is a great relief to speak on other subjects in this place; one sometimes feels that education and skills are the only things that one ever discusses. However, we have a life outside Select Committees and my passion for protecting the health of vulnerable workers is of long standing.
I am disappointed by the Government's record. The Labour Government who came to power in 1997 have had 2,016 days during which they have chosen to do little or nothing to protect the health of workers in the pub and club industry. The measures that they have tried to introduce have, on the whole, been half-hearted and ineffectual.
The White Paper, "Smoking Kills", published in December 1998, commissioned the Health and Safety Executive to draft an approved code of practice. Where is it? Is it buried somewhere at the HSE? The code is ready but successive Ministers have said, "No, not just now; it is too hot to handle."
There is no reason for that. Why did the Government ask for a draft code and then not introduce it? Instead, they called on the hospitality trade to adopt a voluntary non-smoking policy in facilities for customers. That is fine for customers, but anyone who visits busy pubs, clubs or restaurants, where much smoking takes place,
264
knows that the people who work there—on long shifts, for low wages and at unsocial hours—spend many hours absorbing polluted air. One large pub chain, J.D. Wetherspoon, has introduced non-smoking areas, but that does not affect its employees. Voluntary adoption of a code is not enough.
Polls commissioned by the Government found that the public favoured Government involvement to control passive smoking at work. Polls tell us simple things, such as that 70 per cent of the people of this country do not smoke. However, those people are excluded from many public and private places by people who smoke. That antisocial behaviour is regrettable.
Despite the fact that the HSE approved the draft code of conduct in 1999, it has not yet been approved by the Government. There is speculation as to which Minister buried the code and why it cannot be resuscitated. Such speculation points to concern about bureaucracy and the costs to business, especially bars, pubs and clubs.
Experience in other countries shows that the introduction of such protection for workers leads to more people deciding to go out for a night. Pub and club entrepreneurs found that when there were no-smoking areas in pubs, clubs or restaurants, more people in the non-smoking 70 per cent. decided to go to them. Indeed, in New York, where a code was introduced by former Mayor Giuliani, but implemented by the present mayor, there has been a rise in the volume of trade in the leisure industries. More people have been liberated to get out there and enjoy an evening's entertainment.
The HSE is privately consulting the hospitality sector about an informal agreement on passive smoking, but in my view and that of my colleagues that is not a matter for an informal arrangement when 1,000 people a year die as a result of passive smoking. Of course that is a large number, but 120,000 people a year die from smoking-related causes.
Mr. Kevin Barron: My hon. Friend mentions New York and the leisure industry, particularly restaurants. Does he agree that people have chosen to go to non-smoking restaurants for many years in New York and that has been good for business? I cannot understand why people in the United Kingdom's leisure industry do not look at the positive things that are happening around the world, given that many of us would enjoy our restaurant meals more without that interference with our fresh air. That points to the conservative nature that we in the United Kingdom have in not wanting to change.
Mr. Sheerman: My colleague is a longstanding anti-smoking campaigner, and he is absolutely right. The fact of the matter is that, on one side, the leisure industry in this country is deeply entrepreneurial, but on the other, it is deeply conservative about predicting how people would react to a cleaner atmosphere.
I intend to introduce a Bill along the same lines as this Adjournment debate to protect employees, so I want to concentrate on them this evening because they cannot escape. Employees do not have a choice about whether they work a shift, and their health is under threat. I was reading the history of the slow introduction of protecting miners from dust. For hundreds of years, men were asked to crawl into holes in the ground to mine

265
coal, and I was amazed to find that the first real step towards regulation was taken in 1954 and that effective regulation on the inhalation of dust by miners was not put in place until 1975. That really makes one think how slow we have been to protect one group of workers from crippling diseases, and we now have another conservative sector in the shape of the leisure industry, which is so reluctant to protect workers from something that is proven to affect their health.
A study in New South Wales showed that carbon monoxide in the bloodstream of non-smokers increased four times after they had worked for four hours in licensed premises. That is a remarkable piece of research. In California, a study of what happens before and after exposure to passive smoking showed that 74 per cent. of people initially reported respiratory problems. That is a daunting figure, and it is clear that something drastic must be done, and that the foundations are already laid in common law.
I want to give a warning to the industry this evening. If we cannot wake up the Government and get them to do something about this, the industry should watch out, because there will be class actions against employers and severe repercussions for the insurance industry. There will be a dramatic change in the atmosphere in this country, because insurers will steadily learn that insuring the large chains that are negligent of their workers' health represents a very poor risk. Employers should be held responsible for the conditions in which their employees work. Given that, it seems to me that insurance companies would do well to get on the bandwagon of the trade unions and other bodies who have been calling for protection for employees' health. Indeed, the trade union movement has galvanised itself into action in recent years, and we have seen a much more positive attitude from the trade unions that represent workers in those areas
I hope that the Government will respond positively this evening. I know that this matter straddles the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department of Health. What we want from the Minister is some recognition that the Government have wasted a great deal of time in doing anything positive about smoking and health, particularly in relation to employees at work. Under two Administrations, I have listened to various Ministers' pretty words and fine speeches, but there has been little action that has made much difference. In relation to smoking and women's health, young women have been smoking much more than in past years, and the impact on their health is showing already in the statistics. Will the Government accept that they must also take action on passive smoking to protect the health of a vulnerable section of the work force, as was belatedly done to protect workers in mining and in other vulnerable circumstances?
Let me finish by talking about what is happening elsewhere. In Ireland, the Minister responsible, Michael Martin, announced in February a complete ban on smoking in public places beginning in January next year, inspired again by the desire for workers to be protected, following a successful campaign by the relevant unions in Ireland. That came after a substantial report by the Office of Tobacco Control and the Health and Safety Authority, suggesting that the only effective way to
266
control passive smoking was to enforce an outright ban—in Ireland, everyone's image of which is a wonderful smoke-filled little pub. Again, the Irish are taking the lead.
In the United States, in New York, the smoke-free laws were introduced in 1995 by Mayor Giuliani, and were passed by Mayor Bloomberg. Those mainly concerned drinking and eating establishments with a capacity of 35 people or more. Today, however, the ban extends to all establishments. Four years later, as I have said, bar and restaurant sales have increased substantially. The Labour Government should not therefore be timid or frightened: it is good for business. Are we not best when we are at our boldest?
For goodness' sake, will the Minister listen to what the Prime Minister said at our last party conference and be bolder in protecting workers' health? It is high time we tackled this issue by introducing legislation that protected vulnerable workers.
David Taylor: My hon. Friend is painting a vivid picture of clubs and restaurants in New York. Karaoke and club singers often have in their repertoire the song, "Smoke Gets in Your Eyes". Does he agree that that is only partly true, as it gets into our clothes, our hair, our bloodstream, and, eventually, on to our death certificates? Is not that the harsh reality?
Mr. Sheerman: Absolutely. I must admit that Nina Simone's rendition of that song is one of my favourites. My hon. Friend makes a serious point, even if he starts with a light introduction.
The fact is that this country, yet again, in the vital area of protecting our citizens' health, lags behind the competition. Is that the sort of society that we want in the 21st century? Surely, at some time, we want to build on those areas in which we lead in health rather than trailing the frontrunners.
7.19 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): I am afraid that I cannot compete with Nina Simone, but I will do my best to deal with some of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) has raised. I congratulate him on the way in which he has raised these issues. It is clearly a matter about which he and his colleagues who have attended the debate feel strongly. I have never smoked except passively, and I understand why he and other hon. Members hold such strong feelings.
I note that tomorrow is national no smoking day. I will not have a problem managing not to smoke tomorrow, but I hope that the many people who see tomorrow as the first day of the rest of their lives and who try to give up the habit will not have any trouble.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) referred to the position in the Palace of Westminster. The issue is of concern here, as it is in any other workplace. He was right to raise the subject.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield made clear, the Health and Safety Executive has been dealing with the matter for some time. It launched a

267
strategic initiative to revitalise health and safety and has given particular prominence to securing improvements in workers' health. The occupational health strategy—securing health together—was launched two years ago, and it represents a long-term commitment to improving occupational health. There is no doubt that the HSE has examined the issue and is trying to reduce ill health among workers and the ill health among members of the public that is caused or made worse by work. The strategy also aims to help people made ill—whether caused by work or not—to return to work, to improve work opportunities for people not in employment owing to ill health or disability, and to use the work environment to help people maintain or improve their health. An important component of that is dealing with exposures to toxic substances, including the hazards associated with passive smoking. Passive smoking in the workplace—or, indeed, anywhere else—is a topic that generates strong debate and, as my hon. Friend made clear, the Health and Safety Commission consulted on the matter some time ago.
The Government's scientific committee on tobacco and health published a report in 1998 on the emerging evidence of the effects of exposure to passive smoking. One of its recommendations was that, wherever possible, smoking should not be allowed in the workplace. As a result, Ministers asked the HSC to give advice on possible ways forward. My hon. Friend has referred to the proposal for an approved code of practice that followed the consultation that took place.
In formulating its advice to Ministers, I know that the HSC carefully considered the views of those who might not want such an advisory code of practice. It is often said that small businesses and the hospitality sector are against a code, and my hon. Friend referred to some of those sectors. Of course, their views were considered, but the HSC had to consider the need to protect the 3 million people who are involuntarily exposed to other people's tobacco smoke at work and to do this for all workers regardless of occupation or industry. He referred, in particular, to those who work in the hospitality industry and in pubs, clubs and bars.
I emphasise that the law on this issue is already on the statute book. Under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, all employers have the same duty to ensure, as far as is reasonably practicable, the welfare of all their employees at work. In particular, section 2(2) of the Act requires employers to provide a working environment for staff, which is
"adequate as regards facilities, and arrangements for their welfare at work".
Of course, that covers hazards such as passive smoking, and the proposals in the approved code of practice would not introduce any new legal duty. That legal duty already exists. The code would simply set out what are regarded as reasonably practicable methods of complying with existing law.
My hon. Friend asked why has it taken so long for the Government to act on the proposed approved code of practice. In considering their response to the advice received from the HSC, they have listened to other views and asked that further consideration be given to the needs of smaller firms and the hospitality sector. After taking legal advice, however, the HSE concluded that it would not be possible to exempt any sector or industry,
268
or to stage compliance by different sectors, by using an approved code of practice because the approved code of practice method sets out ways of meeting a duty that already exists. In the meantime, the Government have done much to deal with passive smoking.
If we are to ensure protection against passive smoking in public places, we need action nationally and locally to raise awareness of the risks associated with it and to increase the prevalence of smoke-free environments. We will continue to encourage the development of smoke-free policies, working with both employers and communities.
Mr. Gareth Thomas: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the strong record of my hon. Friends the Members for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) and my right hon. Friend Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) on the issue.If another Labour Back Bencher were to make a specific case for a complete ban on smoking in restaurants, would she undertake to consider carefully the arguments that such a Back Bencher might make?
Maria Eagle: If my hon. Friend is referring to himself, he knows that I always take a great deal of notice of him. Indeed, Ministers consider carefully the views of all Back-Bench Members. I would take such a Bill seriously. I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield said about his intentions. I also recognise the work carried out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) on all aspects of smoking. He has a fine record on that and it does not surprise me to see him in the Chamber.

Ministers are still reviewing the practicalities of an approved code of practice, but it would not change the law. We have been concentrating on dealing with awareness raising and voluntary action. We have worked with the hospitality industry since 1998 to reduce the problem of exposure to passive smoking by developing a public places charter. It commits signatories, and many have signed up, to increase the provision of facilities for non-smokers, to improve ventilation and to give customers better information about the level of smoke-free facilities in an establishment. An independent evaluation of the charter is being commissioned and further work will be considered on the basis of the findings.
Mr. Sheerman: I hear what my hon. Friend says, and it is interesting, but why have the Government set their face against introducing legislation to protect vulnerable workers when the Irish have not?
Maria Eagle: The Government have not set their face against legislation and we are still considering the approved code of practice. The 1974 Act places obligations on all employers in respect of the health of their workers. We know that gains can be made by voluntary action. My hon. Friend mentioned other jurisdictions, such as Ireland and New York, and smoking in public has been banned in some places. Regulations in Ireland to ban smoking in all workplaces have been published in draft and will be implemented on 1 January next year. However, such legal restrictions have to be policed.

269
We believe that it is possible to make substantial progress on a voluntary basis while we consider the issues. The Government have supported the licensed hospitality industry's public places charter, which aims to improve facilities for non-smokers in pubs, bars and restaurants. As my hon. Friend made clear, it makes good commercial sense to improve facilities for non-smokers. Voluntary action is taking place and it can make a difference. I am certain that we will watch with interest what happens in Ireland. The Government are determined that progress must be made. That is a necessity.
Mr. Barron: The Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act contains a test of what is reasonable and practicable. I have seen evidence, which I know that the Government have received, in which barristers say that the test has never been applied to people suffering from passive smoking in the workplace. Are the Government prepared to publish the advice that they have been given on that issue?
Maria Eagle: I shall certainly have a look at that, as my right hon. Friend has raised the matter with me. I am
270
not in a position to tell him now what the situation is, but I undertake to get back to him once I have investigated it.
The Government are funding local tobacco control alliances throughout England which work in communities to raise awareness and increase the number of smoke-free environments. Findings from those projects will also inform the future development of work in that area. There are 42 such alliances in England, and the Government spend about £1 million on support for their work. We are considering, in addition to action that is already under way, developing education and information resources to raise awareness and understanding of the risks associated with passive smoking.
Again, I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield and other colleagues present for raising the issue. The Government take it seriously, and we want to see progress. My hon. Friends and I agree that we need to make sure that workers in these industries are offered appropriate protection, and once the review of the approved code of practice has been completed, the Government will return to the House with our conclusions.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Eight o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR NICHOLAS WINTERTON in the Chair]

Women's Pensions
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Woolas.]
9.30 am
Vera Baird: A subtitle for a debate on women and pensions might well be, "A Tale of Poverty and Inequity". As many as 46 per cent. of single female pensioners now live in poverty. I do not feel very happy about the fact that, in the early part of a new century, almost half of single female pensioners are in such a state, but poverty there is. Another 31 per cent. of single elderly women—I assume that that figure is additional, but I am happy to be corrected—are in danger of falling into poverty compared with 25 per cent. of elderly men.
The average single female pensioner has £153 a week; the average man has£194. For couples, the average man gets £248, and the average woman gets £96. The debate is about inequity, not inequality. The situation is particularly harsh in that women make up the majority of pensioners—almost two thirds of pensioners, about 7 million, are women. More women pensioners than men live on their own and therefore have to manage their households out of reduced and limited earnings and 70 per cent. of female pensioners have no private pension. Before I weary the Chamber with more statistics, I shall pick out the last and the first figures: 70 per cent. of women pensioners have no private pension and 46 per cent. of single women pensioners live in poverty. What does that say about the adequacy of state provision for women pensioners?
There are of course cultural and historic reasons why women pensioners are poor. The lifetime model for the generation of women now in retirement would have been to leave school, work for a few years and then marry, stop work, make a home and, usually, raise children. However, not all women wanted to stop work on marriage. Lest anyone should think that by following the cultural norm, those women are reaping their current poverty from having led pleasurable lives of economic inactivity, I shall mention two factors. First, I doubt whether anyone nowadays is prepared to say that caring for a partner and family, particularly and exclusively in the absence of any other role or identity, is either easy or, in a modern sense, fulfilling. Secondly, in many cases it was compulsory for women to leave work not on having children but on getting married. My mother in law had to give up her job as a civil servant not when she became pregnant but on her marriage. I assume that in the post-war era it was regarded as important to preserve jobs for men. Whatever the cultural norm, however, some women simply did not have a choice.
The present generation of pensioners is reaping the result. As women have participated less in the labour market, they have built up less state income in their own right. Until 1978, even when they were working, women
2WH
usually paid the reduced rate of national insurance—the women's contribution. They never became entitled to a pension in their own right, but depended instead on a category B state pension—a maximum of 60 per cent. of the full rate. That would be calculated on the husband's contributions, which may or may not have been sufficient. Women's more limited participation in the labour market of course meant lower rates of pay. They either withdrew or worked part-time when they had their children, and part-time rates of pay are lower. Very few women in the generation that is receiving pensions had the opportunity to invest in private pension provision to supplement state provision.
In 1978, there was a helpful change and home responsibilities protection was introduced. It reduced the number of years needed to qualify for the state pension for every year—up to a maximum of 19—that a person looked after children. One can now qualify for a basic state pension after just 20, not 39 years of work.
In the Social Security Pensions Act 1975, Barbara Castle abolished the married woman's option, although she allowed those who had taken it to retain it. In 1975, she called the option the "alibi" for the inferior treatment of women. Ever since, however, the terms of the partial abolition and retention of the married woman's option have remained a source of great contention between older women and the Government. Its removal was non, the unalloyed benefit that Barbara Castle—that truly great pioneer of women's equality—intended it to be.
Eileen, my caseworker in Redcar, is highly articulate and very skilled and she is a case in point. She started work 36 years ago and was told, "You don't need to pay. Your husband's payment will cover you." She told me, "In those days, husbands told wives what was good for them and so did bosses." The chances are—this is certainly true in Eileen's case—that women thought that the man's stamp was for both of them and that it would be silly to pay more. It is eminently believable that that would be the view. However, as Eileen put it to me, women were not covered as adequately.
Eileen opted for the small stamp. In 1989, she took the option to change over, but she has not accumulated enough years to get a proper pension. She worked part-time while her children were young. She never worked less than 20 hours, but she was not allowed to join the company pension scheme, so she lost out there as well. She therefore has no full retirement pension. Her occupational pension is starting to accumulate, but it is severely reduced. She also lost out on home responsibilities protection because her children were born a shade too early for the system to apply. She expects a basic pension of about £30 a week.
We should not rest easy, telling ourselves that these women were simply victims of the bad old days and that we now look at things from a more modern and egalitarian standpoint. We should not simply say that it will not happen again, because women have been given the minimum income guarantee and are supported. As a nation, we treated those women unfairly.
Governments have said that a leaflet was sent out explaining to women that those who did not pay the full stamp would not get any pension, but that is not an adequate response. Everyone understands that women were just starting to emerge into the world of affairs—

3WH
by which I mean business affairs. They were unlikely to take that information on board. If they did, their husbands would tell them—again understandably, given the culture at the time—"Of course, the Government have to send information out. Some men are villains, but I'll look after you You're quite safe. There's no point having independent provision."
These women are now likely to be poor and to be on the minimum income guarantee or perhaps pension credit, with its different criteria. They have been left with low incomes by an act of unfairness. The Government should return to the issue when, in pursuit of their Green Paper consultation document, they consider the position of pensioners. They should examine whether it is possible to return to the question of women who paid the small stamp, which was sometimes bigger than the one that would have qualified them for a category A pension. They paid as much as £19 a week for nothing. For instance, a woman who had not paid any stamp would receive a category B pension, based on her husband's national insurance contributions, as would the woman who had paid the£19 stamp.
I invite the Government to consider giving those women, on retirement, some form of accumulation of what they have forgone—whatever proportion it might be practical to disburse in that way. That would help them to remain off state benefit, or less dependent on it, so it would be in the interests of all of us. At the same time it would be fair and would redress a wrong that is harshly felt, particularly in places such as Redcar, for a long time home to heavy manual industry such as steel works, in which gender roles were extremely polarised. Women there were late to emerge in their own right, continuing to be dependent on their men for longer than metropolitan women might have been. They, like my researcher Eileen, now find themselves in a predicament. They were denied financial self-determination in their youth and they were denied it by the culture in their middle lives. If some recompense is not made, they will be denied financial self-determination in their old age and will spend it in pensioner poverty.
Nothing in my contribution is intended to be critical of the Government. They have done an enormous amount, quickly, to pour money into the poorest pensioners, predominantly women. Nevertheless, about 1 million women pensioners are on the MIG. When pension credit comes in, two thirds of those entitled to it are likely to be women, although that is designed for those who are slightly better off than those on whom I have focused. The Government have acted, and they have acted well.
Lynne Jones: Recalling my hon. and learned Friend's comments about her case worker, who has a small occupational pension, is she not concerned that Eileen will not receive the benefits of pension credit because she does not have a full basic pension?
Vera Baird: I suspect also that because the pension credit is assessed on Eileen's income and that of her husband, she is likely to be outside its limitations. That
4WH
is another problem with pension credit—the incomes of both parties are aggregated in considering whether they qualify. I thank my hon. Friend for that point.
Mr. Oliver Heald: Does the hon. and learned Lady agree that one concern is the low take-up of minimum income guarantee and pension credit? About 770,000 households do not take it up with the result that, despite what the Government have done, the income of single pensioners as a percentage of national average earnings has remained exactly the same since 1997 and the gap between the richest and the poorest pensioners has widened.
Vera Baird: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman's figures are right, but I shall leave it to my hon. Friend the Minister to correct them if necessary. It is a continuing problem that older people are reluctant to take up benefits such as the MIG. It is difficult to get them to do it, and nobody could have tried harder than have the Government. The hon. Gentleman makes an opportune intervention. This Saturday, a team of Labour party activists in Redcar, led by me, will go out to try to encourage better take-up of those benefits by older people. We Labour MPs have good relations with our pensioners' forums. From them we get advice on the best ways to encourage take-up.
Mr. Heald: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Lady for giving way to me again. Is she aware that in 1996 the number of pensioner households not taking up income support was 600,000 and that now, despite all the efforts that she has mentioned, the figure is 770,000? Is that not a sign that despite the best efforts of Governments we have not cracked the problem of getting the money to those who need it?
Vera Baird: As I said, the difficulty is almost intractable. There are problems with the complexity of forms, although many of those have been substantially tackled. The leader of my pensioners' forum tells me that although the application form is quite a few pages long, it is now just over a third of what it used to be. Many unnecessary questions have been cut out. One cannot fault local authorities, the Government and Labour councillors and MPs who have gone to the trouble of setting up such liaisons to find out what the problems of take-up are.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): On a point of information, the minimum income guarantee claim form has been cut from 40 pages to 10—questions such as, "Are you pregnant?" have been removed. It is a quarter of its former length.
Vera Baird: I thought it was a third, but I shall leave most of the figures to my hon. Friend, who is a mistress of figures.
Mr. Mark Francois: On the complexity point, most pensioners receive their pension over a post office counter. Many pensioners, many of whom are women, are extremely concerned that the Government have made the process of collecting their pensions more complex by insisting that pensioners have some form of

5WH
bank account at their post office. That is highly unpopular with pensioners. The system was not broken, so why on earth did the Labour party have to fix it?
Vera Baird: The hon. Gentleman is being somewhat unfair. It will still be possible to pick up pensions and associated benefits at a post office by using a card. I have received few complaints about that. I have heard concerns about the closing of post offices, and that is entirely natural, but I have not heard many concerns about pensions no longer being available.
Limited take-up has more to do with the complexity of the forms and the process than being unable to find the way to one's local post office. Fortunately, the process has become less complex. I suspect that hardest for all Governments to get to grips with is that older people are reluctant to apply for anything that they do not regard as absolutely theirs by right. That is a hopelessly intractable problem. All we can do is improve our literature and our efforts.
Moving on to future women pensioners, I shall quote the Green Paper and raise some concerns about it. It says on page 57:
"Much of the improvement in the pension provision of future female pensioners will come from labour market improvements—higher employment rates and better pay."
I detect a worrying tinge of complacency there. However, the paragraph after that readily concedes
"pension provision will still lag behind that of men for some years."
My concerns are not allayed by the next sentence, however, which states:
"Many of these problems flow in part from a lack of awareness and understanding of the pensions system."
It is not a good idea to blame the victim. Had I done a PhD on "Pension Planning for Women in the 21st Century" it would not be of much use to me if I were one of the 40 per cent. of women who earn less than £100 a week. Let us consider women earners and not women pensioners. Knowing a lot about how pensions work would not be a great deal of use to me if I were one of the 40 per cent. of women who still earn less than£100 a week. Consequently, with the thesis that we will rectify the poverty of women on pensions by gradual trickledown, I have some concerns. I appreciate that the document is a Green Paper and so the Government are open to argument. However, the suggestion that the problems that women face about pensions will decline and eventually disappear in time is a myth. There are still fundamental socio-economic differences between men and women that will impact on their financial provision in retirement for a generation.
Women still suffer from a gender pay gap, which is not really closing. The first reason for that is because there are 1.4 million women who are below the lower earnings limit and are not in the national insurance system at all. There are far more women than men in that position. The Equal Pay Act became law in 1970, some 33 years ago. As the Green Paper says, the real landslide that has taken place since then is that average female pay is no longer two thirds of average male pay but is now four fifths. The average weekly male pay for a full-time worker is £100 more than the average weekly female pay for a full-time worker. Again, that figure is from the Green Paper.
6WH
Although we have the highest female participation in the labour market in Europe, only 40 per cent. of it is full-time. When the average male and female wages are compared, taking into account part-timers, the gap is £200. Calculations by the Fawcett Society and the Women's Budget Group clearly show that, at that landslide rate of progress, it will be 75 years before there is anything approaching equal pay between men and women.
There is no doubt that the increase of hourly pay for young women has progressed well; it is now about 95 per cent. of the hourly pay for young men. However, that is not reflected in the incomes of women over 40, which have simply not moved. Between the two—earning reasonably close to what men earn in one's 20s but substantially less per hour in one's 40s—is the second socio-economic difference between men and women that stops women from trickling down to having good pensions, which is the career break. After she has been out of the labour market for a year, the average woman's drop in pay is 16 per cent. That is a wage penalty that is apparently double that to which men in the same situation succumb.
I am again grateful to the Women's Budget Group for calculating that a woman who starts contributing to a pension when she is 25 and takes five years out when she is 30 will have a fund worth 20 per cent. less than it would have been had she worked consistently. If the woman waits until she is 38 before having a child, the reduction is 18 per cent. A woman who does not start paying until she is 30 will build up a fund worth 25 per cent. less at 60 even if she does not have any break at all. Despite the HRP all that time ago in the 1970s being almost fully operative, women who take career breaks still face real problems in saving for their retirement.
Angela Watkinson: The hon. and learned Lady is bringing back all sorts of memories. I started work in 1958. I remember very well the days when there were two different salary scales for men and women doing the same job. On the reduced stamp for women, when I married in 1961 I was persuaded to go on to a reduced married woman's stamp, but I did so in full knowledge of the implications. After quite a substantial career break, during which I brought up my family, I was given the option of going back on to a full stamp. Again, I made a fully considered decision to do so. The literature that was available at the time was clear and I knew exactly what I was doing, so it is not fair to paint all women as victims who did not understand the implications of the reduced women's stamp at that time. That is rather a dangerous generalisation.
Vera Baird: I do not accept that. On what the norm was, I have my informant Eileen, who is my caseworker and was my predecessor's caseworker too. Over the years, she has dealt with a large number of women who were in exactly the same position that she is and who were of exactly the same understanding, namely that they needed to do more than rely on their husbands for future resources. Although I entirely accept what the hon. Lady said about her state of mind, I simply do not accept that that was widespread.
On future pensioners, the second state pension will be immensely helpful to future women pensioners and will assist carers. I understand that it is passported via child

7WH
benefit until the youngest child is five. Passported by the presence of an invalidity care allowance, the second state pension will assist 2 million carers, almost all of whom are likely to be women, to accrue some more pension. However, it is a relatively modest step—I think that the fund is £2.3 billion. Although that is progress, it is small progress that will make some difference but not an enormous amount.
I shall quote a few more figures to try to make that point. At present, to avoid making a claim on minimum income guarantee, it will be necessary to have a stakeholder pension—a third party pension income—of about£30 a week. By 2060, that figure will be about£100 a week. Someone who saves from the age of 25 will have to put aside about£22 a week to be able to receive that income. A person who saved for only 20 years of their life before retirement would need to put aside£62 a week to get that level of income. Given the figures on equal pay that I have quoted, it is self-evident that many women will not be able to set aside that amount of money every week. If they have that money at all, they will have far more pressing needs for it and some apprehension about locking it away in a fund that is not easily liquidated if there is further need.
Those figures show how difficult it will be for many women to climb significantly above the minimum income guarantee. They also point to this truth: that unless radical change is made toward pension financing for women—way beyond what I slightly unkindly characterise as the trickle-down theory on page 57 of the Green Paper—women will not in the foreseeable future be able to acquire significant pensions to keep them out of poverty in old age. Again, the Green Paper says that the Government currently finance 60 per cent. and the private sector 40 per cent. of pension provision. However, it is key to switch that ratio around, so I point again to the figures to which I referred and to how difficult that switch-around will make matters for women in low pay.
What is to be done? First, let me excuse myself by saying that the document is a consultation paper and I introduced the debate not because I have cut-and-dried answers to the problem but because I am keen to put forward a few pointers and suggestions and anxious that others should also put forward their pointers. Certain facts seem plain to me. At present, only the state can remove the unpredictability of women's working lives in relation to pension provision. If both current and future generations of women pensioners are to come out of poverty, it is essential that the basic state pension should be improved, for example, by increasing it at least to the current level of means-testing, by linking it to earnings growth and considering raising age-related additions.
Obviously, the remaining gaps in basic state pension coverage must be plugged by changing the eligibility criteria. The system was designed around a post-war breadwinner-dependent model of work, which is in radical need of updating. It does not fit many men's work patterns these days and it certainly does not fit women's. The requirements have now become unrealistic. People are going into education for longer and starting work later. Further minor but important proposals include reconsidering the lower earnings
8WH
limits. At present, 1.4 million women earn less than£75. At that rate, they will never accrue any NIC credits at all.
Clearly, the number of years of paid employment that is required for entitlement to a full basic state pension should be reduced. I suggest that the definition of "contribution year" could be altered to allow for some sort of aggregation of part-time work into the contribution rate. As I understand it, the Government currently contribute£60 billion to pensions but, in a different sense, they also contribute£20 billion through the tax relaxations available for investors in private pensions. That money could be better used to redress the imbalance in pension provision. I fear that if none of those ideas is taken up and if more radical steps are not taken, in 15 or 20 years, when Eileen is retired on her£30-a-week pension and I have retired on my gold standard—relatively speaking—parliamentary pension and we tune into the Parliamentary channel to hear someone talking about women and pensions, the appropriate subtitle of the debate will continue to be "A Tale of Women's Poverty and Inequity".
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I intend to start the winding-up speeches at, or just after, 10.30 am. I think that four hon. Members want to catch my eye in the debate, so if they are self-disciplined and speak for six or seven minutes each, we shall get them all in.
10.3 am
Annabelle Ewing: I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) on securing this important debate. As has been said, the majority of the poorest pensioners are women. There are several reasons for that, including the well-documented pay gap that women experience during their working lives, even if they are working full-time. Many women work part-time, mainly because they have commitments to look after children, older relatives or both. In addition to receiving lower pay for such part-time work, those women are also unlikely to have any pension provision additional to that of the state pension. Many women have incomplete national insurance contributions records. What should the Government be doing to deal with those problems and ensure that women have decent pensions and are not forced to live in poverty?
In light of the time constraints this morning and the fact that other hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate, I shall simply examine a couple of issues. First, the married woman's stamp is a matter of concern to many of my constituents. Were women who paid the reduced stamp made fully aware of the consequences? Many of my constituents were unaware of the consequences of exercising that option in any detail and they now find themselves facing a bleak future. Does the Minister think that that is equitable and do the Government intend to offer any hope to women in such a position? What plans do the Government have to provide women who have not yet reached pension age and who have incomplete national insurance contributions records with pension forecasts? That would be a useful exercise.
The second key issue, to which the hon. and learned Lady alluded, is the provision of a decent basic state pension. The lack of a decent basic state pension

9WH
penalises those women who have an incomplete employment history. The Government's latest approach to the issue is the pension credit, but it is difficult to see how that is compatible with ensuring a decent state pension for all because it is premised on a massive extension in means-testing of pensioner benefits. As I have said many times, the massive extension of means-testing runs contrary to the Labour party's 1997 manifesto commitment.
Maria Eagle: Is it not the policy of the Scottish National party to abolish pension credit?
Annabelle Ewing: Today, we are talking about the Government's policies. The Scottish National party is arguing for a decent basic state pension and we are not in favour of the massive extension of means-testing proposed in the State Pension Credit Act 2002. The Minister will be aware that I voted in favour of that Act, but I did so having expressed concerns about the effect of means-testing on take-up, concerns that I have expressed again today.
Maria Eagle rose—
Annabelle Ewing: I will not take another intervention because I have only a few minutes left if I am to allow time for other hon. Members to speak.
That is the key issue for dealing with pensioner poverty and women pensioners in the long term. Means-testing demeans pensioners. They feel disinclined to take up means-tested benefits. The system is incredibly complex. It acts as a disincentive to save and has a negative impact on take-up. The Government's record on the take-up of means-tested benefits is poor, as is their record on tackling pensioner poverty. Indeed, in Scotland, after six years of a Labour Government, one in four pensioners lives in poverty. That is a scandal at the beginning of the 21st century. The most effective way to tackle pensioner poverty, including poverty among female pensioners, is to set the basic state pension at a decent rate.
10.9 am
Lynne Jones: I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) on raising this important issue. Women are, and are destined to be, among the poorest pensioners. I am old enough to have paid the married woman's stamp for a short time. I did so simply because I was just starting my career and life was tough. Every penny saved was welcome and I did not look beyond my immediate needs. That must apply to many women.
As my hon. and learned Friend said, many people who carried on paying the married woman's contribution ended up contributing more than they would have done had they paid earnings-related national insurance contributions. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will respond to that point. It is important and relevant to the fact that women who do not have a full pension contribution record will not benefit in full from the Government's pension credit. Something should be done to recognise that fact and to improve married women's basic state pension.
10WH
The pension credit is a useful mechanism to assist men and women on small occupational pensions who feel aggrieved because, having put by savings for an occupational or personal pension, they find themselves no better off than if they had relied on the state. Instead of being penalised 100 per cent. for every additional pound of savings, they are to be penalised by only 40 per cent. However, I echo the calls from both previous speakers that a more effective way of dealing with the problem would be to set the basic state pension at the same level as the means-tested benefit. There is a growing clamour for that, not just among old socialists such as myself, but increasingly in the pensions industry.
The Government said that they wanted to increase the proportion of pension savings from the private sector and reverse the current balance of 60 per cent. state and 40 per cent. personal, but they will not succeed unless the basic state pension provides a secure platform so that people can have confidence that everything that they save will benefit them in the long run. It is not only the Institute for Public Policy Research—the so-called favourite left-wing think tank—that is calling for that measure, but other bodies, pension experts and organisations such as the Pensions Policy Institute and the Faculty of Actuaries. That is crucial if we are to have a stable, long-term pensions policy.
The Government have made pensions so complex that people can have no confidence in what the future will bring. I hope that we shall have a Labour Government long into the future, but if no one understands the pensions system it is easy for it to be undermined by future Governments. That occurred with the state earnings-related pension scheme, which the previous Tory Government undermined and, to some extent, the basic state pension with the removal of the right to earnings-linked basic pension and the link to prices.
It is now possible for people to receive annual statements and if we still had the system that Barbara Castle put in place it would be difficult for future Governments to undermine it because people would receive a statement of their entitlement year on year, but that is not the case with the current complexity. It would be difficult to tell people about the interaction between their private, personal pension and the state pension. When I ask parliamentary questions on that matter, the Government always shy away from answering them. We are to require occupational providers to give an annual statement, but there is no provision for giving information about the interaction between the occupational or personal pension and the loss of state entitlements to means-tested benefits because of small pension savings.
In my book, the Government need to be more concerned about the pension savings of people on low incomes than of people on higher incomes, who can take care of themselves. People in this Chamber have access to a good pension and the interaction with mean-tested benefits is of no interest to them. It is of interest to the people for whom saving for a pension means doing without other basics that we take for granted. It would be wrong for the Government to encourage people to embark on personal and private pensions that will leave them no better off than the pension they would have received had they relied on the state. That is the great danger of the Trades Union Congress campaign for

11WH
compulsory pensions. We could find ourselves forcing people to make savings for pensions that will leave them little or no better off than if they had saved in other vehicles.
If future generations are to be better off than today's pensioners, we will all have to save more than we do. The question is how we make those savings. It is essential that we have a strong platform of state benefits, which will enable people to make personal savings with confidence. That particularly affects women, who, as my hon. and learned Friend explained, earn far less and have a shorter earnings span than their male counterparts. If women have private pensions and are not fortunate enough to have good occupational pensions with defined benefits, which will increasingly be the case, they will find that if nothing is done on average their personal pensions will be 10 per cent. less than men's, because of the difference in annuity rates.
The Green Paper touched on that matter, but the Government have shied away from doing anything about it on the basis that because women live longer it would be wrong to require that their pensions from annuities be set at the same level as men's. On average, wealthier people live longer, but if anybody suggested that a rich person should have a lower annuity rate people would be outraged. The Government should deal with that question and make it illegal to discriminate against women in relation to personal pensions.

The Government do not need to worry too much about more affluent people setting money aside for their pensions, but they need to do more to encourage people on low incomes to do so. According to a parliamentary answer on the cost of giving tax relief on pension contributions to higher rate taxpayers, if that tax relief were withdrawn and tax relief were given only at the basic rate, it would save about£1.7 billion. I strongly advocate that, in the interests of having a more robust pension system, the Government should consider redistributing that money to encourage people on low incomes to make more pension savings, perhaps by having a£1 Government contribution for every £1 of savings that people make. That would be much easier for people to understand than current tax relief arrangements. I welcome the proposals in the Green Paper to simplify the tax basis for pension contributions, but there is no real proposal for the distribution of Government support for pension savings. I hope that the Minister will consider that matter.
Time is short, so I shall make my final point. The Green Paper shows that the Government recognise that low-paid and part-time working women may face difficulties in accruing sufficient individual rights for their state pension. It also said that the Government would continue to review the effect on overall entitlement to contributory and other benefits in retirement. Would the Minister give us some idea of the Government's thinking on the matter?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I wish to thank the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing) for her self-discipline. Unfortunately, just as she sat down, I was advised that a Member who I thought was seeking to catch my eye
12WH
had to leave to go to a Committee of the House. Therefore, there is not as much pressure on time, but I thank the hon. Lady for her self-discipline and co-operation.
10.20 am
Mr. Mark Francois: I shall still attempt to abide by your earlier instruction, Mr. Deputy Speaker, not least because the subject is highly complex. If I keep my remarks relatively brief, I will allow more time for the real specialists to discuss it in their winding-up speeches.
I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Redcar(Vera Baird) on securing this important debate. I was intrigued to hear that she and a team of Labour activists will be out pounding the pavements in her constituency on Saturday. I would be genuinely fascinated to hear about the results of their endeavour as I suspect that they could be in for a fairly lively morning, given present circumstances.
If we are to have a broad debate on pensions, we must debate them in the context of what is happening to all pensioners, whether they rely solely on a fixed state pension or also belong to a final salary scheme or have made private pension provision. We must discuss pensions against the background of, effectively, a collapse in the stock market in the past few months. At the close of business last night, the FTSE had fallen below 3,500, compared with a peak some two years ago of, I believe, well over 6,000 points. That has several important implications for people with private personal pensions, which, obviously, are largely dependent on stock market values.
It is fair to ask what the Government have done to influence such matters, and it is impossible to ignore the Chancellor of the Exchequer's£25 billion raid on pensions, which began during the first Parliament of this Labour Government. At that time many people, particularly Conservative Members, warned that such an act was not as simple as it first appeared and that the Government could not take£5 billion a year in taxation without important knock-on consequences. That has proven to be exactly the case. Many final salary schemes have closed and that has affected many women.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The thrust of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird)—and, therefore, the subject of the debate—is pensions and women, not pensions in general. As long as the hon. Gentleman relates his remarks to women, he will remain in order.
Mr. Francois: I am grateful, as ever, for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the hopes for the future for women's pensions had been the fact that 66 per cent. of women in work have some private provision and that 58 per cent. have occupational pensions? Does he agree that the effect of the Chancellor's raid on pensions and the disastrous impact that that has had on the stock market has damaged women's prospects in a very real way?
Mr. Francois: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. As he pointed out, many women are very reliant on that

13WH
type of pension and took reasonably rational decisions to invest in them some years ago when the stock market appeared to be performing in a particular way and, crucially, against a certain set of taxation rules. Those have now, in effect, been altered by the Chancellor with his grab raid.
Maria Eagle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Francois: I will in one moment, when I have finished my point. Now that the Chancellor has altered those rules, many of those women, who took perfectly rational investment decisions at the time, have suffered mortally.
Maria Eagle: Given that the hon. Gentleman is discussing my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's taxation regime, will he mention the£3.5 billion a year offsetting corporation tax reductions that my right hon. Friend instituted at the same time?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I really do not think that the hon. Gentleman needs to respond to that question, as it is not entirely relevant to pensions.
Mr. Francois: I thank you for your guidance to the Minister, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that she has listened to it carefully.
Many female pensioners live on fixed incomes, as the hon. and learned Member for Redcar mentioned. Any sudden increase in taxation can therefore have a particularly adverse effect on them. They often have few financial resources on which they can fall back to pay the increases. I realise that we are debating not council tax this morning, but pensioners living on fixed incomes, many of whom are women. They will suffer in particular when large council tax increases are introduced in April. I shall not dwell further on that matter.
I intervened on the hon. and learned Member for Redcar on picking up pensions at post offices and her reply did not entirely satisfy me. At a post office on pension day, the majority of people picking up their pensions with their giro books are women. A straightforward system has been in place for many years, under which pensioners take their giro books to the post office every week to pick up their pensions. That is beautifully simple and everyone can understand it. Several hon. Members have pointed out that pensions are complicated to begin with. The Government have now complicated the matter further. When those women pensioners go to the post office to pick up their pensions, they will no longer be able simply to use their giro books, which they have been accustomed to for many years. They will either have to have a card or open a bank account at the post office.
We are not debating post office closures this morning, although I think that the hon. and learned Member for Redcar thought that that was the point that I was seeking to make. Several female pensioners have come to my surgery to protest at the change because they are very anxious about it. I have also had quite a few letters from anxious pensioners. Their simple point is that the system works very well and is not complicated. They want to know why they have to go through all these new-fangled arrangements when the old method worked
14WH
well. I have written to Ministers to try to get that argument across and have been met with, in effect, a stone-wall response.
Given that we are debating the complexity of pensions this morning, my real point is that the system is complex enough, but that one aspect of the payment of pensions to our pensioners, many of whom are women, was delightfully straightforward. This Government, who cannot resist meddling, had to go in and fix something that was not broken in the first place.
Vera Baird: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Francois: I will in a moment, but I have an eye on the clock.
The change has caused a great deal of distress to pensioners who do not think that it is necessary. It has worried them and it did not need to happen.
Vera Baird: So far, the hon. Gentleman has ranted about the stock market, post offices and taxation. I am beginning to think that the Conservatives are not interested in the topic of this debate, which is women.
Mr. Francois: The hon. and learned Lady is entitled to her opinion, but I have some bad news for her. It is because of such actions that the Labour Government's poll rating has imploded in the past 18 months. Labour Members do not like it, which is why I am delighted to mention it. With that, I conclude my remarks.
10.29 am
Mr. Steve Webb: I sincerely congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) on bringing this subject to the Chamber this morning. It is vital that the position of women and, in particular, the married woman's stamp, to which I shall return, are considered as an all-party matter. We are all hearing from our constituents about the matter and I hope that the Government will respond positively.
The hon. and learned Lady signed early-day motion 131 on the married woman's stamp, as have other hon. Members who have spoken this morning. It has been signed by more Labour Members than those from other parties and I hope that that will send a signal to the Minister that both sides of the House believe that the issue needs to be addressed. I shall return to the married woman's stamp because one aspect of it is not understood as well as it might be in terms of how we might deal with the problem.
I have a couple of suggestions to the Government on pensions policy that would particularly benefit women. The first relates to the basic state pension. As the hon. and learned Member for Redcar said at the outset, she would like the basic pension to be substantially increased for everyone and referred particularly to older pensioners. Increasing their pensions substantially would be a step in the right direction and would profoundly benefit women. When I asked written questions about that the Government replied that their minimum income guarantee strategy is more effective at targeting the poor.
The Minister should be aware, as I am sure she is, that the computer models used by the Department to estimate the effects of the minimum income guarantee

15WH
policy assume that everyone takes it up. As a result, two inconsistent policies are compared. Everyone takes up the age addition policy because we know that the pension take-up is, as near as damn it, 100 per cent. It is assumed that the minimum income guarantee take-up is 100 per cent. when another arm of the Department assumes in its public spending projections that two thirds take it up. Both cannot be right. The Government say that they are doing more for the poor because the MIG goes only to the poor. My answer is that the poor who receive it obviously do better, but the poor who do not receive it do not receive a penny. When age additions are used, they are all taken up, predominantly by women, and that is the only guaranteed way of getting money to the poor. Some will spill over to woopies—well-off, older people—but that is the price for guaranteeing that money goes to the poor. There is no mechanism for guaranteeing money to old, poor people other than through the basic pension.
Maria Eagle: Does the hon. Gentleman accept, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) certainly would, that some younger pensioners are also poor? How would age additions help them?
Mr. Webb: The Government have decided that the extra money they give to pensioners, instead of going on the basic pension, will go on earnings-linking the MIG. That is a legitimate policy choice, which the Tories accepted in the 1990s. They decided 'to put more money not into the pension but into the means test. That benefits young and old alike if they claim it, but one third of those who are entitled to it do not benefit. My strategy would get money to all older pensioners, many of whom are poor and form the majority of the poorest pensioners. I am not suggesting that we scrap the MIG but asking that when a decision is made about the marginal pound it should go on age additions.
Maria Eagle: I thought that the hon. Gentleman's party wanted to scrap the pension credit, which is the MIG.
Mr. Webb: We are saying that, starting from here, when the pension credit has not come in, we would have spent that£2 billion on age additions and extra pensions for older pensioners. However, the pension credit will be introduced next year. We would not scrap it, but in time we would reduce dependence on it by increasing pensions for older pensioners. That is our strategy and I hope that it is clear.
No one is denying that there are poor pensioners in their 60s, but the Government's approach fails to realise that non-take-up is predominantly a female phenomenon. Most pensioners who do not take up the MIG are female and most are old. Only age additions are guaranteed to get money to them.
My second point concerns compulsory private pensions. I agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) that we must ask the question, "Compulsion on top of what?" Compulsion on top of a pathetic basic pension that only brings people up to a means test is a dud deal. However, compulsion on top of a basic pension that is worth living
16WH
on is a pro-women policy. In Australia, where that is done, the people who gained were those who had not previously been covered by occupational provision, and guess who they were—women and part-timers. Therefore, in Australia, mandatory employer contributions to pensions have boosted those who were previously not pensioned, and they are predominantly women. If the state does its bit through redistribution and by paying a decent basic pension to older pensioners, in particular, mandatory private provision need not be a pro-men policy. It can fill the gaps, which predominantly affect women. Compulsion can therefore be a pro-women policy.
I was delighted that the hon. and learned Lady mentioned the married woman's stamp, which is my main topic. I raised it with the Paymaster General in Committee last Thursday, when we debated a regulation on the rate of that stamp. Other hon. Members and I opposed the decision to increase it by 1 per cent., and the House will have a chance to vote in a deferred Division on Wednesday on whether to increase the rate. We took the view that we should not increase it because it is unfair and already too high.
The interesting exchange between the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) and the hon. and learned Member for Redcar about whether women knew what they were doing when they signed up for the married woman's stamp demonstrated that some did know and some did not. I do not pretend that no one had a clue what they were doing. However, I have had thousands of letters from women throughout the country who say, independently, that the issue was not explained at the time. As the hon. and learned Lady mentioned, their employers did not explain it to them. They would be 19 or 20 and would have just got back from their honeymoon when the man from payroll would come round and say, "Did you have a nice honeymoon, love? Sign here. You're a married woman now and this is what married women pay." I do not pretend for a second that no one knew; I am simply saying that some people did not. That said, we will not get far with that argument because no one can prove anything now.
Incidentally, the Paymaster General told me that she paid the married woman's stamp but later realised that she had made a mistake. If someone that financially literate made a mistake, one wonders how clear the choices were. None the less, the Minister will no doubt tell us, "All these women signed a form, read a leaflet and knew what they were doing." Even if we suppose that that is true, we must remember that women subsequently had to decide whether to carry on paying the married woman's stamp, and various changes to the women's pension regime made the stamp less attractive.
The hon. and learned Lady mentioned home responsibilities protection, but her caseworker would not have got it even if she had had her children later because women on the married woman's stamp were excluded. As they say, not a lot of people know that. Once HRP came in, many women who were on the married woman's stamp in the early 1980s should have switched back and got it. That said, the hon. and learned Lady was talking about the end of the 1980s, by which time a lot of the damage would have been done to her caseworker's pension record. In the early 1980s, many

17WH
women could have switched back but they did not do so. The issues were too blooming complicated and women did not get proper explanations.
I do not expect the Minister to pay much heed to me, but I urge her to listen to her colleagues, more than 70 of whom signed the early-day motion. I urge her to get the Government Actuary to examine the issue independently—there is no need to listen to me or to anyone else. The Government Actuary should look at the value for money, or otherwise, of the married woman's stamp, how changes in the women's pension regime in the 1970s and 1980s affected the attractiveness, or otherwise, of that stamp and whether people had the necessary information to make an informed choice.
The Minister will tell us that officials wrote to women in 1977 and 1989, but even now, with all the advantages of decades of technology, the Government do not know where half of them live. I therefore do not believe that in 1977, or even in 1989, the Government could have written to all those women telling them how the system worked so that they could make an informed choice.
You will have gathered that I could drone on all morning, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I will not do so and I am sure that you would not let me. I enormously welcome the fact that the hon. and learned Lady discussed the married woman's stamp in such an informed way. Married women's pensions are on the agenda and a chapter in the Green Paper listed the problems quite well, although it contained virtually no solutions. There are things that could be done. Age additions benefit women and mandatory private provision for the long term benefits them, too. Action on the married woman's stamp would also be hugely beneficial.
We are calling for a fair return for married women, not something for nothing. These women paid thousands of pounds in national insurance and they should get a fair return on their contributions, rather than nothing.
10.38 am
Mr. Oliver Heald: I should declare an interest. As a barrister, I practised in the area of divorce law, and I want to make a point about pension sharing.
We have had a good debate and I start by congratulating the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) on raising one of the most important issues to do with pensions. My hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) said that we could not ignore the background to pensions when considering the position for women. It is true that the present situation has many depressing features. However, it is especially sad that the positive picture and hopes for the future—the predictions that, by 2025, women would receive on average 90 per cent. of the basic state pension rather than the current 70 per cent.; the fact that two thirds of women now have private sector provision; and the fact that more younger women are investing than younger men—have been so grievously undermined by the Government's policies.
There is no doubt that the Chancellor's raid on pension funds will have a special impact on women. That is because 58 per cent. of the two thirds of women
18WH
who have private provision do so in occupational schemes, which are closing at a record rate. According to the National Association of Pension Funds, the rate has doubled in the last year. The association is warning that many schemes are to move towards wind-up. We face a depressing background, given what might have been had the Government not acted as they did.
I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Redcar that every person, man or woman, should have an adequate pension. At the moment, we are in a period of transition from an earlier age, when a spouse tended to rely on the main earner's pension, to the current—and, let us hope, permanent—stage, when everybody has independent pension provision of their own. At the moment, women receive on average only 71 per cent. of the basic state pension. The Pensions Policy Institute recently published "The Pensions Landscape", which shows that the poorest pensioners are older, single women. As the hon. and learned Lady said, the Fawcett Society has recently produced a survey that shows that 46 per cent. of single women pensioners are in poverty, which is a sad and unsatisfactory position for a modern, civilised, western society.
The Government's response has been to load their hopes on to means-testing. However, the sad fact is that the approach is failing. On page 14 of "The Pensions Landscape" there is a good survey of what has happened between 1996–97 and now, which shows that the income of single pensioners as a percentage of national average earnings has not changed at all since 1997, and that the gap between rich and poor pensioners has widened. Means-testing is failing. Some 600,000 households were not receiving income support in 1996. Now, 770,000 do not receive the minimum income guarantee.
For all the talk of take-up campaigns and other things with which we would all agree, the policies have failed and the predictions and targets for the future are even more depressing. The Government's target is for 1.8 million households not to receive pension credit, which replaces the minimum income guarantee, because those households will not take it up. Even by 2006, the Government's target is for 1 million households not to receive the benefits
There is a sleight of hand in all that. The Government like to say how generous they are through their various means-tested benefits, while recognising that large numbers of people—a third—will not take them up. The Government get a very good press release at a modest price. I worry that that is the reason for such an approach. It is worth pointing out that a consensus is emerging, through Help the Aged, the National Association of Pension Funds and the CBI, that we should be considering whether we could simplify the state system to make it of more benefit to women and men so that they have an incentive to save on top of the basic state pension.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) made an important point about giving people genuine, attractive incentives and flexible methods of saving. The lifetime savings account, which was announced at the Conservative party conference last year as a step in that direction, would allow Governments to add contributions to individuals' savings. People could withdraw money for important events, such as a deposit on a house or a school trip; indeed, for anything. Provided that they had returned

19WH
the money to the account by the time they retired, they would get the Government contribution. It is worth considering whether the present savings system, with its very tight lock-in arrangements for pensions, will encourage the maximum number of people to save.
It is worrying that young people are deferring the decision to invest in a private pension scheme. Every five years, fewer young people go into pensions. They may be saving for other things and find it impossible to put money aside at that age for their retirement. However, a flexible lifetime savings account would enable us to tackle that problem by allowing the money to be withdrawn and returned while retaining the incentive.
Two thirds of women are in an occupational pension scheme, and the concern must be that the collapse in the occupational pensions sector will damage women more than men. It would be a good thing if the Government could find ways of helping those who did not understand the married woman's stamp system when they entered into it. I will listen to the Minister with great interest on that.
It was thought that one of the reasons that women did not have the pensions they should have had was that, on divorce, they did not receive adequate provision to have a pension of their own. Pension sharing was introduced to tackle that. However, there are problems with how it works. The cash equivalent transfer value that is used to value the assets of the pension at the time of divorce can be valued in a way that causes surprise in many cases. The cash equivalent transfer value is often very low considering the sort of benefit that it is supposed to be marked against.
In one recent example, an investment yield of 11.22 per cent. was used as an assumption in achieving a cash equivalent transfer value. The Government's Green Paper contains a presumption of 6.55 per cent. The effect of the transfer value being too low is that when the woman's share is paid out—if it is a woman—the capital that she receives is much too low to establish the sort of pension that the court thought it was establishing for her. There is a real issue of fairness there, and I should be grateful to know what the Minister says about it.
The second point is that, all too often, if the wife's share remains in the scheme it is a money-purchase share, whereas the husband's is a defined benefit share. He gets a return of 10 per cent. and she gets a return of 5 per cent. What does the Minister have to say about that?
I want to move on to equivalent benefits in public sector schemes. If the husband can take his pension at 50 but the wife must wait until she is 60, as is the current position, the husband can have lost his pension share and be receiving a lower pension at 50. A court can require him to pay maintenance to the wife until she is 60 and can receive her pension share, but his income is inadequate to pay her a reasonable level of maintenance. I am interested to hear what the M inister says about that.
Are we to move to a situation where private pension provision must be taken at 55 rather than the current age of 50? Several existing court settlements have been achieved on the basis that maintenance will be paid by the husband until the age of 50, at which point the wife will receive her pension share and rely on that. Will
20WH
provision be made in any change to reflect the fact that existing court settlements have been based on the current law and that there may be some disadvantage to women if those settlements cannot be continued?
This has been a fascinating debate, but my time is up.
10.51 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): I agree with one thing that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) said, which is that this has indeed been a fascinating debate. As ever on such occasions, we never have time to get through all the points that need to be raised. I apologise in advance because I will not be able to answer all the questions that have been put to me. I will, of course, try to write to hon. Members who have not had an appropriate response by the end of the debate.
First, I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) on securing the debate and also on the way in which she set out her points. I shall try to answer some of her main points. She is absolutely right that the demographic features and realities that face us today are obvious; people are living longer and women live even longer than men.
As we are all living longer, our pensions system must be able to deal with that by funding longer periods of retirement. That is a challenge for men and women alike. However, if a woman retires at 65—as will shortly be expected of her in any event—her life expectancy thereafter is 19 years. It is salutary to bear that in mind. The general challenge of extended lives is a good thing I am not advocating shorter lives—but extended lives present a challenge to the state and the private pensions system of which we must be aware.
Of course, it is not just this country that is facing up to those challenges. In many ways, this country is in a better position than others that have large, unfunded, pay-as-you-go state systems. Despite the doom and gloom that one hears, we have a relatively high level of privately funded pension provision in comparison with international standards, and with European standards in particular. Therefore, the combination of targeted state support with a well-developed private funded pension system puts us in a relatively strong position.
We are still in the consultation period, and I am sure that today's debate will be taken as a contribution to that. I have said that we are in a strong position, but the Green Paper recognises that there are particular issues that make it harder for many women to build up adequate pension provision. We are alive to those issues and are actively consulting and taking views from organisations such as the Fawcett Society about what we might do to improve the situation.
There are specific challenges that face women that can be expressed in a nutshell as lower employment rates and longer life expectancy, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar put it. However, it is not all bad news. Women in full-time employment are just as likely to have occupational pension coverage as men. In fact, 60 per cent. of women in full-time work have occupational pension coverage, the same percentage as for men. So, there are some good signs. Those women will benefit from many of the proposals in the Green Paper in the same way as full-time working men.

21WH
Also on the positive side, the employment rate for women continues to rise. Between 1979 and 2002, the employment rate for women aged 25 to 34 rose from around 52 per cent. to over 70 per cent. and childbirth and child care now have a far lower impact on women's employment rates than they did in the 1960s and 1970s. That should have a positive impact on tomorrow's female pensioners.
We have to face up to some issues, particularly in respect of existing pensioners. Pensions are an intergenerational contract; they must be fair and equitable between generations and affordable and sustainable in the long run if the regime that we end up with is to last long enough to enable people to plan. We have to keep in mind the intergenerational importance of the pensions promise.
Lynne Jones: Does my hon. Friend consider that the current melange of provision can continue for the next 30 to 50 years?
Maria Eagle: I certainly think that it is affordable. One of the main elements that a system needs if it is to last is affordability. The others are fairness and equity.
I should like to deal with some of the issues that have been raised. The first is the married woman's stamp. Since 1997, women have been unable to elect to pay married woman's reduced rate contributions and those who had already elected to do so have been unable to continue paying at that level. Many hon. Members—not only my hon. and learned Friend, whose researcher is in that position but the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) and others—have made it clear that it is a difficult issue. There is no doubt that people had different perceptions. I receive as many letters from those who tell me that they knew exactly what they were doing and that those around them opted to pay less because they did not want to pay as much—knowing what that would mean for their pensions—as I do letters saying, "I did not have a clue what I was signing up for."
Many hon. Members have suggested that we should enable those who made that election to go back and make a different choice. The difficulty—administrative
22WH
issues aside—is what that would mean for those who made a different choice. Should we also give them the opportunity to go back and choose again, and to rejig their contributions? I have only to mention that to put across the problem that we face in trying to do anything. One has to be fair to the entire population, which is not easy.
I do not accept that those married women received nothing in return for their contributions. They paid a much smaller stamp and have always been eligible for widows' benefits. They later became eligible for statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay, although I agree that that election affected their pensions most of all. Nevertheless, married women who opted to pay reduced rate contributions made an informed choice. They were required to give written notice of their decision and had to complete a form saying that they had read information. At any time since, they could have opted back in to the full rate. It is not true that they made a once and for all decision and nothing more could have been done. I accept that there are aggrieved people around, many of whom are now seeing the consequences of their decisions, but it is not easy to deal with the matter in the ways that have been suggested.
Vera Baird: Was my hon. Friend indicating a willingness to look for a way to assist those women?
Maria Eagle: The Government accept that the issue has to be considered; we are always willing to do that. However, there is no easy solution and none that would be fair to women of all ages. We are considering not only the women who elected to pay the reduced rate stamp, but those who, in full knowledge, did not; they wanted to make pension contributions. We have to be fair across the board, which makes the issue very difficult. I shall have to answer the many other points that have been made by hon. Members by writing to them.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Minister is right. Time is up.

Turkey Imports
11 am
Mr. Mark Todd: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I sense that this subject will strike a chord with you, bearing in mind matters that you raise in the House from time to time.
The United Kingdom's turkey industry is large, but it does not often attract a great deal of attention. One would not necessarily guess that more turkey is produced in the UK than sheep meat, but it is true. The industry receives no subsidy. Like all poultry producers in the UK, it is a free enterprise section of agriculture that relies on the wits and investment of those who choose to manage it and produce the turkey meat that we consume. Indeed, it is disadvantaged by operating within the common agricultural policy, because the cost of cereals to feed the birds represents a substantial part of its costs. Under CAP, those costs are higher than they are in an unregulated sector in which feed can be procured on the open market.
The industry has a steadily improving food safety record, and has invested in safety consistently over the years. Some 90 per cent. of the turkeys produced in the UK are produced under the British quality turkey scheme, an industry-driven regulatory framework with independent inspections of the quality of production. That is consistent with the self-reliant approach that the industry has adopted. It is not an industry that comes round with a begging bowl at regular intervals when it runs into trouble. It has sought to solve its own problems and to operate as any other free enterprise producer would in this country. However, it has faced considerable problems over the last two or three years. Imports have increased in the past 10 years, driven by the same factors that have increased the flow of imports in other sectors; not least the relatively high value, during much of that time, of the pound against other currencies. Most turkey producers, like most other manufacturers, accept those disadvantages as being part of their business.
I should like to draw attention to some issues that most regard as being outwith the normal concern of the exchange rate. One example puts it into stark focus. Most of our constituents have a turkey at Christmas. It is a traditional British choice, one that I normally make. The difficulty this year has been a concerted campaign by Brazilian turkey producers to achieve substantial penetration of our traditional marketplace. They were assisted by some of the supermarket chains, which were happy to try to source turkey meat at the cheapest possible rate.
I congratulate the National Farmers Union and representatives of the British poultry sector. It was only because of their strong campaigns that Brazil was prevented from supplying a significant proportion of supermarket frozen turkeys last Christmas. I congratulate all the organisations that were involved in that campaign, which dissuaded, for example, Asda from continuing with a contract that would have allowed Brazil to supply a substantial proportion of frozen turkeys for the expected Christmas market.
However, the campaign did not wholly succeed. Two supermarket chains eventually let a contract to the Brazilians at a rate of €1.34 per kg. The industry has
24WH
worked out the actual cost of producing turkeys. Taking a reasonable perspective of the costs of producing a bird in Brazil, which has much lower labour costs and other advantages—I shall return to those advantages, some of which are unfair—the cost after landing in this country is €2.21 per kg.
How does one explain the ability to support a substantial contract at what appears to be a below-cost price? The only explanation that the turkey industry has come up with is that it is, effectively, dumping. The Brazilians produced heavily for an expected Christmas market but found themselves short of contracts. They had a substantial number of surplus birds that they wished to get rid of, and they wished to persist with their strategy of breaking into our market. That meant that they were happy to sell substantially below cost price.
A presentation has already been made to the European Union on behalf of the turkey industry, which has argued that that was a case of dumping. If true, it was an illegal act and should be taken to the World Trade Organisation. I hope that the Minister will give an update on the British Government's approach to that invasion of our marketplace. What steps have they taken with EU authorities to reinforce the points that have been made by the British turkey industry?
It is important to understand the dynamics of the turkey sector. Many of the birds that we consume at Christmas are fresh birds. However, if turkey producers in this country are to be economic, they cannot simply produce fresh birds for the Christmas market. They must maintain a capacity all the year round, which means that they must provide turkeys for the frozen market for a substantial part of the year. We all recognise that demand for turkey meat is not consistent throughout the year, in spite of the efforts to market the meat for use at other times.
The aim of the Brazilian campaign—which is supported by Cargill, one of the major commodity brokers in the agriculture sector—is to take away a substantial proportion of the frozen market. If that campaign were to succeed, it would not merely take away a significant chunk of the frozen meat market, but would substantially damage the market for fresh British birds, because it simply would not be economic for British producers to maintain a supply for the much narrower portion of the year about which we would be talking.
Let me turn to the second breach that requires attention. We must understand the way in which the EU imposes tariffs on imports. There is a recognition that tariffs should differentiate according to the added value of the imported product. In this case, a seasoned bird bears a tariff of 8.5 per cent. of the value of the product, but a standard frozen bird bears a tariff of €340 per tonne. Therefore, simply pumping the bird with a small amount of basting material that makes no substantial difference to the meat or to the keepability of the product will enable one to avoid a substantial proportion of the tariff that one would bear at our borders. It is important to recognise that we are talking about EU borders. It is perfectly possible for an import to come into an EU port on the continent and to be shipped on to this country without further intervention or additional tariff.

25WH
The same scam—it is essentially a scam—was identified with lightly salted chicken some time ago. Imports were coming into this country with a little sprinkling of salt that added virtually no cost to the process but which made a substantial difference to the tariff levied at the border. I expect the UK Government to have made representations to the EU on this obvious evasion of controls at our borders.
Let me turn to perhaps the worst example. The EU has rightly set high standards on the use of drugs and other additives to meat imports into this country. It does so partly for animal welfare concerns, but mostly to protect the health of our citizens. It is recognised that pumping animals full of drugs that enhance growth as well as prevent disease may be harmful to the humans who eat them.
Nitrofurans are antibiotics that are banned in the EU. In the past three months, nitrofurans have been positively identified in 33 cases in Brazilian poultry at EU borders. I say "poultry" because I recognise that it applies to chickens and to turkeys. That report came about only because we had already put in place a control based on a visit of the EU food and veterinary office to Brazil. As a result of that visit, a control is in place on the borders, requiring consignment checking for such products. That was absolutely the right step to take. The food and veterinary office's visit identified several alarming aspects, and I wish to quote from its report:
"The Brazilian legislation on veterinary drugs, which allows for their therapeutic use or as feed additives, does not offer the same degree of control as in EU legislation. A number of drugs prohibited in Europe are still available on the Brazilian market place and some substances, although prohibited in Brazil are still in use by the Brazilian livestock industry. Results from the national sampling plan for 2001 reinforce concerns over the use of potentially hazardous veterinary drugs in all sectors of the livestock industry in Brazil.">
I should qualify that by saying that the original purpose of the visit was to look at the livestock sector. However, only when it became clear to the food and veterinary office that it was unearthing substantial abuse of drugs in all forms of meat production in Brazil did the office recommend the border consignment checks. We have identified the problem at the border, and I should like the Minister in his response to tell us how it has been dealt with.
What representations have the British authorities made about the consistent—the examples I have quoted are not isolated—import of products into this country in breach of European Union controls? Further to that, what steps has the Food Standards Agency taken? Although we are taking our checks seriously, it is not unreasonable to suppose that some of the production is creeping into the country. What suggestions has the agency made to control the risk to human health from the consumption of meat containing nitrofurans?
I conclude by saying that Brazil has demonstrated general failures to conform to EU veterinary medicine residue testing and meat certification obligations. Again, I quote the food and veterinary office's report on its visit to Brazil. That report notes that
"certificates containing false information are issued by the … competent authority. Virtually all recent missions to Brazil have detected deficiencies in the certification system and have made appropriate recommendations for improvements to the system. As a consequence, the Brazilian system for certification of meat must be considered to be unreliable."
26WH
A critical part of the mechanism for deciding whether a product should be imported into this country is whether we trust the certification arrangements of the exporting country. In the case of Brazil, we do not. What steps are we taking to ensure that Brazilian standards are raised? I have presented evidence of dumping, failure to comply with reasonable expectations on certification and controls on the use of drugs, and the naked abuse—as far as I can tell—of loopholes in the tariff system to import scarcely touched meat under a framework that effectively results in the avoidance of a substantial tariff.
Given all that, I argue that there is a strong case for the Government to seek action through the EU to restrict the access of Brazilian turkey products to the UK and European markets. Our industry is affected. Brandons in Scropton, an employer in my constituency, is considering closing one of its major plants in the UK to deal with the threat of imports from that source; that is why I have raised the matter at all. It cannot be right that British jobs are being sacrificed when Brazilian product is brought into the country in flagrant breach of a number of controls that we should expect any exporter to comply with.
11.17 am
The Minister for Rural Affairs and Urban Quality of Life (Alun Michael): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) for the manner in which he has introduced the debate. He touched on a number of important issues. I certainly agree with his introductory remark that poultry meat is an important product on the international commodity market, as well as on the EU and UK wholesale and retail market. UK poultry producers do not receive any direct support from the common agricultural policy, and prices therefore closely reflect market supply and demand. The poultry sector is a success story.
Nitrofurans are an issue for the Food Standards Agency. We shall relay the concerns that my hon. Friend has raised in this debate to that body. I assure my hon. Friend that action is being taken at the EU level. All poultry imported from third countries must enter the EU through designated border inspection posts, where it is subject to veterinary inspection. All consignments are subject to documentary and identity checks, and at least 20 per cent. of consignments undergo physical checks in the normal course of events. The purpose is to ensure that import conditions are met and that the products remain in a satisfactory condition during transport. That is the context in which nitrofurans have been identified.
Nitrofurans are unauthorised veterinary medicines and were found in poultry meat from Brazil. They are not permitted in the EU for use in food-producing animals because of public health concerns. Those residues should not be present in food, and I share my hon. Friend's concerns about them.
Recently introduced Community rules require all consignments of poultry meat from Brazil to be subjected to a chemical test to ensure that they do not present a danger to human health. The test must be carried out with a view to detecting the presence of antimicrobial substances and in particular nitrofurans and their metabolites. The consignment must remain at the border inspection post while testing takes place and

27WH
it is allowed entry into the Community only after favourable test results. If nitrofuran residues are detected, the consignment is destroyed, which is a stringent measure that sends a strong message on the commercial impact of nitrofurans being detected.
My hon. Friend referred to the basting scam. We will make representations to the Commission—along with Customs and Excise, which is responsible for duties—if the industry gives us the details. We need evidence in order to make the case to the Commission. We suspected that there was a problem in that area but the industry has not confirmed it, and I hope that my hon. Friend will reinforce that message. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is willing to represent the industry to the Commission, provided there is evidence on which we can make a strong argument. We need such evidence in order to be taken seriously.
My hon. Friend referred to the question of dumping. We are aware that the UK poultry product market can be threatened by low-price imports from a third country. In those circumstances, safeguard actions may be taken. When it is reasonable to do so, the Government are prepared to argue for those measures to be taken.
There is also the issue of the unfair application of WTO rules. For instance, concerted pressure from a number of member states, including the UK, recently led to the amendment of the classification of frozen, salted poultry meat imports to close a loophole, which some importers were exploiting to pay less tariff on lightly salted frozen products; my hon. Friend referred to that situation. That loophole has been closed but, as I have indicated, we need evidence o go further. There has been direct representation by turkey producers, rather than the UK Government, to the EC. Given the evidence, we are happy to represent the industry.
WTO rules allow for temporary special restrictions to be imposed on imports to offset a sudden significant drop in market prices or a surge in the volume of imports. Under WTO rules, however, those additional duties can be applied only to a limited number of chicken and turkey products. In general, it is fair to say that there is little obvious prospect of reducing the level of imports. Indeed, the Government's wider policy is to open up trade and it would be inconsistent to exclude poultry. In the longer term, import volumes are likely to grow further, particularly following further tariff reductions as part of a WTO settlement. Consequently, UK producers are unlikely to be able to compete on price alone, which means that they will have to rely increasingly on producing quality assured products for which they will obtain a premium price. My hon. Friend has rightly indicated the steps that the industry has taken effectively to compete in that market. It is fair to say that local and regional marketing can also assist the industry, which is something that DEFRA and the Government seek to promote.
There are other issues of concern, such as the additional costs faced by UK producers for higher welfare standards. A positive note is our success in ensuring that animal welfare issues a re recognised in the Doha ministerial declaration. There is obviously a long way to go before a final settlement, but we will work
28WH
hard to ensure that the issue remains part of the negotiations. In other words, we will balance the need to pursue animal welfare considerations with the need to achieve a level playing field for home producers and those who produce imported products.
Mr. Todd: My right hon. Friend will accept the distinction between long-term planning of trade policy—I entirely agree with what he has said about that—and the short-term issue of dealing with apparent naked abuse of existing trade rules. Will he focus more on the steps he can take in such cases? He has referred to the need for better evidence; I have some on the dumping issue. Will he agree to meet representatives of the poultry sector to build up a portfolio of knowledge on such abuses so that action can be taken by the UK?
Alun Michael: I should be very happy to take up that sort of issue. It may be better for my noble friend Lord Whitty to undertake such a meeting. I shall draw my hon. Friend's concern and his earlier correspondence to Lord Whitty's attention, and I am sure that a meeting can be arranged.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept that the issue is to identify where there are breaches of WTO regulations or the controls appropriate in the UK and Europe and to take action in those cases, rather than taking action when there is no strong evidence. Evidence is at the heart of what actions can be taken. There are also issues relating to the burden of the large numbers of regulations to which the poultry industry needs to conform. There is always a delicate balance to be struck between the need for regulation, and the need not to overburden industry. Although there is still much more to be done in that area, I hope that the efforts that we take not to over-regulate the industry are recognised.
It is true to say that, in recent years, the EU turkey market has been over-supplied. The UK industry has taken significant steps by reducing production and placings to compensate for problems of oversupply in import penetration. The industry is to be congratulated on its past voluntary efforts to improve the market situation. As my hon. Friend will agree, we must ensure that dumping does not take place and that rules are not breached to ensure that the competitive situation allows the UK industry to retain as much market share as it can fairly do.
Mr. Todd: I would not wish to set aside the reputation for self-reliance that the industry has established, but it would be helpful if the Government participated in a review of the trade environment of the sector, so that it can be assisted in planning further ahead. The Minister has rightly focused on the added-value, high-quality elements of the potential product range for British turkey in the future, but that has not had much assistance from Government. Perhaps he can consider research that may assist them in future planning.
Alun Michael: I am glad that my hon. Friend does not want the self-reliance of the industry to be undermined, and I share that view. The British quality turkey standard and the farm fresh turkey assurance schemes help to promote UK-produced turkey. There is a market, and a response from the public to home-produced product of high quality. I am sure that that is

29WH
the way to go. The scheme has set turkey production standards from the sourcing of breeding stock, to all aspects of rearing, right up to final processing. Traditional farm-fresh turkey producers also set a code of practice for the production of traditional free-range turkeys for the Christmas market. Those schemes will help to ensure quality products that are likely to receive premium prices, which is the way to compete in the market, alongside taking measures to ensure that advantage is not taken of the ability to breach regulations.
My hon. Friend rightly referred to the poultry sector as one of the success stories of UK agriculture. Sustained growth has been achieved through investment, innovation, skilful marketing of products and offering value for money, of which it can be justly proud. The Government recognise the benefits that that has brought to the poultry industry. Our role is to act on evidence to maintain the level playing field.
I understand the industry's concerns about the competition it faces due to imports. As a result, it is not surprising that poultry producers see the Government's main role as ensuring that the field upon which they work and trade is level. That role is comprised of our work on international negotiations, our overall approach to regulation and a range of specific environmental, animal health, welfare and food-related concerns, which we shall be able to go into in more depth if my noble friend and I meet my hon. Friend and representatives of the producers, as he suggested.
I am happy to explore those issues to ensure that all imported meat from third countries complies with EU animal and public health standards, and we have the appropriate checks in place.
11.30 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Rural Housing
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now come to a debate on a most important subJect.
2 pm
Andrew George: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you are right. This is a very important subject, and I am delighted to have been successful in securing the opportunity to kick off the debate. I noticed that last week the chief executive of the Countryside Agency, encouraging the Government to look again and give a better definition to the matter of rural proofing in respect of housing, commented in a press release circulated jointly with the Local Government Association:
"All our evidence points to the fact that the lack of suitable affordable housing is one of the biggest barriers to keeping rural communities sustainable."
Speaking as a representative for a Cornish seat—I also represent the Isles of Scilly—I would say that that is certainly true, and that it is the biggest barrier. Enabling people to have a home of their own, and ensuring that there is adequate affordable housing for local people in rural areas, is key in the maintenance of rural communities.
Rural areas face a crisis as great as that of the late 1980s, when we experienced a sustained period during which private house prices spiralled upwards out of control. They then fell. In the early 1990s many people were caught in negative equity if they had bought at the crest of the market. I am not sure that on this occasion the market will necessarily behave in that way. Many people in rural Britain will experience sustained levels of high house prices that are completely out of kilter with rural wages for many years to come. Therefore, the problem will not resolve itself through the activities of the marketplace. That is why it will require important Government intervention, and I am pleased that the Minister is here today.
Together with local authorities, the Local Government Association and others, I was of course shocked that the Government announced their intention to withdraw local authority social housing grants. Those were significant in providing for a large number of schemes in rural areas. The Government gave local authorities only seven weeks' notice of the withdrawal taking elect prior to the beginning of April this year. I do not doubt that it was in anticipation of the debate, and the fear of the mauling that I would give the Government, that they announced last week a three-month transitional arrangement, leading from the beginning of the next financial year. Although that is welcome, I shall argue that the Government need to do a great deal more if they are to resolve or begin to make any kind of inroads into the problems experienced by rural areas.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The withdrawal of the local authority housing grant is important, as the hon. Gentleman said. In fact, the situation was worse than he suggested because it was within three weeks of the statutory date for the setting of some local authorities' budgets. Undoubtedly some local authorities will be forced to set a supplementary

31WH
council tax part of the way through their financial year. As I understand it, as of yesterday councils still had not been officially informed of the withdrawal of the grant. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the matter has been handled incompetently?
Andrew George: It is certainly true that representatives from local authorities in my constituency made strong representations at the time of the announcement and made exactly that point about budgets being set and programmes being largely put in place. It was anticipated that there would be a continuation of the kind of affordable housing developments that local authorities in many rural areas desperately require, but the rug was pulled from under their feet. No doubt the Minister will want to address the points that that hon. Gentleman and I have made in his reply.
Let me explain the extent of the problem in Cornwall. When we are talking in terms of generalities, sometimes we miss specific points about local areas. I will talk about my constituency, which includes west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, where there is a significant and large private housing market. I call it that because I do not like using the phrase "open" housing market. The market is not open to all local people. It is important to call it a private housing market. It is a bit like a golf club: one can enter only if one has certain credentials and can pay the membership fee.
The private housing market is extremely restrictive in places such as Cornwall. House prices have doubled across much of Cornwall over the past three years—no doubt that is reflected across much of the rest of the country. There is a serious affordability gap. Since records began, Cornwall has been at the bottom of the earnings league table. The mismatch between earnings and house prices in Cornwall—especially the far west of Cornwall—is probably greater than it is in some areas of the south-east, where house prices are significantly higher. There is a significant problem because of the affordability gap between earnings and house prices, which is not properly taken into account in the way in which housing grants and investments are made.
On the Isles of the Scilly, the problem is even more significant. Earnings are no higher than they are on the mainland, yet house prices are similar to those in London and the south-east. It is difficult to find a flat with two bedrooms—a leasehold property—for less than £250,000, and that is the most bare and basic property that one can possibly gel:. House prices are astronomically high in such areas.
For people who cannot even begin to look at the private market, which is the vast majority of people on ordinary local wages, the question is where else to look. Of course, they look to the private rented sector. The private rented sector in Cornwall accounts for less than 10 per cent. of the housing stock—it is rather lower than that across most of Cornwall. That figure is much higher in many urban areas, but in areas such as west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly the private rented sector has to compete with what sensible landlords wanting to maximise the return that they get from the investment of their capital will consider, which is the holiday trade.
32WH
Many properties are lost to the holiday trade because one can get a far better income and there is also the security of being able to retain the property regularly if that is required. For example, one might want to sell it into the private market, given that house prices are very acceptable to someone with a spare property.
The private rented sector therefore affords little opportunity for people looking for accommodation. Rents in the far west of Cornwall are astronomically high. People who are entitled to housing benefit often receive a benefit level that in no way makes up the full cost of their rent. Where else can they live? They look to the social rented sector, which used to be called council housing. In my constituency, both Kerrier and Penwith have gone through stock transfers and all the properties are, one way or another, the responsibility of housing associations. On the Isles of Scilly, few properties—there are little more than 100 of them—are council houses. Even there, somewhere between 11 and 12 per cent. of the stock consists of social rented units.
According to a recent parliamentary answer, in urban areas 19 per cent. of stock consists of social rented units, but in many towns and metropolitan areas the social rented sector is more significant than that. The opportunities to get rented accommodation in urban and suburban areas are therefore significantly greater than in many rural areas.
Mr. Paul Tyler: I am following my hon. Friend's speech with great interest because his experience is paralleled in my constituency. I wonder whether he has seen the figures in the Western Morning News, which has done an admirable job in bringing the matter to the attention of local decision makers, demonstrating the effect of the forced sales of properties, which local authorities did not want to sell, under the right-to-buy scheme. North Cornwall district council, for example, currently has a waiting list of 1,600 persons, but it has had to sell off 1,247 properties in recent years, which is a major discrepancy. In Restormel, there are 2,700 people on the waiting list while 1,939 properties have been sold off. Does my hon. Friend accept that any extension to the right to buy affordable housing would be devastating in a rural area such as Cornwall?
Andrew George: Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes the point well. In North Cornwall, where only 3,500 properties are available for rent through the local authority, given that there are more than 1,600 people on the waiting list, nearly half the properties could be immediately let again to people on the waiting list.
Penwith went through the process of stock transfer in 1994. As a result, it is debt free and is therefore entitled to levels of housing grant for further capital investment to which many other local authorities are not entitled. With the money from the stock transfer, and the extra money that it is able to obtain from the Government through local authority social housing grant and other sources, it is able to engage in a social housing building programme that many other local authorities would envy. Last year, it built 40 properties of which it is particularly proud as a result of its investment, but it had to sell 45 of its properties under the right to buy. It is therefore running as fast as it can in order to slide backwards, which is the nature of the unsatisfactory system.

33WH
Many of my constituents in Penwith find themselves with no alternative but to be housed in entirely unsatisfactory bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Many of them come to see me in my casework surgery. I know that many hon. Members who have experienced the problem feel, like me, absolutely helpless. One can ensure that the system works fairly on behalf of one's constituent, but one knows full well that there are not enough private rented and social rented properties in the marketplace. We are talking about families who have to uproot themselves from their local communities and live in bed-and-breakfast establishments in which people's children are often not even in neighbouring rooms. The accommodation can be small and cramped, which is totally unsatisfactory, and located far from people's workplaces and their children's schools. The issue increasingly affects local authorities.
I know that the Government have set a target that within the next year local authorities must no longer have people living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. In Penwith, 80 households are living in such accommodation and I doubt whether an authority such as Penwith district council, even if it works heroically during the next year, can achieve the Government's target. I have serious concerns about that.
I have talked specifically about west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, but rural areas in general have fewer properties available in the rented sector and people in such areas have to wait longer to find accommodation. A parliamentary answer to me from the Minister on 27 February stated at column 732W that people in urban authorities must expect to wait 370 days to be housed, but in rural areas they must expect to wait 426 days. That is a significantly longer wait. No one can say that the housing crisis in this country is an urban one when people on waiting lists in rural areas must wait longer. If people in my constituency thought that they would have to wait only 426 days, they would be pleased.
There are fewer opportunities for people in rural areas. There is also the issue of invisibility. In deep rural areas, people who want to remain living in their community because they are farm workers or work in the area know that all the council properties have been sold off and that there is no point in trotting along to the local authority or housing association and putting their name down on the waiting list. They also face the added problem of invisibility. What is the point of waiting for a bus on a Sunday if there is no bus? What is the point of putting their name down on a local authority waiting list if there are no houses in the vicinity in which they want to live? People in rural areas on the Isles of Scilly and mainland Cornwall sometimes find themselves living in cramped accommodation with three generations in one household if they want to stay in the vicinity. Because of the informality of rural areas, people tend to be tolerant of such arrangements and do not sleep on park benches. Homelessness is hidden in rural areas, but it certainly exists.
If the Government are saying that they want to invest in the completion of affordable new units to meet that need, I would point the Minister to a parliamentary answer on 6 February at column 418W. In reply to a question about how many social rented unit completions in local authorities are defined as rural, the answer was—I shall give only two figures for
34WH
comparison—5,514 in 1989 and 2,021 in 2002, a significant drop of more than 60 per cent. There are significant difficulties in rural areas and the Government are not keeping up with that need, which is increasing.
Mr. Tyler: My hon. Friend will recall that in the White Paper on rural affairs in 2000 the Government gave a commitment to double the Housing Corporation programme for rural housing in 2003–04 and in so doing to provide a total of 3,000 affordable homes a year in small settlements and to provide a total of 9,000 homes a year throughout all rural districts. He will also recall that just four months after publication of that White Paper the Government's implementation plan downgraded that commitment to just 1,100 homes in 2001–02 and 160 in 2002–03. Does he accept that the problems in Cornwall to which he has rightly referred—he and I have a direct personal interest in the matter—are reflected all over rural Britain?
Andrew George: Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes a good point and no doubt the Minister will wish to address that serious concern. We want to support the Government if they intend to match their words with actions in rural areas. There are concerns—perhaps the Minister can reassure us on this—that the Government's primary focus on housing is a belief that there is only one region with a housing problem, which is the south-east and London, and that there is little need for action beyond that. People are getting that impression, although I hope that that is wrong. Perhaps the Minister will address that.
I must congratulate the Government—the Minister will be pleased to hear it—on having listened to a campaign, in which I have been much involved, to bear down on the large number of second homes in rural areas. That includes withdrawing the absurdity, which some people find offensive, of spending more than £200 million a year subsidising the wealthy through a 50 per cent. council tax rebate on their second homes when, as I have pointed out, thousands upon thousands of people live in appalling situations such as the bed-and-breakfast arrangements that I described. That is clearly unacceptable. That£200 million could be far better spent meeting the needs of local people in rural areas. If we want to spend Government money, that is a more effective use for it.
I was pleased that one of the Minister's predecessors, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), in a debate with me on 9 February 2000, although successive Ministers had previously failed to accede to my request to review the 50 per cent. rebate, put down his notes—I hope that the Minister will follow that precedent—saying that he was no longer willing to read from the notes given to him by his civil servants and that he would examine the provision. As a result, we had a change in the White Paper on rural areas in November 2000. I congratulate the Government on having listened to the case and made that change.
However, I urge the Minister to look again at how the receipts from the withdrawal of that council tax rebate are used. Local authorities, under the Local Government Bill, can increase council tax on second homes only to 90 per cent., not to 100 per cent. If the money is to address the problems created by second home ownership in rural areas, the Government should

35WH
ensure that local authorities can direct it at social housing. It should not be withdrawn and used for other local government purposes. I urge the Minister to listen to the many authorities directly affected by high levels of second home ownership and ensure that the money is kept within the billing authorities. The Government should then urge billing authorities to direct the money at social housing.
Peter Bradley: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has just said, but he will be aware that the local economy in Cornwall is greatly reliant on tourism. As one who spends his Whitsun week in Cornwall—perhaps in the hon. Gentleman's constituency—I would not want to be deprived of the ability to rent holiday accommodation. There is a difficult balancing act to be performed. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of any research that shows what proportion of receipts from holiday lets go into the Cornish economy rather than into the pockets of landlords who, perhaps, live primarily in London, the south-east or elsewhere?
Andrew George: I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that there is a distinction between second homes and holiday homes. Holiday homes pay business rates, not council tax. However, the 140-night rule enables people to net an income for 140 nights and still pay council tax. Many people find that even more offensive. There are many second homes used as holiday homes that produce a great deal of income.
The hon. Gentleman, by implication, is absolutely right. Where those second home owners live elsewhere, as many of them do in the case of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly—where about a quarter of properties are second homes—that money goes out of the local economy to be spent elsewhere. If people are not living in an area, they cannot support the local shop and local facilities. Of course, they spend money on improving their properties. However, we would prefer to see the limited supply of accommodation available in west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly being used to meet the area's needs and not used purely for recreation and investment. Such secondary purpose; will be acceptable only after all the local housing need has been met. At present, however, they are unacceptable. I urge the Government to consider changing the use class order for second homes purely for the lifetime of a particular occupancy in order to discourage further second home ownership. That would give local authorities powers to deal with those issues.
I want to draw my comments to a conclusion as others wish to speak. I urge the Government to address a few issues of future work. The first is exception sites. In rural areas under planning policy guidance note 3, which was introduced by the last Conservative Government, there has been a complete change in the ethos of the planning system. The change was in accepting that planning could take account of the user as well as the use of land. That policy allowed local authorities to discriminate in favour of local housing need in developments on the edges of villages and rural settlements. That is very welcome, as it has enabled a few—a very few—schemes to meet local housing needs. The problem in developing
36WH
them is matching the money with the planning opportunities so that landowners understand that they are not subsidising the scheme; rather it is the planning system that is enabling the low land price. There is a distinction between a small multiple of agricultural value and full development value, which in places such as west Cornwall can be up to £500,000.
That subsidy comes in through the planning system and enables social housing to be developed. I urge the Government to consider ways of strengthening that policy in order to encourage local authorities to use it; otherwise, on sites on which there is a cross-subsidy, there will be bungalows all over the hills. If we want to retain our valuable countryside, the Government should recognise that we cannot have a let-rip planning policy in rural areas in the hope that a small proportion of those properties will meet an affordable housing need.
Secondly, I urge the Government to take a second look at the question of second homes to ensure that the receipts are properly spent to meet a social housing need. The Government should also look at planning policy and at a change in the use class order for the lifetime of the occupancy of a property.
Thirdly, I urge the Government to look again at developing what I call the twilight market: those who cannot get council or housing association properties and who cannot make the enormous leap into private market housing but who could go somewhere in between. That could be through shared equity or leasehold schemes. I know that many housing enablers, housing authorities and housing associations have very imaginative ways of helping that group of people. I urge the Government to invest in such schemes to ensure that the golden share can be retained for perpetuity and that there are constraints on market equity schemes in market town sites.
I ask the Government to extend the approach that they have adopted in the south-east of England on the right to buy, key worker housing and investment in social housing so that rural areas are given the same priority that the Government have given to the southeast and London.
2.29 pm
Peter Bradley: I start by thanking the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) for introducing the debate. It is not the first time that these issues have been discussed either in the Chamber or in Westminster Hall. It is a very important issue, and, although I realise that important debates are taking place in the Chamber, it is a shame that this debate is so poorly attended. I must own up to feeling disappointed that representation on my side is not impressive; it may be thought impressive because I am on my feet, but it is not impressive in numbers.
There has been much discussion in recent years about what matters most in the countryside. Frankly, nothing matters more than housing, especially the provision of affordable housing. The future of rural communities depends on it. In fact, a significant increase in the provision of affordable housing is needed. The recent decline in rural communities is a direct result of the loss of affordable housing to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I shall try to substantiate those remarks.
The Rural Development Commission estimated that between 1985 and 1990, some 91,000 homes in the countryside were sold under right-to-buy legislation. It

37WH
further estimated that in the next six years, about 80,000 homes would have to be built to meet demand. In fact, as few as 17,700 were built, which has left a significant deficit. The market in what was once socially rented accommodation brought about an influx of commuters, retirees and people wanting to buy holiday homes. There is nothing wrong in that, or in people exercising their right to buy if they can afford to do so, but the direct consequence of social housing stock not being replaced has been an exodus of people who have been priced out of their communities.
It may come as a surprise to discover that 25 per cent. of people living in the countryside are living in poverty or on the margins of poverty. According to the RDC, 40 per cent. of people living in the countryside cannot afford to own a home. That puts into stark context the impact on rural communities of the wholesale disposal of affordable housing.
Between 1971 and 1996, there was population growth of 24 per cent. in the countryside. That compares with national growth of only 6 per cent. According to the Countryside Agency, 25,000 new households a year in the countryside are formed through inward migration; and 25,000 new households have formed themselves from existing communities. However, no housing provision has been made for many of those new households.
I suspect that the figures have not changed a great deal since, but in 1999 about 77 per cent. of homes in urban communities were owned or mortgaged by the occupier. That figure is 86 per cent. in rural communities. That means that only 14 per cent. of homes in rural communities are available for rent, compared with 23 per cent. in urban neighbourhoods.
The lack of affordable housing has far-reaching consequences. Young people who are forced to migrate to the towns, either to the local market town or further afield, take with them the children who would keep the village school going, and they take their custom from the village shop, the post office, the pub and the church—all of which are landmarks of community life. Those who replace them in the homes that they may once have hoped to rent, but which are now available only on the open market, typically do not have children of primary school age; and they shop and conduct business near their places of work or, increasingly, online. Housing shortages also have a knock-on effect on the business community and the rural economy, because a vital source of labour has been lost.
It is a vicious circle. Community breakdown leads to increasing difficulties in securing sustainability, and that loss of sustainability leads to further community breakdown. We need to reverse that process. I believe that it can be done, but it requires concerted and more determined action than we have seen over the past few years.
I welcome the Housing Corporation's target, mentioned by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who has left his seat. The corporation plans to provide 9,000 new affordable homes in rural settings by 2003–04. That is not a long way short of the Countryside Agency's target of 10,000. The situation is not as bad as the hon. Gentleman suggested, because the Housing Corporation has exceeded its targets in the rural programme, but he was right to point out that
38WH
currently only 1,600 homes a year are being provided in settlements of fewer than 3,000 people. I believe that we need at least to double that figure. Moreover, we need to ensure that those homes are provided where they are needed, and not just in the south or the south-east. Those are the target areas established by the Housing Corporation, but housing must be provided where it is needed—that is the key. Unfortunately, until now the planning system has been too inflexible and too rigid to assess housing need properly or to meet it when it is identified. Planning officers are often more committed to development control than to the more creative discipline of planning.
Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman says that there is concern about the fact that the Housing Corporation has primarily identified the south-east as a target area. Surely he would have been encouraged in the year 2000, when the Government White Paper identified a severe shortage of affordable housing in the west midlands. The Housing Corporation, however, seems to be ignoring the fact that that problem was identified two years ago.
Peter Bradley: I am sure that the Housing Corporation would dispute the fact that it is entirely ignoring the problem. As we are all aware, the greatest pressure, particularly for key members of the labour force, is in the south and the south-east. In that respect, I am arguing not that resources should be diverted away from the south and the south-east but that they should also be provided to those regions that need them, including the west midlands.
I was referring to the role of planning and planners. I have said many times, because I believe it, that planning can be a very creative engine of social change. Too often, however, it has become bogged down in development control and heavily weighted—too heavily, in my view—towards protecting the environment against the interests of the people who live in it. A balance must be struck, but, too often, it has not been.
Andrew George: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that for an exceptions policy to be successful in rural areas, it is important not only to adopt a rigid and strict planning policy but to stick rigidly to it? If a planning authority fails to do that, and shows too much flexibility, there is little likelihood that landowners will want to deal with an exception site, because there will always be the possibility of achieving a much larger value on their land.
Peter Bradley: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point, but I would make one point. It is clear that exception sites have often made an important contribution to the provision of social housing, but they are not the answer on their own. They are not sufficient to provide for all the needs of all the people who require affordable housing. I shall try to outline in a few minutes some of the steps that the Government and, indeed, local authorities must take to overcome that problem.
The hon. Gentleman's reference to exception sites has provoked me to refer in passing to the Conservative party's extremely unhelpful intervention in the past few months. Its announcement that it would extend the right to buy to housing association properties had an

39WH
immediate and direct impact on the provision of exception sites. That is curious, and it is difficult to divine what caused that response. It seems to have been predicated on the conception—perhaps the misconception—among many landowners that there would be a Conservative Government in the not-toodistant future who could actually implement that policy. The hon. Gentleman shows by his facial expressions that he finds that as bewildering as I do. Nevertheless, it meant that, almost overnight, exception sites were being withdrawn from the market, which caused dismay among social housing providers, including the rural housing trust, with which many hon. Members will be familiar.
I want to refer to one recent Government initiative, the basis for which I accept and applaud. We need to ensure maximum use of Brownfield sites in order to protect greenfield sites from the pressure of private development. However, PPG3 and the sequential test therein continues to force young people out of their villages and into local market towns. The hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) may wish to comment on that because it is a feature of the local housing plan in Bridgnorth, a district that both our constituencies share. If local people want to remain in the village where they were born and raised, which is especially likely to be the case if there are jobs there for them, they will also want housing to be developed there, not in the local market town simply because it happens to be near a motorway or major road or on a railway line, if young people are forced away from their communities against their will, we shall continue to break family connections and community links, contribute to the downward spiral of community life in rural neighbourhoods and reduce the scope of the local labour force.
We need less top-down and more bottom-up planning. I am pleased that the Government are committed to the future of parish councils. The vital villages programme, funded by the Countryside Agency, has given parish councils not only a key role in determining the future of their communities but the wherewithal, the programmes and funding to fulfil that responsibility. Parish councils really can show local leadership, both in identifying the need to which I referred earlier and in building the essential consensus on which a successful planning system must be based. We are talking about sensitive environments and landscapes, but we must also consider the needs of people who live in those landscapes and try to build agreement about what a community needs to sustain itself.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman talks about a bottom-up approach and building consensus in local areas but, unfortunately, his Government are doing precisely the opposite. Creating regional housing and planning bodies simply takes power away from local communities and will make the consensus and bottom-up approach that he advocates much more difficult.
Peter Bradley: I do not agree with that. There is a great deal of sense in strategic planning, both nationally, through planning guidance, and in the regions, but it makes it all the more important that there should be
40WH
grass-roots regeneration of our democratic system and grass-roots identification of what is needed to give substance to those strategic plans and ensure that they meet local needs. I see no conflict at all between those arrangements. It is a shame that the Conservative party does not spend more time encouraging parish councils to fulfil their potential, rather than spreading scare stories about the Government's intentions to abolish them and place what the Conservatives claim are such onerous new burdens on their members that 75 out of a total of 70,000 have thrown up their hands and resigned. The Conservative party needs to talk more sense about parish councils and give them more encouragement to fulfil their huge potential.
Mr. James Gray: I broadly agree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I am just a little puzzled by one aspect of what he says. Parish councils have no formal role to play in the planning process. Is he advocating that parish councils have a formal planning role under regional government, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) mentioned, his Government are introducing?
Peter Bradley: I am coming to my wish list, or shopping list, for the Minister, and all will be revealed shortly. Indeed, parish councils have an important role to play, along with their local district or borough council, in undertaking housing needs surveys. There should be an obligation on every local authority to undertake such surveys and to incorporate parish plans in the local planning framework. Recently, in Portcullis House, the clerk of Little Wenlock parish council, which is in my constituency, unveiled a parish plan that he and the parish council, working with the community, had developed—an ambitious but very practical plan. His task now is to convince Telford and Wrekin council to treat it with the seriousness that it deserves.
Matthew Green: That might be tough.
Peter Bradley: I hope that it will not be tough. I hope that, in future, there will be a genuine compact and that parish councils will live up to the expectations of their communities, rather than letting them down, which has been a feature of some parish councils. The very best have been doing a much more important job during the past five years than they were previously allowed to do.
Therefore, parish plans should be developed and incorporated into local plans. Sites for housing should be allocated beyond the exception sites, and the village envelopes that have constrained the development of affordable housing in recent years should be loosened.
Central Government, as well as local government, need to do more. We have depended far too much in recent times on crumbs from the developers' table, such as the odd affordable home here or there that is contingent on planning consents for private housing developments. The presumption should be reversed. Registered social landlords should be given the opportunity to fund at least part of their social housing provision by building perhaps one or two private houses for sale on the open market.

41WH
A threshold should be introduced for communities with a population of fewer than 3,000, and it should be reduced for communities with a population of more than 3,000. There should be a moratorium on the right to buy in communities of less than 6,000. If I caught correctly the drift of the comments of the hon. Member for St. Ives on tenure, discretion should be given for specified tenure in the granting of planning consents in areas that are experiencing housing pressure.
Council tax should be hypothecated for the provision of affordable housing. I do not entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that it should be limited only to the district in which it is raised. We must take a balanced view of need and understand that the opportunity to sell housing to people who seek second or holiday homes is rather limited in some areas, but that does not mean that their housing need is lesser.
The sequential test that I alluded to earlier should be suspended in designated areas, in so far as it prevents people from finding housing in their own community and forces them away to the towns. A rural key workers strategy should be adopted, similar to the key workers strategy that has been developed for the south and south-east.
There is a need for boldness, courage and commitment. When a community says that it wants housing on greenfield sites or even in the green belt, there is a case for providing it. People live in such landscapes, and we should encourage them to remain in them. We must listen more attentively to what rural communities tell us. They are far more permissive than they have been represented as being in the past.
We can reverse the decline. We have levers to pull, if we choose to pull them. However, those decisions need to be taken now because it is almost too late for the current generation. We owe a duty to the next generation to ensure that they can bring up their own children and find a prosperous future in the villages in which they themselves were raised.
2.49 pm
Matthew Green: This is a welcome debate and, in my Front-Bench role, I welcome the fact that it has been raised from a Back-Bench, constituency point of view. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) for securing the debate. He made a thoughtful speech, which was followed by a similarly thoughtful speech by the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley), who proposed some ideas with which I had a great deal of sympathy. Perhaps there could be some unity of thought in dealing with the problems of rural housing.
I realise that the Minister has a great deal of sympathy with the problems. I know from discussion that he understands many of them. Pressures in London and the south-east seem to be drawing the Government's attention away from rural areas—perhaps one could argue rightly so—at a time when the problem is getting worse. The Government and the Minister need to resist the temptation to be drawn entirely to London and the south-east, to see where the other problems are.
The Government's figures show that the number of rural households in England deemed to be unintentionally homeless and in priority need has increased by 13 per cent. in the last five years from just
42WH
over 15,000 to 17,000. We have heard figures from my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives, the hon. Member for The Wrekin and, through interventions, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). They identified some of the statistics that show the real scale of the problem in rural areas.
Problems in rural areas have a variety of causes that are not the same as those that fuel the affordable housing shortage in London and the south-east. Ludlow, North Cornwall and St. Ives are all constituencies that suffer from people buying second homes—in the case of Cornwall—or retiring into the area from London and the south-east. People sell a three-bedroom semi-detached house on the outskirts of London for a third of a million, and wander up to Shropshire and buy a country cottage for£250,000. However, in Cornwall or Shropshire,£15,000 is a good salary.
How can one afford a family home that costs£250,000? I see the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), and I am sure that the problem is the same in his constituency. People who are working and living locally cannot afford to purchase homes in their area. If they want to buy a home, they are driven away from the area in which they live. That economy is fuelled not by salaries, or people commuting, but by people retiring into the area, particularly from London and the south-east, and using the capital advantage that comes from having worked and lived there to force up the house prices elsewhere.
In some ways the problem is hidden. We have heard about the problems of the number of people in rural areas that cannot afford to live there. However, that is only part of the problem. Many young people in those rural areas move away.
If one looks at the demographics of my constituency—I am sure that the problem is the same in St. Ives—one finds that there are next to no people between the ages of 18 and 35 living there. They cannot afford to live in their communities. People move back into the housing market in their area when they are in their 30s or 40s after they have established careers and built up some capital in other parts of the country. There is a 20-year gap that has a huge knock-on effect, as we have heard from the hon. Member for The Wrekin, on primary schools. There is a declining number of children of primary school age, and when the school is lost, the community suffers. The shop goes, the pub goes, and there is a loss of community purely as a result of house prices.
On several occasions, not least in the rural White Paper of 2000, the Government have identified the problem. We cannot fault them in that regard. They share our concern. However, the record shows one step forward and four steps back. We welcome the one step forward—the changes to the second-home discount. We are delighted that the Government have finally done something. However, they would do well to take note of the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives about building social housing.
That was the step forward. Let us consider some of the problems that have taken us backwards. The first is the right to buy. That has had a disproportionately devastating effect on rural areas. To be kind to the Conservative Government who introduced it, they

43WH
sought to break up the large-scale social housing estates so that they contained a mixed tenure. One reason for the introduction of the right to buy was to enable people to own their homes. However, the reality is that home owners cherry-picked. Those who lived in desirable country council houses bought them; those living on large estates did not. Therefore, the problems in the large estates in metropolitan and northern cities have not gone away, but the social housing stock in rural areas has been decimated, with the result that we no longer have the social housing stock that we need.
There are two districts in my constituency. One, South Shropshire, did large-scale voluntary transfer; the other, Bridgnorth, did not. Both are losing 100 homes a year. Their housing stocks are just over 2,000 apiece. Work it out; we shall not have any homes in 20 years unless we keep building them. There was a solution, particularly in South Shropshire—local authority social housing grant. The electors there, in survey after survey, identified social housing as the No. 1 priority, and the district council recycled every capital receipt that it had through the local authority social housing grant. Magnificently, over five or six years, it has managed to increase by 5 per cent. its number of affordable homes—they are available through housing associations rather than through the council. The council managed to increase its stock, but only by allowing it to be taken from it.
The Government's White Paper hailed the Ludlow foyer project in South Shropshire as an excellent example of rural regeneration and affordable housing for young people. It has had£300,000 of local authority social housing grant. I suspect that if it had had to go through the normal Housing Corpo ration route it might have arrived several years late, if at all. Therefore the local authority social housing grant has enabled at least one rural district to deal with its problem.
With the announcement that local authorities had to make known details of their schemes by the end of February, the Government have shown that they realise that they must do something. They backed away to an extent, but the abolition of the scheme is a mistake. The fact that they gave only three extra months and£275 million instead of£500 million means that if all the affected authorities rush to register their schemes, and they exceed£275 million, someone—the Government—will have to prioritise between areas. I am afraid that in some parts of the country where social housing would have been built in the next 12 months there will be none. Although I welcome the slight backtracking of the Government, and I appreciate that they might not have realised the full extent of the problem when they first made the move, they should reconsider the matter and go further still.
The Government allocated£250 million to their starter home initiative, announced in March 2002, of which£8.7 million was allocated to rural areas. After some quick maths, I reckon that about 3 per cent. of the total was allocated to rural areas. Once again that is an indication that the Government are tackling what they perhaps see as a more urgent problem, while there is, frankly, a problem in the rural areas as well.
44WH
Finally, there is at times an artificiality about the housing numbers. The Minister has considerable sympathy on that point. I realise that the changes that the Government are making mean that in a couple of years the housing numbers will not be a problem. However, I should like to highlight the case of South Shropshire, which had a disagreement with Shropshire county council over the number of houses. South Shropshire wanted more because of the social housing need, but the county council wanted to allocate them elsewhere. An agreement was reached, but then the Government office for the west midlands stepped in, took 500 homes away from South Shropshire's allocation and gave them to Telford and Wrekin to build the millennium village—an excellent idea—at Ketley. South Shropshire has 569 housing permissions left by 2011, yet its survey identifies a need for 1,400 affordable homes. I realise that the Government will tackle that and the Minister has considerable sympathy on the matter, but those are some of the problems that impinge on rural areas.
It is not all about problems. What are the solutions? We need to see a change to the right to buy. That change should be not just for areas in London and the southeast, but made available to any council that wishes to make those changes, because there are pockets around the country where the right to buy has devastated the social housing stock. The problem is not confined to London and the south-east. Councils should be able to change the discount, and in some circumstances any discount under the right to buy should be ended. I would much prefer encouragement of the right to invest. Ironically, the Conservatives introduced the right to invest at the same time as the right to buy, back in the 1980s, but they then abolished it because no one was using it because everyone was taking advantage of the right to buy. In my mind, the right to invest is the shared equity route, and very much the way forward in ensuring that houses remain in the stock but also that people pay back and build up their capital receipts.
I should like to share with hon. Members news of a successful scheme in South Shropshire, which I have mentioned to the Minister. The golden shares scheme seeks to create a middle tier of housing. It uses section 106 agreements about local need housing, often when a farmer builds in an adjoining field for his family. Under those provisions, individuals are tied, and must sell to other local people at an agreed maximum growth rate in house prices. The result is that the housing remains affordable to local people but that that person still owns 99 per cent. of their home. I would recommend that laudable scheme to hon. Members around the country as a practical, middle way—for want of another term—forward between the social housing market and the open housing market.
I would urge the Government to encourage councils to increase targets for the percentage of affordable homes. In South Shropshire we have now achieved the position where there is 50 per cent. affordable housing on all new sites over two homes. That is probably the most draconian—or radical, depending on how one looks at it—set-up in the country, and a pragmatic approach to dealing with a problem in rural communities.
However, there is another matter that is perhaps a little difficult for the Government to deal with and is not an easy problem: the effect of PPG7, which defines

45WH
sustainable communities. The hon. Member for The Wrekin touched on that matter in a way. That guidance says that housing can only be built in settlements of a certain size and with certain facilities. However, there are villages just below that size that have village shops, pubs, a church, a village hall and a community. In some of those cases, some affordable housing is necessary to ensure the future viability of that village. The problem with PPG7 is that it will cause communities below a certain size to stagnate. This is a difficult issue. We do not want random growth; we do not want to concrete over the green belt as people often say. We need a sliding scale that allows communities that are a little below the scale to have the housing that will ensure that they remain viable for the long term.
I am very pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives introduced the debate, as it is an important matter for many in rural areas. Lack of affordable housing in rural areas blights lives. It is a shame that events in the other Chamber have taken many hon. Members away, but I hope that the Minister might, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives when talking about another Minister, throw away his notes for once and pick up the baton. I hope that he will act on a matter that gives him concern by fighting for an increase in affordable social housing in rural areas.
3.5 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) for securing the debate. Lack of affordable social housing concerns all of us who represent rural areas and, sadly, it is a problem that is getting worse. Lack of affordable housing is a problem everywhere but it is particularly bad in rural areas. Homelessness in rural areas has soared by 13 per cent. since the Government came to power. Rural homelessness has risen more than three times faster than that in urban areas. At present, more than 17,000 rural households are unintentionally homeless and in priority need. Only 20 per cent. of the affordable social housing built between 1997 and 2001 was built in rural areas. In that time, the Housing Corporation's budget was reduced by more than £300 million.
In March, the Government announced that they had allocated another £250 million for starter home initiatives to help key workers to buy homes over the next three years. The trouble was that only 360 key workers were in rural areas. Rural property prices are 15 per cent. above national averages, so locals cannot afford them. That is the root of the problem. Many people dream of a rural idyll where it is easy and cheap to live, and that is why they move to rural areas. Once there, however, they find that the idyll is not what they expected.
In an excellent article in The Guardian in October 2002, Alexander Garrett makes the point very well about higher costs in rural areas. He makes the point that the high cost of rural transport is a long-running sore. He also says that fuel costs and council tax are higher. One or two things are cheaper in rural areas, such as parking, insurance and domestic help. However, he concludes his article, which I commend to anyone who has not read it, by saying:
46WH
"Overall, though, the cost of living means many areas of the countryside are becoming increasingly exclusive, says Professor Shucksmith. 'The real issue is that there are some people in rural areas facing a high cost of living and with poor access to services and markets, and who are on low incomes,' he explains. 'There are others who have professional salaries and who can afford to pay the prices. They are also more likely to be oriented to the nearby urban areas, and so have more choice about the price they pay. So it's not just about town versus country: there is inequality within the rural community.
The hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) made the problem very clear, and his analysis was exactly right. The question is: what is to be done about it? In my own area, Cotswold district council did a large-scale voluntary transfer four years ago. It sold 500 houses, and with the interest on the money and with the local authority social housing grant it has managed to build in the past four years 480 additional houses. The problem is that councils will no longer be able to do that because of the changes that the Government are making. The disgraceful withdrawal of the local authority social housing grant at very short notice will hit debt-free councils very hard indeed. It will make it much more difficult for them to build affordable social housing. The pooling of capital receipts will make it even harder for them to build.
It is wrong, just because those councils are debt free, that they should be punished in that way. After all, the people who live in those areas have as much right to affordable social housing as those living in other areas. In fact, it is largely those debt-free councils in the southwest and south-east of England that have the biggest problem in building affordable housing. The difficulty is caused by the very word affordable. In those areas, land prices are so high that the ratio between the permissible rent and the cost of building such houses makes it difficult for registered social landlords to build new affordable houses.
What is to be done? Hon. Members have come up with a number of solutions. One area that needs to be looked at closely is the planning system. It is highly regrettable that the Government have ripped up the planning system and are replacing it with a new system. Whether it will work does not matter; it will take a number of years to bed in, and in the interim it is bound to be slower and less responsive. We regret, from the Conservative point of view, that it will be based on the regions. That is not the correct way to run a planning system. We think that local councils and local people should have more say.
The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) is entirely right; where they are able and willing to do so, parish councils—on their own or in clusters—should have a greater role in the planning system. That must be entirely right, because local people know what is needed, particularly what is needed for local people rather than for incomers. The Government are going in the wrong direction by moving planning and housing to the regions.
I urge the Government in a non-partisan way, but I hope that the regions will use a light touch in planning and housing matters and that those powers will be used only in extreme circumstances. By and large, local authorities should be left to make their own housing plans, which they are required to do under the Local Government Bill, and their local development frameworks, which they are required to do under the

47WH
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, and they should be able to do so with little interference from the region.
Peter Bradley: I am glad to discover that we agree at least about the role of parish councils. However, would the hon. Gentleman accept it if a parish council said on behalf of the local community that it needed to develop affordable housing in the green belt?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman might be slightly confused by the difference between greenbelt and greenfield land. The green belt itself is a difficult issue. On the whole, green belts should be preserved, although a case could be made for replenishing the green belt with other areas, and for building on the green belt itself provided that areas are added in compensation. There is a clear need for more affordable housing—for more housing, full stop. That will involve some building on green fields, although the Government could do far more to encourage the use of brownfield land.
The Government's target is for 60 per cent. of new housing to be built on brownfield land. They will find it difficult to achieve that target when the rate of housing building accelerates—as it must. We are now building the fewest houses since 1924. That is unsustainable. It is also unfair, particularly to those at the bottom of the pile who need affordable housing. That is why the number of homeless people is at its highest level, and why we have the highest number of people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. The Government have clearly got us into an unsustainable position.
We need to build more houses, but they need to be built on brownfield land. I have met many councillors, particularly in the south-east, who have told me that they do not have any land, but when I start examining their plans, I find that they have allocated 5,000 homes on brownfield land. Even in the Cotswolds, which is one of the most difficult areas to find building land, because 80 per cent. of the land is designated in one way or another, they have found brownfield land such as old airfields and other such places, where they could build houses—and they should be doing more of it.
Hon. Members have cited the right to buy as part of the problem of the shortage of affordable housing. Let me put right one mistake that hon. Members have made today. When a house is sold off, it does not disappear from the housing stock. If one is at the bottom of the pile, one needs availability. The average tenure of an affordable house is between 10 and 20 years. That is a fact. In a small village where there are, for example, half a dozen affordable houses, the chance of one coming up often is very small.
The problem with the right to buy, which we introduced, was that all the proceeds were first applied to paying off debt, although there was a good reason for that. Under the new extension of right to buy that we have proposed, all the proceeds will be ploughed back into building further affordable houses. By extending the right to buy to registered social landlords, we could sell up to 30,000 houses and build an additional 15,000 affordable houses. Given that the Government are currently building only 21,000 additional affordable
48WH
houses in any one year—down from 35,000 when we left office—we would, at a stroke, increase the number of affordable houses that could be built in this country by about 70 per cent., at no cost to the taxpayer.
Matthew Green: The problem is that once houses are bought under right to buy, their prices rocket up to normal house prices. When I looked at the housing market recently, I found that the cheapest former council house in Much Wenlock was£160,000. Given that the average salary in Shropshire is £15,000,that has been taken right out of the affordable market. Because of the discount, even under the hon. Gentleman's scheme, there would be less money available to build homes.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: That is just a function of the market. If the Liberal party thinks that it can buck the market, it has another thing coming.
I have nearly finished, because I want the Minister to have plenty of time to reply to this important debate. The Government have, at my urging—I raised the subject three years ago, long before almost anyone else in the House—amended the council tax in the Local Government Bill currently in progress so that local authorities have the discretion to charge council tax on second houses at up to 90 per cent. My party welcomes that, but it raises only £60 million. The Government have, quite rightly, said that local authorities can keep that money, but they will be able to use it to subsidise services in general. We would have preferred it to be ring-fenced for additional affordable housing.
The real problem is that although the Government have given local authorities the power to raise council tax on empty homes, which could raise a maximum of£160 million, they will take all the money away. There is therefore no incentive whatever for councils to charge council tax on empty homes. Obviously, with 753,000 empty homes in this country, that is a real problem. We must address it, and not in some of the draconian ways that the Government and the Liberal party propose, but by incentives. There is an awful lot that we can do to encourage some of that empty housing to be brought back into use, as it should be. It is a waste of national resources.
There is clearly a problem in rural areas, which must be addressed. It is part of the Government's policy of not giving fair treatment to people in rural areas, compared with people in some of the urban areas that they control. We must have a better distribution of resources. We need to build more affordable housing in rural areas. We must look at the planning system. We must see whether we can bring brownfield land and empty and second homes into use. There is much that can be done; I urge the Government to do it.
3.18 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty): I apologise to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) for having so little time to respond to what has been, in the main—I exempt the last contribution—a serious and properly focused debate. I have to say, with the best will in the world and in the nicest possible terms, that what we have just heard was clumsy, cliché-ridden

49WH
drivel, as usual. There is no justification for the real, substantial damage that the extension of the right to buy would do—in rural areas in particular, as alluded to. The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) implicitly suggests that registered social landlords can magically sell a house, collect the proceeds and persuade the banks that the phantom house still exists and should still be on the books as a suitably valued asset. His policy is complete and utter nonsense. Simply because the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) had to pull a rabbit out of the bag at the last party conference, it is not appropriate substantively to fool people that his policy will magically secure an addition to the stock of affordable housing in rural areas, for which there is a real need.
Equally, it is not terribly helpful to run around like the soothsayer in "Up Pompeii!"—I know that that shows my age—shouting that we are all doomed because any number of councils up and down the land affected, albeit temporarily, by the abolition of the local authority social housing grant will suddenly impose supplementary rates. There is no such thing as supplementary council tax or the ability to secure supplementary council tax in this land. Unless the hon. Member for Cotswold is suggesting that affected councils should act illegally, he is talking complete and utter nonsense. With the greatest regard, under British law councils do not have the ability to lay a supplementary council tax. It is not possible and to suggest otherwise is nonsense.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. McNulty: With the greatest will in the world, I have nine minutes in which to address the important comments made by the hon. Member for St. Ives and my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley). However, I could not let that matter go.
It is not appropriate to say that councils only had seven weeks' notice for the abolition of local authority social housing grant. They were consulted last autumn on the impending abolition of LASHG in April 2004. If people were making plans in perpetuity for April 2004, it was an error.[Interruption.] I shall come to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) presently. The transitional arrangements are generous: it is misconstruing the matter to suggest that things are somehow worse in the transitional period than they were before it.
I have not yet come to my notes, but I must tell the hon. Member for St. Ives that we were not quaking in our boots last Wednesday morning when we saw the title of today's debate. The communities plan mentioned a £175 million initial transitional payment, albeit for debt-free authorities. Although there was a coincidence between the publication of the debate's title and the issue of the statement, sadly statements do not drop from the sky. It was well into Tuesday, the day before I had any hint of the debate's title, when the appropriate written statement was signed off. None the less, when one puts together the£275 million transitional relief for debt-free authorities with the relief offered on the interest that will accrue for non-debt-free authorities, which is what they will be seeking to do over the next year with LASHG, cumulatively£550 million of
50WH
programmes will be sustained over the next year rather than the anticipated£500 million. If anything, the settlement errs on the side of generosity.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Pure sophistry.
Mr. McNulty: With the best will in the world, the hon. Gentleman has already shown his complete lack of understanding of LASHG. Please do not compound the matter by repeating the point about sophistry, which LASHG is not. For those authorities with debt, LASHG was about sustaining and funding the interest accrued on investment, not spending money. If the hon.Gentleman thinks otherwise, he is simply showing his lack of both information and comprehensive understanding, which is the polite way to put it.
The hon. Gentleman showed his misunderstanding in spades when he discussed the right to buy. Government and Opposition Members have accepted that right to buy is important because it has had a measured and substantial effect on rural housing, which is something that the Conservative Government accepted in their initial designations and exemptions. It troubles me that any number of the authorities that are covered by the designation and the widening of the ability to alter the criteria have not yet used that ability. Many of the authorities that the hon. Gentleman quoted are covered in some way by the restrictions. In Caradon and North Cornwall there is a requirement on the buyer, if he or she wishes to resell within 10 years, to offer the property back to the authority, returning it to the affordable housing stock. In Carrick, Kerrier and Penwith, people are allowed to sell only to somebody who has lived or worked locally for at least three years. We do not yet know about Restormel. If those restrictions are not working, the relevant districts need to reconsider the matter.
When we announced the 42 areas in which we were restricting the discounts on right to buy, at the same time—receiving far less press coverage—we said that we would extend the ability of all the areas designated as rural to consider whether any of the criteria should be further restricted. We have heard only from the Isles of Scilly and we are talking to people there about the home ownership taskforce. We are considering not merely reforming right to buy. As the hon. Member for St. Ives says, one way in which we can tackle housing in rural areas is to find new models of low-cost home ownership—equity transfer, shared ownership or any new way of giving people scope to get on the property ladder without taking the social unit with them and denuding progressively the limited social housing stock. I am happy to discuss further why the restrictions are not working in relation to particular authorities, or where the Isles of Scilly go from here in terms of the low-cost home ownership taskforce. I have come to know in detail some of the authorities in Cornwall, not least because, in some cases, fairly eccentric—
Mr. Clifton-Brown: The names.
Mr. McNulty: Kerrier, for one, absolutely.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: The names.
Mr. McNulty: Kerrier is the one that I am referring to in terms of its eccentric interpretation of some national

51WH
Government policies and policy planning guidance. I have written to that authority on a number of occasions, not least about PPG7. Much existing policy is in the hands of local planning authorities.
I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin about proper reform of the planning system. The hon. Member for St. Ives will know that we are looking seriously at 6/98 and I look forward to hearing his points about greater flexibility in the review of affordable housing and the notions of exception, especially in rural areas, when we review PPG3. The point about the new planning system enabling us to be more sensitive and more flexibly responsive to strange and complex things was well made.
If we are talking about sophistry, the hon. Member for Cotswold needs to understand that until now the Housing Corporation has imposed downwards any notion of what is going on in the regions and the counties. Moving that down to regional level will mean greater sensitivity and flexibility within each locality where planning is concerned. The relationship between the regional spatial strategy and the local development framework will also be more sensitive. I have already spoken specifically to the hon. Member for Ludlow about the numbers in South Shropshire and I shall continue that investigation.
I apologise; I have limited time. I can tell the hon. Member for St. Ives that we take the matter very seriously. Other hon. Members have shown that they do too, except, sadly, the hon. Member for Cotswold, who clearly knows nothing about the matter, and given his contribution, could not care less about it. That is a matter of some regret, given that in assorted rural forums, there is a goodly deal of cross-party consensus on the matters, the seriousness of which belies the yah-boo tactics of the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hesitate to interrupt a Minister in full flow—a torrent, I would have said—but I have done, and I am grateful to him for sitting down.

Hospital Services
3.30 pm
Dr. Richard Taylor: I greatly enjoy debates in this Chamber, because there is a seat for me, bang in the middle between the two warring factions. I am particularly delighted to see the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), because the document that has sparked off this debate, "Keeping the NHS local—a new direction of travel", reflects something she wrote in September 2001 that I often quote. As I am sure she remembers, she wrote:
"The culture within the NHS needs to change so that the views of patients and citizens are not only valued but listened to and acted upon as well."
I had been rather sceptical about that, but now we have a document that provides strong evidence that the Government are listening and are prepared to act on the views of citizens. I would go so far as to say that some of us could have written the document almost as well as the Department of Health has.
In the time available, I will touch on three topics: the key messages from the document, with reactions from some groups; an outline of some of the difficulties the Government will face as the champion of the people, to whom the NHS belongs and who pay the staff salaries; and a brief mention of local situations. I hope to finish two or three minutes early to allow another hon. Member to speak—with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning that another hon. Member wishes to speak. In a personal debate, it is normally the form that any additional hon. Member wishing to take part in the debate should not only get the permission of the owner of the debate—in this case, the hon. Gentleman—but that of the Minister and the occupant of the Chair. I have made the point.
Dr. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise.
I can pick out only a few key messages. First, the document recognises that patients want more, not fewer, local services. It encourages the NHS to work
"in a new stronger partnership with the public and staff to find high quality, sustainable solutions for local services, and deliver the agenda for reform."
The document describes what consultation should be, stating that consultation
"with patients and the public, and with staff, needs to begin right at the outset— before minds have been made up about how services could or should change."
That makes a delightful change from some of the mockeries of consultation that we have seen.
One of the core patient principles—the word is patient, not NHS or staff principles—is
"developing options for change with people, not for them".
The document also recognises that patients will accept the need to travel for high-powered specialist services, but not for bread-and-butter services relating to common emergencies. That fact was picked up by the Nuffield Trust in its 2001 publication, "Local medical

53WH
emergency units". Referring to Downe hospital in Northern Ireland, which was due to be drastically downgraded, it acknowledged that people would not budge from their resistance to the removal of basic local emergency services. A pilot involving Downe hospital and hospitals in Belfast, which is intended to work out a partnership arrangement that will work, is mentioned in the document.
There are major messages about changes in the roles of clinical staff, involving teamwork within hospitals, networking with other hospitals, the information technology necessary for communication, different ways of covering night work, balancing generalist and specialist work and, most important, integrating primary and secondary care. I have time to mention only two reactions. The Royal College of Physicians has made a brief comment, prior to making a much more detailed one, that welcomes the challenge of improving the NHS and looks forward to responding to the document in detail. It pleases me by stating that the document recognises the need to balance three carefully chosen concepts: convenience, humanity and safety. Those words say an awful lot. The Royal College of Physicians also points to the difficulties, which I will deal with later.
The only contrary view of which I am aware was expressed in a letter to The Times on 18 February. The chair of the junior doctors committee of the British Medical Association obviously fears that the document is politically inspired and will be to the detriment of hospital services. I do not take it that way at all. The document is a very definite example of the Government listening to people. If it was inspired by the ballot box, so be it—perhaps that is the function of the ballot box.
The first difficulty is medical staffing and the European working time directive, which cuts junior doctors' hours dramatically. I cannot help wondering how continental European countries will cope. Will they be bound by the directive as tightly as it seems we plan to be, or will they turn a blind eye to some of it? At one of the public meetings of the Select Committee on Health not that long ago, we were talking about the European working time directive and a senior civil servant said that there was "a plurality of solutions." He did not give details of that plurality, but the document mentions some of the solutions. I hope that the Minister will tell us a little about them and say whether the pilot schemes are compatible.
A crucial difficulty in relation to the European working time directive is the way in which we cover continuity of care. In its initial comment, the Royal College of Physicians stated:
"Continuity of care will be one of the greatest challenges for the new NHS."
It is easy to reminisce about the time, relatively few years ago, when people worked with their own teams and continuity of care was natural. I realise that that has gone and is impossible to recreate, but I hope that it might be a little more possible in some of the small units that are to come.
The second big difficulty is financial. Despite the extra money that the Government are putting into the NHS, primary care trusts will have little, if any, money for development, and both overspending and underfunding will be a problem. The primary care trusts are also
54WH
overstretched managerially. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether the GP contract, if it is accepted, will help the smaller hospitals by making it more possible for GPs to cover some of the night-time work.
The third difficulty is information technology. The Royal College of Physicians puts it rather nicely. It says that the document reflects
"perhaps an optimistic view of the benefits of the early application of information technology in the NHS."
My plea is that we concentrate on IT that actually works. We know that digital X-ray services work. I would be very grateful to know the proportion of trusts that have such services, because they are by no means widespread.
Andrew George: The hon. Gentleman is making a very important point. I congratulate the Government on putting £250,000 into the West Cornwall hospital pilot study on the reconfiguration of local services. I am a stakeholder member of the steering group for that project. To pursue the hon. Gentleman's point, does he agree that it is important that emergency services are as close to home as possible? If information technology services cannot provide back-up to small hospitals, we need a system whereby staff from larger hospitals are rotated to give smaller hospitals adequate staffing cover and to ensure that emergency services are properly supported.
Dr. Taylor: I do not mean to imply that information technology can wholly replace the presence of emergency services in a community. I am simply saying that the digital transmission of X-rays actually works.
My last point is about local situations. The sites of the pilots that have been set up—in Penzance, to which the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) referred, in Downe hospital, Northern Ireland, and in Bishop Auckland hospital—make me absolutely green with envy, because they are all so much better than what my poor constituents have. The document recognises that unsympathetic, drastic downgrading of an acute general hospital does not work. In a sentence that was excluded from the final version, a draft of the document acknowledged that, in some cases, local access to hospital care had suffered as a consequence. I am not surprised that the sentence has been left out.
Sadly, in Worcestershire, everything is happening as predicted. Waiting times are rising, ambulances are queuing more, stressed staff are walking away, there are insufficient staff and beds, and the elderly are frightened. Two and a half years after the downgrading, the flow of letters to me continues. However, hope has been rekindled for the rest of the country and even for Worcestershire by this document.
I conclude with two quotes from the document. The first is that
"the objective is to provide as a minimum a "first port of call" (a service able to receive and provide assessment, initial treatment and transfer where necessary)".
That is described as a minimum. The pilot areas will have that minimum—that first port of call; other areas will not, but should have it. Secondly, the document is about
"working with local communities and staff to rebuild local services around local needs."

55WH
I thank the Department of Health and the Minister for recognising that local people need local services, and for acting on behalf of citizens and the public to try to make an incredibly difficult compromise work.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the hon. Gentleman to make his point of order, I wish to tell the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) that I might have advised him incorrectly. If an hon. Member wishes to intervene during a half-hour Adjournment debate such as we are having, they may do so. Whether to give way is entirely up to the hon. Member who is speaking. It is only if an hon. Member wishes to participate in the debate that he or she must seek the permission of the Minister and the occupant of the Chair.
Uniquely, I shall allow the hon. Member for Cotswold to raise a point of order. I believe that hon. Members will understand why when he has given his short address.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the House. I spoke in the debate on rural housing, but forgot to declare my interests before I spoke. I am a fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and own rural property, although I do not believe that it will be affected by the debate. I should have declared my interest.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House is grateful to the hon. Member for Cotswold. He has proven himself to be a truly honourable Gentleman.
3.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I genuinely congratulate the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) on securing this debate on reconfiguration of hospital services. I am aware of his keen interest in health matters, not only in his own constituency but across the wider canvas. From the quotation that he used to start the debate, I know that he is aware of my personal commitment to making sure that citizens, the public and patients have a real role in shaping their future health services.
I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the publication of the guidance "Keeping the NHS local—a new direction of travel". He rightly highlighted that it challenges the "biggest is best" mindset in respect of hospitals and hospital services, which we in this country have perhaps suffered from for many years. We believe that the twin opportunities offered by technological change and changing workforce roles—including developments such as new equipment, new information technology, telemedicine and other new technologies that are coming on stream, alongside the changing work force roles and the new issues relating to the skills mix, whereby nurses are beginning to do things that only doctors did and doctors are doing things that only consultants did—will enable us to design services in a very different way in future. They also open up a new range of possibilities for smaller hospitals, which are dear to the hearts of many local communities.
56WH
I must make it clear that the guidance is not a blueprint for hospital design. If it were, it would almost defeat its own object, because talking about keeping things local means that solutions must come from local communities themselves, so that people feel a real sense of ownership and that they are stakeholders in the design. What the guidance does is try to empower the NHS to work in partnership with local people and to decide together what range of services will meet the needs of that community.
The guidance has three core principles that will in future underpin everything that we do in this field. The first principle is that options for change should be developed with patients not for them, and that before we even start to formulate preferred options, we have a sense of sitting down right at the outset to design what services should look like—their essential features—and where they should be. In the NHS in the past, a preferred option would emerge and people were presented with it almost as a fait accompli. Consultation was sometimes simply the expiry of a period of time, people would do the first thing that they had thought of, and the process was not altered by the involvement of the public. The first underlying principle is that we develop proposals for change in consultation with local communities and that we start at the outset to think about what service redesign should look like.
Mr. Peter Luff: My constituents will be encouraged to hear what the Minister has just said. Will the principles that the Minister has just underlined be expected to apply in the consultation at Evesham community hospital and in every circumstance, or is that an ideal approach that will not always apply? Do the Government expect it to apply to every consultation on hospital developments?
Ms Blears: If the hon. Gentleman listens as I develop the argument, he will see that they are core principles that underpin the whole thrust of our future policy development.
The second principle is that, where possible, services should be redesigned rather than relocated. That is a really important statement, because it means that we will look at services rather than at shifting them around the area. We will consider how services can be redesigned, and ways in which to get consultants to come out of hospitals to do things in local communities and the primary care sector rather than expect patients to travel to where the services are. It is a shift in the balance of power towards the people who use the service rather than the people who provide it. There are important constraints, which the hon. Member for Wyre Forest has mentioned, and I will try to deal with them.
The third principle takes a view of the whole system, not an isolated part, and looks at the networks between different institutions. To an increasing extent in areas such as cancer services, people receive services, including diagnostics, screening, treatment or palliative care, in as many as three or four different places. The aim is to look at the patient pathway across those different institutions rather than simply at the bricks and mortar of the institution that has provided care in the past. We want to take a whole systems view and look at genuine integration and joint planning to see who can bring what to the overall design of services.

57WH
The first principle, involving patients and the public, is now underpinned by a new legal framework. Last year, I was delighted to introduce the new system for patient and public involvement. Despite being the former chair of a community health council, I am absolutely convinced that the new service will be more vigorous and vibrant and will get patients involved in service redesign. We now have a legal basis for that framework in section 11 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001, which places a duty on the NHS to make arrangements to involve and consult the public in everything that it does. Under that new statutory framework, the NHS has a duty to involve the public in planning and developing services and in making decisions about how services will operate.
That is a world away from the old system in which people were left with the options of complaining after the event or objecting to a proposed service redesign. It is difficult to get one's views heard when a decision has almost been made and one is on the outside saying, "This should not have happened." We all know how difficult that has been, whether the complaint has related to the process or to the merits of a proposal. If we can get people involved in designing services, community involvement should be vastly increased by the time we reach the decision-making stage.
Andrew George: Despite all that, what can the Minister say to reassure our constituents about the delivery of emergency services? Consultants have shown a tendency to retreat from local hospitals to a few large centres. What can the process she describes do to reverse that trend?
Ms Blears: I direct the hon. Gentleman to the document that we published last year, "Reforming Emergency Care", which emphasises the need to take a whole systems approach. Emergency care is not only about what happens in accident and emergency. About 40 per cent. of people who turn up at A and E could be better served in primary care, by community mental health teams, crisis teams or access outreach; and some of the capacity problems in A and E are the result of delayed discharges at the other end of the system.
Whole systems redesign is the third principle of "Keeping the NHS local". We must look at the patient pathway and find out which services are most appropriate for the person who needs emergency care, primary care, acute care, residential social care, outreach care or community care, then put those services in place around the patient. We should engage consultants in the whole systems redesign, rather than see them as part of the bricks and mortar of the A and E department and a separate part of the system. If the hon. Gentleman looks at that document in detail, he will see that the emergency care networks that are being established throughout the health service bring together primary, secondary and community care.
We are publishing guidance entitled "Strengthening Accountability" to put flesh on the bones of the section 11 duty. That guidance and the document "Keeping the NHS local" provide two powerful tools to ensure that the new way of working will be embedded in the NHS. The guidance contains some really good practical suggestions for people in the health service. It is all very well for the Government to say, "You must do this or
58WH
that", but we also have a responsibility to give people good practice cases so that they can share good ideas about practical ways in which they can make a difference.
The Health and Social Care Act has given new powers to local authority overview and scrutiny committees. As the democratically elected representatives of communities, local authorities will have the opportunity to look at reconfigurations to see where there is conflict. I urge local authorities to become involved at the outset in the service redesign process so that we can minimise the occasions on which there is real conflict. In addition, there is the independent reconfiguration panel. On 14 February, we announced eight members of the panel and we expect to be in a position to make the final appointments shortly.
The panel, chaired by Dr. Peter Barrett, will offer another means by which the voice of the patient can be heard. The panel will use the two documents—"Keeping the NHS local" and "Strengthening Accountability"—as the basis for its considerations. It will look at how patients were consulted and local people were involved. It will ask whether that process was real—did patients have a good opportunity to participate, or was it a matter of two public meetings held on a Thursday night in a far-flung part of the area that nobody attended? The independent reconfiguration panel will take a pretty robust look at the involvement processes and will also set great store by "Keeping the NHS local".
The panel will look closely at whether NHS bodies and their partners have incorporated the three core principles that I have described. There is a series of checks and balances in the system to ensure that there is not merely a headline message, but permeation through every part of the service.
Matthew Green: That is a welcome announcement, but for Kidderminster hospital, which serves about 15,000 of my constituents, it is six years too late. If only what the Minister describes had been in place six years ago. Is there anything in the document that might encourage health authorities and primary care trusts to consider bringing back some services that were wrongly taken away?
Ms Blears: I shall mention Kidderminster hospital al the conclusion of my remarks. There are great grounds for optimism, and I urge the hon. Gentleman to consider matters in a more positive light.
The process of redesign is near the top of the agenda for all primary care trusts. In their commissioning processes, they will look at how services can be redesigned. PCTs have 75 per cent. of the budget and are in the driving seat when it comes to asking what local services should look like. PCTs are increasingly developing their skills in process redesign, which is new for them. The best PCTs now have skilled people who are looking at the patient pathway and asking, "How can we redesign our services to have more things at primary care level than in the acute sector?" There is now the money to make those commissioning decisions a reality. Again, we have put in place not only the ideas but the tools to do the job.
Let me explain about the pilot projects. At West Cornwall hospital, people are looking together at the emergency services. Specialist medical staff from Truro

59WH
are advising via a telemedicine link so that more people can be kept in the local area. Clinicians in Penzance and Truro will make the decisions together on whether someone needs further treatment, and then refer them without a further wait in A and E. The second pilot is at Bishop Auckland hospital, where emergency medical care and critical care is being looked at, but only in relation to elective surgery. Those involved have to depend on networking between the three neighbouring institutions—Bishop Auckland hospital, Darlington Memorial hospital and University Hospital of North Durham—and see how those networks develop. The third pilot is at Central Middlesex hospital, London. That hospital provides both emergency medicine and emergency surgery, and is strongly reliant on networking with neighbouring sites for critical cases. There are new series of networks there.
The pilots illustrate the whole systems approach to service redesign. We want to learn what the good things are and what the problems are. We recognise that the processes are not easy to go through. The hon. Member for Wyre Forest has mentioned three imperatives: the working time directive, continuity of care, and funding. Those are serious issues. We can learn from the pilots how to provide services in a smarter way, rather than sweat services more so they produce more. We have lessons to learn.
We are putting in place a major independent evaluation of the pilots. The NHS research and development programme has just advertised in respect of that evaluation. We are really keen to learn the lessons, and we want them to provoke discussion and debate across the health community to see what we can learn.
60WH
The hon. Member for Wyre Forest and the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) are concerned about Kidderminster hospital. The guidance does not say that we should go around unpicking decisions that have been made. The health service develops and thinking moves on all the time. We shall probably move on from the pilots as we develop the process. However, the decisions made on services at Kidderminster hospital have led to substantial new investment, including £13 million to develop a state-of-the-art diagnostic and treatment centre, an ambulatory care centre, a modern minor injuries unit, a primary care centre, outpatient clinics, operating theatres with 23-hour recovery facilities, and radiology facilities, including X-ray and a computerised tomography scanner.
Those services are not all in place yet, so I entirely understand why people do not feel as confident as they might do. I urge both hon. Gentlemen to help the new services at Kidderminster hospital to get established. Now is the time to start to work with those services and to look to the future. When the new facilities come on stream, both hon. Gentlemen can play a real part in encouraging the people in the local community to have confidence in their health services. They can continue the debate on service redesign so that we get services that meet the expectations and aspirations of that community. I know that both hon. Gentlemen want to lead on these issues in the local area, and I urge them to join me in ensuring that we help local people to make the most of the benefits on offer.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. We now move to today's final debate in Westminster Hall, on a subject initiated by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney): the future of farming and food in Staffordshire. I welcome the Minister for Rural Affairs and Urban Quality of Life to Westminster Hall for the second time today.

Farming and Food (Staffordshire)
4 pm
Mr. David Kidney: It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the Minister in his place.
I am genuinely thrilled to have this opportunity to tell the House about the positive attitude developing in Staffordshire towards the farming and food sectors and to say a little about a conference held on that subject in Staffordshire last month. I shall put to the Minister some of the issues that came across very strongly during that conference and describe the aftermath witnessed in Staffordshire.
By way of introduction, I shall say something about my approach to the subject. It is important to examine the farming and food sectors in the broader context of the rural economy as a whole. Agriculture is without doubt the foundation of the rural economy, but clearly if the foundations are weak, the buildings on them are at risk. It is therefore important to examine agriculture in particular.
Recent years have seen falling employment and declining wealth-creation in farming. There are several reasons for that, not least a run of food scares, BSE, classical swine fever, and the recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease. Another factor has been the launch of the single European currency and the weakness of the euro against the pound—although as far as I can tell from current movements in the exchange rate, that is beginning to turn the other way around—and the fact that for several years, British farmers and British manufacturers have struggled with competition from people who have an edge in terms of the value of the currency in which they are dealing. A further factor has been international over-production of food in some key sectors, leading to incredibly low commodity prices. Milk is a good example. Farmers struggle to fetch a price for their milk that is greater than their production costs.
Against that background, it is not surprising that farmers in Staffordshire have asked their Members of Parliament whether there is a future for farming. I am sure that that question is echoing round the whole country. I am happy to say that I think that the answer is yes, there is a future. Last year at national level we began to see why that is so. First, we had the impressive report on the future of farming and food from Sir Don Curry and his colleagues on the policy commission on that subject. That gave an acute analysis of the problems and possible solutions. Secondly, at the end of last year, the Government issued a response to that Curry report and their own strategy for sustainable farming and food. That, too, answers the question resoundingly: yes, there is a future for farming in the UK.
If we lift our eyes beyond the boundaries of our country for a moment, there are big international pressures that must also be responded to if there is to be a healthy future for the industry. Perhaps the most important is the reform of the common agricultural policy, but not far behind are the talks on trade in the World Trade Organisation. If our Government's ambitions are to be realised, we must see European and international recognition of the validity of agri-environmental schemes to support farming rather than old-fashioned production support.
62WH
I shall say a little on the conference that we held in Staffordshire last month on the future of farming and food in our county. It was a staggeringly successful event and there were three very good elements. The first was that it was a genuine partnership arrangement, the second was all that went into it, and the third was all that came out of it. I shall elaborate on those three elements.
The partnership was a genuine one between the National Farmers Union at county and regional levels, the Country Land and Business Association—the CLA—at regional level, and all the county's Members of Parliament, irrespective of political party. It was understandable that I took the lead for the Members of Parliament because the venue was the county showground in Stafford, which I have the honour to represent in Parliament. All the Members of Parliament expressed their support for the event, which was helpful in preparing for the day.
When we arrived, we found that we had drawn all the relevant people together into the same room at the same time, including farmers, food processors, food retailers, other rural interest groups, environmental interest groups, Government agencies and non-governmental organisations. We had a superb range of speakers and presenters to assist us in our deliberations and, not surprisingly, there was a combination of successful presentations, workshops and question and answer sessions that helped us to examine the future of farming and food in Staffordshire.
Before moving on to what came out of the event, I shall pause to speak about Staffordshire's position, as it were, on the ground. Eighty per cent. of Staffordshire's land area and 20 per cent. of its population are rural. We have 190,000 hectares of agricultural land in 5,000 holdings. One fifth of the agricultural land and one quarter of the farm holdings in the west midlands are in Staffordshire. The farming is mainly livestock and dairy. but if we add the farming sector to the food and drink, leisure and tourism sectors, together they account for 13 per cent. of employment in the county. We are discussing a substantial and significant countywide and regionwide presence.
What came out of the conference? To start with the most obvious negative, there were too few examples of co-operation within the same sector, for example, between farmers. There were also too few examples of co-operation between sectors, for example, between farmers and food processors. That was disappointing, but we recognised that there was a gap. More encouraging was the evidence of local interest from producers and consumers in farmers' markets, organic farming, reducing food miles and so on. Also encouraging was a desire for more co-operation between the sectors, stronger food links, shorter food chains and more emphasis on local and locally produced food. We recognised that we need more business advice, training and support from external sources.
That conference took place three or four weeks ago, and during the brief time since, my response to what happened that day has been as follows. Last week in Staffordshire, by great good fortune, a conference was organised by Rural United, a rural economic forum that was created in response to and in the aftermath of the dreadful foot and mouth disease outbreak. It was led initially by the county council but is now widely based in our rural economy as a whole. At the conference I saw

63WH
the launch of a new website with the address www.GetRural.co.uk. That was helpful for making contacts, which I now want to discuss.
First, we considered a "Taste of Staffordshire" brand for local marketing and local foods in Staffordshire. We have a "Taste of Staffordshire" awards evening once a year, which is about the service of food in restaurants and other eating places. It is promoted more widely in the region by Heart of England Fine Foods, which is replicated in each of the counties involved. My suggestion was to take that one step further and brand locally produced food in Staffordshire as "Taste of Staffordshire" food. My vision is to have shelving in all the local supermarkets carrying the label "Taste of Staffordshire" so that people know that that food has been produced in their own locality.
I have also had discussions with the local business link, which has been our adviser to businesses, and Rodbaston further education college—a college with particular expertise in land-based sectors—on whether we could have some unified support for businesses in food and farming relating to business management skills, lifelong learning, and the acquisition of the skills necessary for the jobs that they want to do. I have also had talks with those involved with the local health economy, such as health trusts and local agenda 21 organisations, about health links, such as healthy diet, exercise, and environment. Finally, I have been incredibly lucky in the ballot to secure this debate so soon after the conference.
With that wealth of information and research behind me, I come to the debate on behalf of Staffordshire to put three issues to the Minister. They come under three loose headings: joined-up businesses, a stronger rural business economy, and specific help for farmers in particular. On joined-up businesses, all sectors would like to feel that they can co-operate with others in the same sector and between sectors—I include farmers in that. I want to ask more widely about the help that is available for any sector connected with farming and food that wants to build co-operation between its members. We want stronger links in Staffordshire between farming, the food and drink sector and the leisure and tourism sector. I would like the Minister to say something about the support that is given to people who appreciate what they want to do, but are not sure how to go about achieving it.
On the same subject, it is important to establish stronger links between town and country—after all, most of the food that farmers and others produce and process will be consumed in towns and cities by people who might never have seen a farm, or food production in process. It is very important that people understand the provenance of food. They should know whether it is wholesome, how, in the case of livestock, it was raised, and how, in the case of other foods, it was produced. They need to know where food is coming from and how safe it is. We see the importance of that in the health scares. Farmers' markets carry out a good, educative job by enabling producers to understand the needs and wishes of consumers, and consumers to understand what goes on in the production of food. More education
64WH
of that sort can be provided. Labelling is part of that process because it gives people the information that they need.
There is a big role for local sourcing of local foodstuffs. I would like many Staffordshire businesses to source their food requirements locally, but I want the public sector to do the same. In Stafford, we have the headquarters of the county council, the local education authority, the police, the ambulance trust, several health trusts and the fire service. They are all big buyers locally. I would be interested to know if the Minister has a view on what public procurement policy ought to be on buying food locally. Will the Minister offer help to those who want to brand locally the food that they produce? I would like "Taste of Staffordshire" to be more than my vision, but a reality on the shelves of the supermarkets in Staffordshire.
The whole of the rural business economy is important, and a number of issues are relevant to all rural businesses. I shall start with new technology and access to broadband, which is the foremost issue that business people raise with me. I was frequently harassed about that when I recently attended the fourth annual Women in Rural Enterprise conference at Harper Adams university college in Shropshire. Many admirable female entrepreneurs from rural businesses accosted me about their inability to access broadband.
Although about two thirds of the country has access to broadband, the third that does not is the most remote—usually the most rural. Does the Minister have a view on how his colleagues in other Departments could more actively promote the take-up of broadband throughout the country? All businesses want help with managing change. We have done a marvellous job in establishing the small business service through business link, which is already having some success. How do we help all businesses, large or small, when they want to make change but need guidance, help and reassurance? Broadband is also important—farming is a good example of this—in helping to drive up efficiency and productivity. Again, those are things that people in Staffordshire want but sometimes need outside help to achieve.
Similarly, I want to ask the Minister about his support for new types of businesses as well as the diversification of existing businesses. I am particularly interested in non-food crops, which apply to not only agricultural processes but most parts of the economy such as cosmetics and toiletries, energy and fuels, pharmaceutical products and textiles, which are all areas in which non-food crops can be developed.
I have mentioned people's desire to access business advice, training and support. People say to me that there are many schemes for getting advice and access to grants, loans or venture capital, but there seems to be a multiplicity of suppliers of those services, even when the initial source is the Government. Some help with simplifying access to funding and advice would be useful.
I have briefly mentioned the third issue of specific help for farmers, to whom many of the things that I have said apply. Perhaps it is a new desire, but they are particularly keen on co-operation. They want help with becoming co-ops, which is a worthwhile aim for the Government to encourage. They would like to know

65WH
more about best practice and how to spread one farm's best practice to other farms that do similar work. There is a role for the Government in helping that to happen. Demonstration farms are a good way to provide a practical best practice guide on the ground.
Farmers are keen to promote the wholesomeness and safety of their food through food assurance schemes. The red tractor scheme, which was launched by the National Farmers Union a couple of years ago and relaunched last year, is perhaps the most eminent scheme, but it is not the only one. Last year, the Food Standards Agency carried out a review of all food assurance schemes, and the Government could help consumers to get the message that there is a strong and reliable assurance scheme.
Those are the three issues that everybody in Staffordshire wants me to put to the Minister. Along with the residents of Stafford, I have a particular and personal interest in the future of a scheme called "The Great British Kitchen", and I should like to know whether he has any information about it. For several years, it has been the dream of Prue Leith and the British Food Trust to create a visitor attraction following British kitchens through the years and covering the history of cooking and catering. That would be allied with a hotel and training college for this country's chefs of the future and a retail hall selling every kitchen item that people might want to buy. It is a superb idea, and a site has been identified in Stafford. The site is in public ownership and the public authorities are willing to use it for the scheme. A developer, St. Modwen Properties, has been identified, but there seems to be a delay for some reason in getting the last contract for the work. I wonder whether the Minister knows anything about the scheme, whether he would be willing to find out what the hold-up is and whether anything can be done to help.
One day, the kind of responses that the Government made to the Curry commission, such as the new food chain centre, could be located at "The Great British Kitchen" in Stafford. What a boost it would be for the farming and food industries of Staffordshire. I am sure that I have given the Minister more than enough food for thought and I should give him a little time in which to respond.
4.18 pm
The Minister for Rural Affairs and Urban Quality of Life (Alun Michael): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) on securing the debate. I commend the leadership that he has offered not only by raising these issues in today's debate, but in the conference to which he referred. He has demonstrated his capacity to be both entrepreneurial and co-operative in the way in which he represents his constituency and farmers in the wider Staffordshire area. His approach is impressive because he has looked at farming's needs and the way in which those needs fit into the wider context of the future of rural communities. He has raised several key issues, and I am grateful to have a little time in which to reply, although it is doubtful that I shall be able to cover everything. I will follow up in writing on some of the detailed issues that he has raised.
I agreed when my hon. Friend said at the beginning of his speech that there is a future for farming, provided that a positive approach is taken and the agenda set out
66WH
by the Curry commission is pursued with enthusiasm by the farming industry and by the Government. I also agree on the importance of and the interrelationship between CAP reform and the world trade round. Both are crucial for creating the right arrangements for trade and for the future prosperity of farming.
As this is fair trade fortnight, it is appropriate to point out that the importance of fair trade has been recognised by farmers in this country. In fact, later this week I shall speak at a conference organised jointly by the NFU, Oxfam, the co-operative movement and a variety of other partners. The future of farming must be viewed not in terms of protection or production-related subsidies but, as my hon. Friend rightly said, in terms of relating the needs of farming to the needs of the market and consumers and ensuring that we have a high-value farming industry in which added value brings the necessary added income.
My hon. Friend covered a variety of issues. He engaged directly with the issues that affect the farming industry in the wider economic and social context. I am pleased that last year the Labour party held a conference, which I believe was the first rural conference held by any political party, at Harper Adams university college in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley). After some fairly horrendous times for the farming industry, such engagement across boundaries is a most exciting development.
I echo the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford about co-operation. There are some good examples. In December 2001, the Bishop of Hereford organised a conference deliberately to enable people to speak about their successes in breaking through the boundaries. It was a remarkable day, especially as we were only starting to lift our eyes from the impact of foot and mouth disease. It was an example of how one could be positive, given the right conditions and support and an understanding of what has worked elsewhere.
I will reflect on the accuracy of my hon. Friend's comment about the desire for co-operation, which is encouraging. I am delighted to hear that that is the case in Staffordshire, and I believe that it reflects a wider feeling. The Government certainly recognise the importance of co-operation. It forms a central strand of the strategy for sustainable farming and food, which was launched on 12 December.
To encourage co-operative activity, we are supporting an industry-led initiative to establish a new body, which will be called the English farming and food partnership. We have worked with industry to establish the new food chain centre and are partially funding its initial programme of work. We provide £5 million a year through the agriculture development scheme to strengthen collaboration, employ benchmarking and spread good practice. Grants to encourage collaboration are available under the processing and marketing grant scheme and the rural enterprise scheme.
My hon. Friend referred to local food sourcing. We have established a cross-departmental working group to develop Government policy. We have also set up workshops with the Institute of Grocery Distribution to bring supermarkets and small local producers together to explore how barriers to local sourcing can be

67WH
overcome. Much is in the hands of the industry, but we need to encourage all parts of it, large and small, to engage in the process. I hope that my hon. Friend, through his co-operation with the Department, will ensure that Staffordshire is tied into the new initiatives.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Food from Britain, the regional development agencies and the Countryside Agency have prepared a new structure for supporting regional food initiatives. Emphasising what is special and local in the context of a region is the key to success. The west of England has done that particularly well by identifying food from Cornwall, Devon and other parts of the south-west, but doing so within a wider regional marketing plan. Many other localities and regions of England could learn from that.
A good example from the Food from Britain initiative is Heart of England Fine Foods, which was established in March 1998 and helps to deliver projects within the regional speciality foods and drinks sector of the west midlands. I have seen a number of good products that it has supported. In line with the Curry recommendations and our policy on a co-ordinated regional food strategy, we support that sort of joined-up approach.
On public policy on purchasing, there is a danger of distorting the market or contravening procurement rules. That would be unwise from the point of view of British agriculture, which wants to sell abroad. It is necessary that we consider competition in the supply chain. We want to support measures to enable the industry to operate on a level playing field and be successful.
I am fully aware of the importance of links between agriculture, tourism and the rural economy. I was interested to hear that some 13 per cent. of the work force in the county of Staffordshire are engaged in farming, tourism, leisure and the food and drinks industry. It is an interesting percentage because it demonstrates a considerable contribution to the economy, but when one breaks it down, one discovers that it comprises about 2 per cent. in agriculture, some 3 per cent. in food and drink and about 8 per cent. in tourism and leisure. The farming element is fairly small in terms of the numbers employed, but linked into the wider economic driver, it becomes immensely important. That is far more understood nowadays.
Reference was also made to access to new technology, which is a key priority for the Government. The Department of Trade and Industry has made£30 million available through the UK broadband fund to help the regional development agencies and devolved Administrations to develop schemes to extend broadband networks. Many people in rural communities pick up the theme. Some fully understand the potential of broadband, but others do not. We need to ask why connections need to be made and to ensure that there is a good business argument and that opportunities are being taken up properly.
68WH
The strategy on broadband draws heavily on the recommendations of the Broadband Stakeholder Group, which was set up in February 2001 and which is now an independent body that brings together infrastructure, service and content companies with broadband users from the public and private sectors. The Government and the industry agree that there is no magic bullet that will deliver broadband roll-out in the UK, but there is a virtuous circle, which we need to stimulate, in which demand and supply grow in parallel. I am engaged with colleagues in other Departments in discussing the way in which broadband delivery, for instance in relation to schools and health, can help the wider community. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills is a great personal supporter of ensuring that we take such opportunities.

"The Great British Kitchen" is an interesting project and I know that my ministerial colleague Lord Whitty has met with my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford to discuss it. There have also been a number of meetings between my officials and the British Food Trust. We are happy to continue that dialogue and, from the Government's point of view, I am certainly not aware of anything that would obstruct it. The challenge is whether a real business case can be made, whether the figures stand up and whether the undoubted enthusiasm that my hon. Friend has for the project is reflected by potential investors and participants. None the less, I commend my hon. Friend for not letting go and for trying to ensure that the initiative is followed through.
It is true to say that the strategy for sustainable farming and food arising out of the Curry report is crucial to the future of farming and its context in the wider rural economy. The strategy will help farmers to manage change and reconnect with their customers and the rest of the food chain. I have already given the example of the creation of the food chain centre. The strategy will reward them for providing environmental goods—for instance, there is the new entry level or broad and shallow scheme. I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of agri-environment schemes in future. The strategy will also help farmers to get the right training and advice to develop their businesses. I agree about the importance of the demonstration farms, and pilot demonstration farms are being established. The first event took place on 29 January, and there will be work for the next for 15 months or so, after which we will review the lessons that can be learned.
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend about the engagement that is necessary if the farming industry is to have a successful future. We should build on the good examples, rather than in places in which people, perhaps understandably given the challenges of the past few years, have given in to being negative and depressed about the whole thing. If we can link the farming industry within the wider rural economy and food and drink industry, there is every reason to anticipate success. I commend my hon. Friend and others like him who take a full part in providing leadership and partnership to the industry in their constituencies.
It being half-past Four o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

TRANSPORT

  Motoring Costs
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the estimates that he has made of the external costs associated with private motoring, with particular reference to the environmental costs. [102477]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A study commissioned by my Department from the Institute for Transport Studies* at the University of Leeds made the following estimates of the marginal external social costs of car use per vehicle kilometre in Great Britain:

  (a) Congestion costs: 9.0 to 10.4 pence/km

  (b) Accident costs : 0.79 to 1.38 pence/km

  (c) Air pollution costs: 0.18 to 0.88 pence/km

  (d) Noise pollution costs: 0.01 to 0.52 pence/km

  (e) Climate change costs: 0.12 to 0.47 pence/km

  * 'Surface Transport Costs and Charges', Great Britain 1998, Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds, July 2001, page 49.

  Accident Statistics
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) accidents and (b) fatalities were recorded on the A259 between (i) Hastings and Bexhill and (ii) Bexhill and Pevensey, with particular reference to King Offa Way, Bexhill, in each year since 1997. [101392]

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

  Letter from Tim. Matthews to Gregory Barker, dated 11 March 2003:
  I have been asked by David Jamieson to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about how many (a) accidents and (b) fatalities were recorded on the A259 between (i) Hastings and Bexhill and (ii) Bexhill and Pevensey in each year since 1997.
  The statistics for injury accidents are shown in the attached annex. If you would like further information about accident issues on these sections of the A259 the Area Manager, Mark Kumar, at our Dorking office would be pleased to help you. His telephone number is 01306 878115.

  Injury accidents

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Total

  A259 between Hastings and Bexhill (B2092 to B2182 Cooden Sea Road)

  Fatal

  2

  0

  1

  0

  1

  4

  Serious

  3

  5

  1

  3

  3

  15

  Slight

  14

  21

  21

  11

  45

  112

  Total

  19

  26

  23

  14

  49

  131

  120W

  Injury accidents

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Total

  A259 between Bexhill and Pevensey (B2182 Cooden Sea Road to junction with A27)(including figures for King Offa Way)

  Fatal

  0

  0

  0

  1

  J

  2

  Serious

  1

  4

  5

  1

  2

  13

  Slight

  8

  9

  6

  7

  16

  46

  Total

  9

  13

  11

  9

  19

  61

  A259 King Offa Way (from the De La Warr Road to London Road)

  Fatal

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Serious

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Slight

  0

  8

  9

  6

  8

  31

  Total

  0

  8

  9

  7

  8

  32

  Note:

  Figures for 2002 are not yet available.

  Central Railway
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the status of the Central Railway project. [101870]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We are considering carefully Central Railway's proposals and will respond to Central Railway in due course.

  Travel Passes
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what publicity is(a) being given and (b) planned to the change in eligibility for the travel pass for elderly people from 1 April (i) in London and (ii) elsewhere; and if he will make a statement. [101750]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The DTLR Press Release 2002/0069 of 27 February 2002 gave details of the contents of the Travel Concessions (Eligibility) Act 2002 directly it received Royal Assent. The DfT will issue a further Press Release within the next two weeks to again publicise that from 1 April 2003 men will become eligible for travel concessions at the same age as women.

  Responsibility for local publicity to inform the public about the change in eligibility for the travel pass for elderly people lies with the local authorities or Passenger Transport Executives. The Local Government Association has alerted its members to the change and reminded them that they may wish to advertise appropriate local advance application arrangements.

  Ministerial Trips
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the overseas trips made by himself and other members of his ministerial team in 2002; and what the(a) purpose and (b) cost was in each case. [101475]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office on 22 January 2003,Official Report, column 334W, in response to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws)

  Motorways
  Mr. David Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the(a) benefits and (b) costs of privatising English motorways; and if he will make a statement. [101517]
  121W
  Mr. Jamieson
  No detailed assessment of the costs and benefits of privatising England's motorways has been made.

  In 1999 the Next Steps Review of the Highways Agency looked briefly at the possibility of privatisation as part of the 'prior options review' that re-examined the case for Agency status. These reviews are routine. The report (published in July 1999) concluded that privatisation could only be an option for the future when a number of issues had been resolved including the identification of a secure revenue stream.

  Railways
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many stations have achieved safer station status; and how many will achieve safer station status in each of the next three years. [102168]

  Mr.Jamieson
  There are currently 170 stations accredited under the Secure Stations Scheme. The Scheme is voluntary and the Department has not set any targets for the number of stations to be accredited under the Scheme. It is up to the Train Operating Companies to decide which of their stations to put through the Scheme's accreditation process.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what Strategic Rail Authority resources are available for station improvements, including safety improvements, in each of the next five years. [102169]

  Mr.Jamieson
  The Authority's Strategic Plan, a copy of which is in the House Library, explains their current investment priorities in detail.

  Mr.Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the adequacy of data collection concerning perceptions of passenger safety on the railways. [102227]

  Mr.Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority's twice yearly "National Passenger Survey" includes questions on passengers' perceptions of safety. The survey is carried out to an approved methodology in accordance with Market Research Society codes of conduct.

  Mr.Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research he has conducted into the extent to which environmental factors, with particular reference to(a) litter on tracks and (b) graffiti in stations, influence perceptions of safety and customer satisfaction among users of the railways. [102229]

  Mr.Jamieson
  The National Passenger Survey measures for each train operating company the most important areas of concern for passengers. Details of the results of the surveys are contained in the Strategic Rail Authority's publication, "On Track", copies of which are in the Libraries of the House.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who would conduct(a) an inquiry into a rail accident and (b) a criminal investigation into a criminal act on the (i) Folkestone, Dymchurch and Hythe Railway, (ii) Bluebell Railway, (iii) Didcot Railway, (iv) Heritage Railway and (v) Rail Mail under the provisions of the Railways and Transport Safety Bill. [102393]
  122W
  Mr.Jamieson
  The provisions of the Railways and Transport Safety Bill will create an independent Rail Accident Investigation Branch that will investigate serious railway accidents and which may investigate a non-serious railway accident or railway incident on (i)-(v) above.

  An investigation into a general criminal act on (i)-(iv) above would normally be undertaken by the Home Office police, rather than the BTP. An investigation in to a general criminal act on (v) would normally be undertaken by the BTP if it took place on the national rail network.

  Health and safety related criminal acts would be investigated by the Health and Safety Executive in respect of (i)-(v).

  Road Improvements
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list road improvement schemes managed by the Highways Agency in(a) the Kent, East Sussex and West Sussex area and (b) England in each year since 1997, together with the cost of each scheme; and which schemes are awaiting action. [101395]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are many small improvement schemes carried out each year and it is not possible to list them all here. A table listing the major road improvement schemes completed by the Highways Agency since 1997, as well as those schemes being progressed as part of the Targeted Programme of Improvements (TPI) in(a) the Kent, East Sussex and West Sussex area and (b) England, together with the cost of each scheme has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much funding was allocated to the Highways Agency for road improvement schemes in(a) the Kent, East Sussex and West Sussex area and (b) England in each year since 1997. [101394]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Funding for road improvement schemes is not allocated on a county by county basis. The total funding allocated for road improvement schemes in England in each year since 1997 is listed in the following table:

  Year

  £million

  1997–98

  901

  1998–99

  714

  1999–2000

  663

  2000–01

  677

  2001–02

  837

  2002–03

  939

  Road User Charging
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what work he has asked the Highways Agency to do to develop a policy for road user charging for inter-urban motorway and trunk roads since 1 July 2002. [101925]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None.
  123W
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the objectives of road-user charging. [101973]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Road-user charging is one of a number of measures that a local authority can use to assist in managing congestion.

  Rolling Stock
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the safety risks associated with the delay in the replacement of Mark I carriages. [102166]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Health and Safety Executive's (HSE) decision to accept an exemption application from three South East train operators to run Mark 1 stock without an 'override preventing' safety modification was taken in light of the accelerated Train Protection and Warning System (TPWS) fitment programme that was agreed between the HSE and the industry. TPWS mitigates some of the risks associated with this type of rolling stock by reducing the risk of collision caused by signals passed at danger.

  The Strategic Rail Authority is currently discussing the delay in replacing some Mark 1 stock with the HSE, including the safety implications.

  Smoking
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what policy his Department has adopted on smoking in the workplace. [100926]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department for Transport operates a no smoking policy except in certain specifically designated smoking rooms.

  South Central Line
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what timescale the Strategic Rail Authority estimates for the power upgrade of the South Central line to accommodate, the Bombardier Electrostar trains; [101197]

  (2) What date of completion he estimates for the power upgrade for the South Central line. [101182]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Contract work to lay cables has already commenced and it is estimated that work will be completed by 2005.

  Train Services (Macclesfield and Stoke)
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the Strategic Rail Authority on the reduction of train services to Macclesfield and Stoke as part of the Strategic Rail Authority's plans for a higher speed service between London and Manchester. [101622]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority is currently considering responses to its draft strategy to deliver the West Coast Route Modernisation project and expects to finalise the strategy shortly.

  Vehicle Inspectorate
  Mr.Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes he plans in the organisation of the Vehicle Inspectorate; what representations he has received; and if he will make a statement. [102089]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 23 July 2002,Official Report, columns 964–65W, and the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on 15 October 2002, Official Report, columns 714–15W. From 1 April 2003 the Vehicle Inspectorate (VI) and the Traffic Area Network (TAN) will merge to form a new agency to be known as the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA). There will be little change in the organisation of VI immediately as VI and TAN will work as two operating divisions of VOSA. There will be a progressive integration of activities and services over the following months.

  West Coast Main Line
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the level of rail service to(a) Macclesfield and (b) Stoke-on-Trent, following (i) the upgrade of the West Coast Mainline in 2004 and (ii) the introduction of the half hourly London to Manchester service. [101741]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority is currently considering responses to its draft Strategy to deliver the West Coast Route Modernisation project and expects to finalise the Strategy shortly.

SCOTLAND

  A1 (Dualling)
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions she has had with the Scottish Executive about the dualling of the Al from Edinburgh to Newcastle. [101102]

  Mrs. McGuire
  My right hon. Friend and I have regular discussions with Scottish Ministers on a variety of transport matters. There is dialogue between the Government, its agencies and the Scottish Executive on cross-border routes. I understand officials of the Highways Agency and the Scottish Executive were due to meet yesterday to discuss progress on current schemes and take forward detailed planning for future improvement works on the Al.

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations she has received on reform of the common fisheries policy; and if she will make a statement. [101103]

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations she has received on reform of the common fisheries policy; and if she will make a statement. [101104]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have received direct representations on issues relating to the common fisheries policy from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation.
  125W
  The European Commission adopted a Green Paper on the common fisheries policy in March 2001 and subsequently brought forward specific proposals for reforming the policy. These proposals were discussed at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council in December 2002. Her Majesty's Government welcomes the package of reforms that the Council decided to adopt.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions she has had with the First Minister about prospects for manufacturing industry in Scotland. [101105]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have regular discussions with the First Minister on a wide range of matters. Scottish Executive Ministers recently received a report from the Scottish Manufacturing Steering Group and I have undertaken to assist in securing consideration by the relevant Government Departments of recommendations in the report relating to reserved matters.

  Broadband Services
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps she is taking to ensure that(a) rural and (b) urban areas in Scotland have equal access to broadband services. [101106]

  Mrs. McGuire
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 4 February 2003,Official Report, column 131W.

  Sunday Working
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment she has made of the impact of the Sunday Working (Scotland) Bill on workers in Scotland. [101107]

  Mrs. McGuire
  Our Regulatory Impact Assessment, published on 7 February 2003, set out the likely impact, costs and benefits of the Sunday Working (Scotland) Bill on workers in Scotland.

  Unemployment Figures
  Mr. Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on the latest unemployment figures for Scotland. [101109]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The latest figures show that employment in Scotland is around its highest ever level. Unemployment is at its lowest level since the mid-1970s, and since 1997, youth and long-term unemployment have both fallen by almost 80 per cent. The Government's management of the economy is driving down unemployment and establishing solid foundations for achieving high and sustainable levels of growth and employment.

TREASURY

  Euro
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether the five economic tests for determining whether there is a clear and unambiguous 126W
  case for UK membership of the euro will be applied separately to the economies of (a) overseas territories and (b) Guernsey; [99751]

  (2) if the five economic tests for determining whether there is a clear and unambiguous case for UK membership of the EMU will be applied separately to the economy of the Bailiwick of Jersey. [100062]

  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) of 25 February 2003,Official Report, column 383W, on Gibraltar, whether the Treasury's five economic tests take account of the effects of membership of the Eurozone on the UK's crown dependencies. [101928]

  Ruth Kelly
  Under Article 299(6)(c) of the EC Treaty, read together with the treaty of Accession, the Channel Islands and Isle of Man are outside the scope of the EC Treaty for the purposes of EMU.

  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the compatibility of the White Paper, "Meeting the Challenge: Economic Reform in Europe" with the second economic test for entry to the euro. [101865]

  Ruth Kelly
  A comprehensive and rigorous assessment of the five economic tests will be completed within two years of the start of this Parliament.

  As we said in "Meeting the Challenge: Economic Reform in Europe", published in February 2003, "The Government will continue to argue that employability, flexibility and stronger competition policies must be a top priority, so that EMU can be sustained success".

  Lorry Charging
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his policy on lorry road user charging. [101525]

  John Healey
  As announced in Budget 2002, the Government intend to introduce a lorry road-user charge based on distance travelled. The Government remain committed to ensuring that the UK haulage industry will not have to pay more tax as a result of introducing the charge and will also introduce offsetting tax reductions for the industry.

  The Government published their first progress report in April 2002, and will shortly publish a second progress report outlining the results of work on how to implement and procure the lorry road-user charge and offsetting tax cuts.

  Award Schemes
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the award schemes in(a) 2001 and (b) 2002 promoted by the Department; what their scope was when the relevant participating organisations are scheduled to be sent results; and whether other parties will be given notification of the results at the same time. [102063]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury has no award schemes.

  Bingo
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what plans he has to retain standard rate VAT on participation fees under the new gross profits tax system for bingo; [101755]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact of a gross profits tax system on the opportunity for growth for licensed bingo clubs; [101756]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the benefits change from bingo duty to gross profits tax will bring for (a) bingo players and (b) licensed bingo clubs; [101757]

  (4) what plans he has to reduce the tax burden on licensed bingo. [101754]

  John Healey
  As with other tax changes, and as discussed in the Pre-Budget Report, changes to the taxation of bingo will be announced in the Budget.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 5 February from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to parishioners of St. James with the Holy Innocents. [102185]

  John Healey
  I have already done so.

  Fuel Tax
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the annual income from fuel duties in each year from 1973. [102478]

  John Healey
  Duty receipts for hydrocarbon oils since 1973 are shown in the table:

  Oil Receipts

  £million

  1973–74

  1,586

  1974–75

  1,550

  1975–76

  1,543

  1976–77

  2,066

  1977–78

  2,465

  1978–79

  2,467

  1979–80

  2,931

  1980–81

  3,581

  1981–82

  4,643

  1982–83

  5,239

  1983–84

  5,605

  1984–85

  6,201

  1985–86

  6,395

  1986–87

  7,507

  1987–88

  7,810

  1988–89

  8,679

  1989–90

  8,728

  1990–91

  9,628

  1991–92

  11,003

  1992–93

  11,442

  1993–94

  12,742

  1994–95

  14,253

  1995–96

  15,679

  1996–97

  17,174

  1997–98

  19,454

  1998–99

  21,553

  1999–2000

  22,515

  2000–01

  22,623

  2001–02

  21,916

  Individual Savings Accounts
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what research he has commissioned to gauge the take-up of ISAs amongst new investors; [102123]

  (2) how many investors have opened ISA accounts who did not previously hold a PEP or TESSA; and how much money has been invested in ISA accounts by investors who previously did not hold a PEP or TESSA; [102122]

  (3) how many people have taken out an ISA in each year since 1998; [102114]

  (4) what targets he has set regarding the uptake of ISAs in the UK. [102116]

  Ruth Kelly
  The table gives available estimates of the number of individuals who held ISAs in the first three years following their introduction in 1999. It is not yet possible to break down these estimates further into how many previously held either a TESSA or PEP.

  Number of individuals holding ISAs

  millions

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  8.5

  12.5

  14.0

  The Government has no official target regarding the uptake of ISAs in the UK. However, ISAs are intended to give plenty of scope for people to begin saving, and for those who already save to save more. Since ISAs began in April 1999, over £100 billion has already been subscribed to them and within three years of their introduction an estimated 14 million individuals—some one in four adults—had an ISA. This is six million more than had either a TESSA or a PEP in 1998–99, their last and most successful year.

  The Inland Revenue is currently analysing administrative data collected for compliance purposes to see if it could be used to give further detail on individual investors, including whether or not they previously held a TESSA or PEP. It is hoped that further estimates may be available later this year.

  International Monetary Fund
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions officials from his Department have had with representatives of the International Monetary Fund concerning(a) Britain's fiscal policies and (b) the sustainability of Britain's fiscal stance in (i) the short-term, (ii) the medium-term and (iii) the long-term. [102106]

  Ruth Kelly
  The IMF mission visited the UK last year for the 2002 Article IV consultation. The concluding statement was published on 9 December. The Article IV discussions covered a wide range of issues, including UK fiscal policy. The final Article IV report, summarising the discussions, was published on 3 March.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the IMF's assessment of the medium-term widening of the fiscal deficit, as set out in the 2002 Article IV Consultation Report. [102119]
  129W
  Ruth Kelly
  The public finances remain strong and the Government are on track to meet their strict fiscal rules over the economic cycle. Modest levels of borrowing over the medium term reflect a sustained increase in capital investment of public services.

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions his Department has had with representatives of the Engineering Employers' Federation on(a) insurance cover against remote risks, (b) the level of manufacturing investment and (c) manufacturing growth rates. [102111]

  John Healey
  The Chancellor and other Treasury Ministers regularly meet representatives from the manufacturing sector, including the Engineering Employers Federation, and discuss a wide range of issues.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 28 February 2003,Official Report, column 1568W, whether he intends to extend the period of allowances for investments in plant and machinery; and if he will make a statement. [101798]

  John Healey
  As I said my answer of 28 February, the Government keep all taxes under review and any changes to taxation will be announced in the Budget statement on 9 April 2003.

  Oil and Petroleum Revenue
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the Government's revenue receipts on a monthly basis since January 2002 arising from(a) sales of petrol, (b) sales of the petroleum products and (c) North Sea oil production. [101807]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 7 March 2003]: Monthly receipts data for petroleum revenue tax, hydrocarbon oils and oil royalties are shown in Tables 2.1C, 2.1D and 2.1E respectively of the National Statistics publication Financial Statistics. Table 2.1E is in the process of being corrected; the correct monthly figures for oil royalties in 2002 will be published in the March edition of Financial Statistics on 19 March 2003 and are as shown in the following table, in £ million.

  £ million

  January

  0

  February

  248

  March

  10

  April

  4

  May

  0

  June

  0

  July

  0

  August

  230

  September

  4

  October

  0

  November

  5

  December

  0

  More up to date information on petroleum revenue tax and hydrocarbon oils receipts are available, respectively, on the Inland Revenue website at www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk, and on the HM Customs and Excise website www.uktradeinfo.com. Figures for
  130W
  North Sea corporation tax are only published on a financial year basis and are available on the Inland Revenue website. There are no published figures for VAT on petroleum products.

  Overseas Trips
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the overseas trips made by himself and other members of his ministerial team in 2002; and what the(a) purpose and (b) cost was in each case. [101483]

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

  Pensions
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out the yearly taxation revenue accruing from the taxation of occupational pension fund surpluses since the tax's inception. [102493]

  Ruth Kelly
  Available estimates from 1987–88 to 2001–02 are contained in the table.

  Taxation on refunds by funds to employers in connection with pension fund surpluses

  Year

  Amount of tax (£ million)

  1987–88

  34

  1988–89

  83

  1989–90

  182

  1990–91

  231

  1991–92

  161

  1992–93

  94

  1993–94

  45

  1994–95

  27

  1995–96

  16

  1996–97

  40

  1997–98

  20

  1998–99

  29

  1999–2000

  25

  2000–011

  30

  2001–021

  110

  1 Provisional

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) civil servants and (b) Ministers would have had a pension entitlement in 2001–02 in excess of the limit proposed in the consultation document Simplifying the Taxation of Pensions-Increasing Choice and Flexibility for All. [102492]

  Ruth Kelly
  The value of a person's pension funds will depend upon accrued entitlement both in an individual's current job, and in any previous employment. This information is not held centrally for civil servants and Ministers and the information could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of Britain's GDP was spent on research and development in the last year for which figures are available; and what assessment he has made of the average proportion of GDP spent on Research and Development in(a) the EU, (b) Japan and (c) the United States of America. [101479]
  131W
  John Healey
  The most up-to-date figures taken from OECD Main Science and Technology Indicators 2002/2 for General Expenditure on Research and Development (GERD) as a percentage of GDP are as follows:

  For the year 2000:

  UK: 1.85 per cent.

  EU: 1.88 per cent.

  Japan: 2.98 per cent.

  USA: 2.72 per cent.

  Savings Products
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will make a statement about the future of saving products in the UK;[102110]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the barriers to entry to the savings market for lower income households; and what steps the Government has taken to eradicate these barriers;[102121]

  (3) what the Government's (a) short, (b) medium and (c) long-term aims are for saving in the United Kingdom, what targets he has set for his savings policy; and if he will make a statement;[102120]

  (4) what steps he is taking to boost savings by individuals who do not hold a bank account; and if he will make a statement. [102113]

  Ruth Kelly
  Savings provide individuals with security, independence and opportunity throughout life. A number of barriers may prevent individuals, particularly those from low and moderate-income households, from making optimal saving decisions. These include factors such as lack of trust in financial services providers, complexity of products resulting in a costly system of advice and sales regulation, lack of clear financial information and the capability to process the information. The Government's saving strategy takes these factors into account and is focused on:improving the environment for saving, with macroeconomic stability and an efficient and well regulated market in financial services; creating the right incentives for saving, assisting those on lower incomes and ensuring that taxes and benefits reward, rather than penalise, savers; empowering individuals with financial information, improved access to advice, and simpler and easier to understand savings products; and developing saving products suitable for each stage in a person's life cycle. As the scale of saving increases, proceeds from one product may be rolled into the next, helping people to progress up the savings ladder.

  Progress has been made across all these fronts. For example:
  a radically new regulatory regime was created by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2001 which replaced ten different regulators with a single regulator, the FSA, covering the whole financial services market.

  All the high street banks now offer basic bank accounts that are free to open and run. Universal Banking Services will improve the environment for saving, with macroeconomic stability and an efficient and well regulated market in financial services; create the right incentives for saving, assisting those on lower incomes and ensure that taxes and benefits reward, rather than penalise, savers; empower individuals with financial information, improved access to advice, and simpler and easier to understand savings products; and
  132W
  develop saving products suitable for each stage in a person's life cycle. As the scale of saving increases, proceeds from one product may be rolled into the next, helping people to progress up the savings ladder.

  Universal Banking Services, which will be operational from April 2003, will ensure that access to basic bank accounts will be available over Post Office counters.

  Since their launch in 1999, Individual Savings Accounts have helped to make saving, and the benefits of saving, simple for ordinary investors to understand. Around 14 million people have an ISA. The Government is taking forward the recommendation of the Sandler review for the development of a suite of simple, low cost, risk-controlled 'stakeholder' investment products aimed at low and medium income investors and sold through a simplified sales regime.

  Pilots for the Saving Gateway, an account designed to provide transparent incentives to save for low-income individuals, including those who may not own any other financial products, were launched in August 2002. Tailored financial information and education are provided alongside Saving Gateway accounts to help individuals make informed saving choices.

  The Government is continuing to develop details of the Child Trust Fund, which will offer all families an account in which to save for their children, with every child receiving an endowment from the Government. The Child Trust will reinforce financial education delivered through the national curriculum and other channels.

  The Government is consulting widely on the Pensions Green Paper proposals to enable those of working age to plan more effectively for a secure retirement. Related to this, the Government has set out proposals to simplify radically the taxation of pensions, which will enable people to make clearer and more confident decisions about retirement saving.

  Statements on the progress of the Government's saving policies will be provided in the Budget.

  Tax Revenues
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions officials from his Department have had with(a) the Governor of the Bank of England, (b) members of the Monetary Policy Committee and (c) representatives of the Bank of England concerning their assessment of the strength of the growth of tax revenues; and what the outcome was of these discussions. [102108]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Chancellor and the Governor meet regularly to discuss a wide range of issues. In addition, the Treasury representative to the MPC regularly briefs MPC members on fiscal issues.

  Financial Sector Green Paper
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when his Department began work on the Green Paper, "The Financial System and Major Operational Disruption". [101699]
  133W
  Ruth Kelly
  The Green Paper, "The Financial System and Major Operational Disruption", marks the latest stage of one part of the on-going work that has been undertaken by my Department to help strengthen financial sector resilience since the events of 11 September 2001.

  Iraq
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the possible implications for the British economy of involvement of the UK in a war in Iraq. [102500]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) on 24 February 2003,Official Report, column 216W.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Departmental Administrative Errors
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the fine imposed by the European Commission on her Department for administrative errors. [100961]

  Mr. Morley
  By decision 2003/102/EC of 14 February 2003 the European Commission excluded 14.84m of UK expenditure from reimbursement by the European Community, on the grounds that it was not effected in accordance with Community rules. Of this, 14m was due to shortcomings in the operation of the beef subsidy schemes, 492,000 to shortcomings in checks on carcases accepted into public storage and 55,000 to failures to comply with payment deadlines. These sums relate mainly, but not entirely, to CAP schemes administered by the Rural Payments Agency, which is an executive agency of Defra.

  The livestock penalties largely relate to a lack of cross checks between bovine subsidy claims and the computerised cattle registration database in the marketing year 2000–01, coupled with an incomplete programme of on-farm inspections. The FMD outbreak was a factor in both cases. Automatic cross checks between the computerised cattle database and bovine subsidy claims have now been established.

  The shortcomings in public storage relate to the acceptance for intervention storage of certain incorrectly classified carcases by Livestock and Meat Commission (LMC) inspectors in Northern Ireland in 1998. It has since been arranged that LMC inspectors liaise more closely with the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Northern Ireland (DARDNI) inspectors. Unannounced on-the-spot controls by RPA technical inspectors have also been introduced, in agreement with DARDNI.

  The remaining penalties relate to the failure to make within the regulatory deadlines some payments for maize during the marketing year 2000–01 and some payments for set-aside during the marketing year
  134W
  1999–00. In England, instructions to staff have been reviewed and reinforced to stress the payment deadlines and the need for timely processing. In the current EAGGF year almost 99 per cent. of main AAPS payments were made to producers in England by the payment deadline date of 31 January 2003.

  The UK Government regrets that any of its expenditure should be subject to disallowance. However, in the most recent report of the European Court of Auditors, relating to the calendar year 2001, the UK was the only member state to receive a net credit from disallowance decisions. Furthermore, this decision represents only about half of one percent of agricultural expenditure in the UK funded by the Community each year.

  Animal By-products
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what additional resources have been available to local authorities to enable them to police the disposal of animal by-products material in each of the last five years. [100814]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 4 March 2003]: No additional resources have been made available to local authorities to enable them to police the disposal of animal by-products.

  However, we are continuing to fund additional work undertaken by local authorities as a result of the foot and mouth disease outbreak. This may, by implication, include enforcement work regarding the disposal of animal by-products e.g. disposal of carcases.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will make a statement on the animal carcase(a) rendering and (b) incineration industries and the market share of companies involved within them; [101262]

  (2) what recent representations and discussions she has had regarding the (a) rendering and (b) animal carcase and animal products incineration industry with (i) individuals, (ii) lobby groups, (iii) companies and (iv) other bodies. [101261]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department regulates outlets that deal with animal by-products, such as rendering and incineration plants. Officials are, therefore, involved in regular discussions with those industries and other interested parties, both informally and on a more formal, consultative basis.

  The Department does not hold information regarding the market share of the companies involved in the animal by-product industry.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list those companies with which her Department and its agencies have signed contracts to incinerate animal carcases under the over 30 months scheme in each year since 1996. [191266]
  135W
  Alun Michael
  The following lists give details of the companies contracted by the Rural Payments Agency to incinerate over thirty month scheme animal carcases for each year 1996 to date.

  1996
  SAC Veterinary Services, Cleeve Gardens, Oakbank Road, Perth, PH1 1HF.
  Gluttons (Agricultural), Tyddyn Daniel, Marchwiel, Wrexham, Clwyd.
  Wessex Incineration, Roewood, West Woodlands, Nr. Frome, Somerset, BAH 5EN.
  Tellams Incineration, Valley View, Woodlands, Cheriton Bishop, Exeter, Devon, EX6 6HH.
  The Cambridge Pet Crematorium, A505 Main Road. Thriplow Heath, Nr Royston, Herts, SG8 7RR.
  Crawley Abattoir (Sussex) Ltd., Forge Farm, Steers Lane, Tinsley Green, Crawley, West Sussex, RHI0 3NP.
  A. Lawton, Birch House, Birch Vale, New Mills, Stockport, Cheshire, SK12 3DH.
  Harry Hawkins and Partners, Chates Farm, Cowfold, Horsham, West Sussex, RH138DU.
  Tom Goddard and Sons, Camrose Incineration, Causeway Factory, Camrose, Haverfordwest, Pembs, Dyfed, SA62 6HG.
  University of Bristol, Department of Pathology and Microbiology, School of Medical Sciences, University Walk, Bristol, BS8 1TD.
  Companions Rest (Animal Crematorium), Pheonix House, Stoke Road, Elmstone Hardwicke, Cheltenham, Gloucester, GL51 9SY.
  Incineration South West Limited, Stoneybridge, Pengover Road, Liskeard, Cornwall, PL14 3NH.
  Durga Environmental Ltd., 9 Green Lane, Buxton, Derbyshire, SK l7 9DP (letter of intent signed 1996, contract signed 1998).
  Euromet, 54–58 High Street, Edgware, Middlesex, HA8 7EJ (letter of intent signed 1996, contract signed 1998).
  Sacone Environmental Ltd., c/o The Abattoir, Montrose Road, Brechin, DD9 7PL (letter of intent signed 1997, contract signed 1998).
  Bronzeoak Ltd., The Beeches, Gravelly Hill, Caterham, Surrey, CR3 6ES (letter of intent signed 1996, contract signed 1998).
  Bronzeoak Thermal Processing Ltd., 5 Godstone Road, Caterham, Surrey, CR3 6ES (letter of intent signed 1996, contract signed 1998).
  WRE Services Ltd, 2 The Embankment, Sovereign Street, Leeds, LS I 4BG (letter of intent signed 1996, contract signed 1998).

  1998
  Ottery Abattoir Ltd., Raxhayes Farm, Ottery St. Mary, Devon EX11 1PQ.
  Hamilton Irvine Ltd., Murdoch Place, Oldhall West Industrial Estate, Irvine, KA11 5DG.
  Cremtor, Greycote Lane, Forches Cross, Newton Abbot, Devon, TQ12 6PY.

  1999
  Westcot Hides Ltd., 15/23 Westerburn Street, Shettleston, Glasgow G32 9AT.
  Incineration Scotland, Mosspark, Annan Road, Dumfries, DG1 4PH.

  2000
  C&S Murphy, Douglasbrae Knackery, Tarnash House, Tarnash, Keith, Banffshire, AB55 5PB.
  Peake (GB) Ltd., Stoneybridge Park, Liskeard, Cornwall, PL14 3NQ.
  136W
  Wessex Incineration, Roewood, West Woodlands, Nr. Frome, Somerset, BAH SEN.
  The Cambridge Pet Crematorium, A505 Main Road, Thriplow Heath, Nr. Royston, Herts, SG8 7RR.
  F. Redfern and Sons Ltd., Haslin Abattoir, Buxton, SK179HT.
  Tellams Incineration, Valley View, Woodlands, Cheriton Bishop, Exeter. Devon, EX6 6HH.
  Tom Goddard and Sons, Camrose Incineration, Causeway Factory, Camrose, Haverfordwest, Pembs, Dyfed, SA62 6HG.
  Animal Waste Services Ltd., Upper Office, Tyddyn Daniel, Marchwiel, Wrexham, LL13 OTS.
  North East Incineration Services, Tarnash House, Tarnash, Keith, Banffshire, AB55 5PB.
  Hamilton (Irvine) Ltd, Oldhall West Industrial Estate, Irvine, Ayrshire, KAU 5DG.
  Incineration Scotland, Mosspark, Annan Road, Dumfries, DG1 4PH.

  2001
  Mr.s. S. Williams, T/A Cremtor, Greycote Lane, Forches Cross, Newton Abbot, Devon, TQl2 6PX.
  A. Lawton, Birch House, Birch Vale, New Mills, Stockport, Cheshire, SK12 3DH.
  Harry Hawkins and Partners, Chates Farm, Cowfold, Horsham, West Sussex, RH13 8DU.
  Mr. F. J. and Mrs. P. W. Hayman, Raxhayes Farm, Holcombe Lane, Ottery St. Mary, Devon EX11 1PQ.
  Goodmans (Slaughterers) Ltd., The Bungalow, Warwick Road, Ettington, Stratford-on-Avon, Warks, CV37 7PN.

  2002
  Harry Hawkins and Partners, Chates Farm, Cowfold, Horsham, West Sussex, RH13 8DU.

  Animal Welfare Bill
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will include the use of snares in the proposed Animal Welfare Bill. [102481]

  Mr. Morley
  Snares will not be dealt with under the Animal Welfare Bill. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 already regulates snares.

  Water Supplies (Ashford)
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the additional water supplies needed for the planned expansion of Ashford; and if she will make a statement. [102288]

  Mr. Morley
  Ashford is served by Mid Kent Water. Along with the other water supply companies, Mid Kent Water produces a water resources plan, which looks forward 25 years. The plan is updated annually by the Company, and is reviewed by the Environment Agency for consistency with the national and regional water resources strategies. The planned expansion of Ashford will be factored into this process.

  Biofuels
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what subsidies there are to encourage British farmers to produce crops capable of being transformed into biofuels. [100217]
  137W
  Mr. Meacher
  Transport biofuels can be produced from crops such as oilseed rape, wheat, potatoes and sugar beet. The Government are promoting the production of these biofuels through the existing 20 pence/litre cut in duty for biodiesel compared to ultra-low sulphur diesel, and the intention announced in November's pre-budget report to reduce the duty for bioethanol by 20 pence/litre compared to ultra-low sulphur petrol.

  This Department has allocated £29 million under the Energy Crops Scheme for establishment grants for short rotation coppice (SRC) and miscanthus, and for SRC growers to set up producer groups. The Woodland Grant Scheme and Farm Woodland Premium Scheme provide grants to create and manage woodland, which can help in the production of wood fuel. £66 million is available to develop markets for biomass in heat, combined heat and power and power generation. A further £3.5 million has been allocated to develop the supply chain required to harvest, store, process and supply biomass to energy end-users.

  Non-food crops receive support under the European Union's Arable Area Payments Scheme and can be grown on set-aside land.

  BSE
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much(a) her Department and (b) the European Union has spent on (i) rendering and (ii) incineration of BSE-suspected animal carcases in each year since the over 30 months scheme began. [101264]

  Mr. Morley
  All costs for incineration of BSE-suspected animals have been met by the Department.

  (i) Rendering of BSE-suspected animals is not permitted.

  (ii) Expenditure on incineration of BSE-suspected animal carcases in each year since the start of the over thirty months scheme has been as follows:

  £million

  1996–97

  2.1

  1997–98

  1.4

  1998–99

  1.5

  1999–2000

  1.3

  2000–01

  1.0

  2001–02

  1.3

  These figures include expenditure on incineration of offspring cull animals and some other associated expenses.

  Bushmeat
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether a disease risk analysis of the potential risk to public health posed by the illegal importation of bushmeat has been undertaken by the Food Standards Agency. [101352]

  Ms Blears
  I have been asked to reply.
  138W
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on 6 March 2003, Official Report, column 1205W.

  Regulatory Import Assessments
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many responses were received on the consultation document "Living Places—Powers, Rights, Responsibilities", broken down by(a) local authority, (b) business, (c) NGO, (d) individual and (e) other sources; and if she will place a list of respondees in the Library. [101673]

  Mr. Meacher
  We received 248 responses to our Living Places consultation.

  105 from local authorities

  19 from businesses

  10 from NGOs

  40 from individuals

  74 from other sources

  We will place a list of respondees in the Library.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the length of consultation provided on the consultation documents on partial regulatory impact assessments published on 17 February meets the requirements laid out in the Code of Practice on Written Consultation published by the Cabinet Office in November 2000; and if she will make a statement. [101674]

  Mr. Meacher
  No, the deadline we gave for comments on partial regulatory assessments was not in line with the criteria laid out in the Code of Practice on Written Consultation published by the Cabinet Office.

  These partial regulatory impact assessments were produced following an analysis of early responses to the consultation document "Living Places—Powers, Rights, Responsibilities". This analysis indicated that the issues in question were of a high priority and respondents would welcome early legislation. We therefore felt it appropriate to conduct a short, targeted, consultation exercise, so that we could be ready to legislate should an appropriate legislative opportunity arise.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many responses have been received to the consultation documents on partial regulatory impact assessments published on 17 February on(a) fly tipping, (b) local environmental quality and (c) street furniture broken down by (i) local authority, (ii) business, (iii) NGO, (iv) individual and (v) other sources; and if she will place a list of respondees in the Library. [101675]

  Mr. Meacher
  We received 25 responses on fly tipping; 15 from local authorities, two from businesses, two from NGOs, 0 from individuals and six from other sources. 26 responses were received on local environmental quality; 16 from local authorities, three from businesses, 0 from both NGOs and individuals, and seven from other sources.
  139W
  And lastly, we received 24 responses on street furniture; 15 from local authorities, five from businesses, 0 from both NGOs and individuals, and four from other sources.

  We will place a list of respondees in the Library.

  Departmental File Stores
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many people were employed in the departmental file stores in each year since 1997; how many have been transferred to the private sector; and if she will make a statement. [98858]

  Alun Michael
  Staffing levels of the Department's file stores have remained at a fairly consistent level from 1997 to 2003, employing between 15 to 17 full-time posts as the table indicates.

  Number

  1997

  17

  1998

  17

  1999

  17

  2000

  16

  2001

  16

  2002

  16

  2003

  15

  No posts have been transferred, or are expected to transfer to the private sector.

  At the end of March 2003, one of the Department's main file stores at Hayes will close. It employs seven staff. Three posts are being transferred to manage a new file store contract in Defra's main Headquarter's office, and the Department is actively seeking to re-deploy the four remaining posts on other administrative duties.

  Departmental Telephone Directory
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the most recent internal telephone directory for the Department was published; how often it is updated; and if she will place a copy in the Library. [102032]

  Alun Michael
  Our internal on-line Corporate Directory was introduced as part of our greening initiative, and is updated by individual members of staff whenever their personal details change.

  Although we no longer produce a paper telephone directory, details of our senior staff can be found in the following publications:

  Vacher's Parliamentary Companion;

  Vacher Dod's Civil Service Companion;

  PMS Parliamentary Companion; and

  The Civil Service Year Book.

  Defra contact details can also be found on our website: www.defra.gov.uk

  Drinking Water
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her policy is on the continuation of charging regimes for drinking water based on 1973 rateable values. [101693]
  140W
  Mr. Morley
  It is open to water companies to set unmeasured charges on the basis of rateable values, or to propose another basis, subject to the approval of the Director General of Water Services. The Government remain ready to discuss any proposals with those interested in devising a practicable alternative to rateable value as the basis for unmeasured charging. Any such scheme would need to address how to deal with transitional effects and how to ensure an acceptable outcome for different groups of customers, particularly vulnerable consumers. Household customers have the statutory right to opt for a measured charge if they prefer.

  Environmental Offences
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many offences related to environmental damage and disruption have been decriminalised since 1997. [99279]

  Mr. Meacher
  This Department does not hold information on such offences centrally. However, following inquiries by my officials, I am not aware of any such offences being decriminalised since 1997.

  Environmental Protection
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to develop a methodology to assess in regulatory impact assessments of new environmental protection measures the economic benefits of high environmental standards in order to implement the new Cabinet Office guidance Better Policy Making: A Guide to Regulatory Impact; and what category of benefits his Department will include when developing such a methodology. [100605]

  Mr. Morley
  In the new Cabinet Office guidance Better Policy Making: A Guide to Regulatory Impact Assessment, consideration of the potential dynamic benefits of higher environmental standards is required when assessing the benefits of proposed policy. The importance of considering these potential benefits was raised by Defra during the consultation period. The new guidance also states that quantifying these benefits is difficult, given the high level of uncertainty surrounding them in the future. For this reason the Department's approach in implementing the Cabinet Office guidance will focus on promoting good practice in policy making, giving particular emphasis to the importance of undertaking early informal consultation with stakeholders. This is entirely consistent with the new Cabinet Office guidance which gives increased emphasis to stakeholder consultation and to integrating into the policy process those who have an informed understanding of the potential economic benefits of a particular policy.

  The Integrated Policy Appraisal tool, a structured format for assessing the economic, social and environmental impacts of a proposed policy, is currently being piloted in Defra. Active consideration is being given to developing this to cover in more detail the economic benefits of high environmental standards. On the assessment of environmental benefits, Defra, and a number of other Government Departments, are at the forefront of work to develop and apply new methodologies. An up-to-date assessment of this work is provided in Annex 2 of the Treasury's new

  141W
  Green Book on policy appraisal and evaluation at http://www.hm-treasury.goy.uk/media//78872/Green_Book2_03.pdf

  Flooding
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will place in the Library a copy of the flood risk data released by the Environment Agency to the Association of British Insurers on 29 January. [101357]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency has provided the initial results of an R&D project called Risk Assessment for Strategic Planning (RASP) to the Association of British Insurers under agreement for assessment purposes only at this stage. The Agency is working closely with the ABI and leading insurance companies to ensure that the best available data can be provided at the earliest opportunity to insurers and the public. The data are not sufficiently accurate to be placed in the public domain at the present time but the Agency plans to make new flood risk maps available to the public in late 2003.

  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what responsibilities(a) the Environment Agency, (b) county councils, (c) district councils, (d) unitary authorities, (e) the Highways Agency and (f) other public bodies have to (i) deal with and (ii) prevent flooding. [102403]

  Mr. Morley
  Flood defence is currently delivered in partnership between Defra, which has policy responsibility, and the operating authorities—the Environment Agency (EA), local authorities and Internal Drainage Boards (IDBs).

  The EA is the principal flood defence operating authority with responsibility for managing flood risk from designated main rivers and the sea. The EA is also responsible for public awareness campaigns, flood forecasting and warning and for exercising a general supervision over all matters relating to flood defence. IDBs exist in areas of special drainage needs and have responsibility for ordinary watercourses in their area. Local authorities (district, borough and unitary councils) are responsible for ordinary watercourses where no IDB exists, and maritime councils also have powers to take action against coastal erosion and sea flooding. The responsibilities on the coast are set out in shoreline management plans. Local authorities also take the lead in emergency planning and managing the emergency response to flooding.

  The present institutional and funding arrangements have recently been reviewed and I shall be announcing the outcomes of this review shortly.

  Sewerage companies are under a statutory duty to ensure the effective drainage of their area. This is not however regarded as extending to an absolute duty to prevent sewer flooding under any circumstances, which would be technically impossible.

  Other public bodies, including the Highways Agency, are responsible for minimising the effects of their activities on the run-off of water and flooding through consultation with the EA and other operating authorities.

  GM Crops
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many applications she has received for the authorisation of GM crops since December 2002; and if she will make a statement on the process. [101257]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have received no applications for authorisation to place a GM crop on the market under Directive 2001/18 since the beginning of December. However, two applications made before that date are still under consideration. In addition the UK has been notified of 17 applications that are being processed by other member states.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to license GM crops in Scotland for commercial use. [101770]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 7 March 2003]: Decisions to authorise the commercial importation or cultivation of any GM crop will be taken by European Union (EU) Member States collectively, on a case-by-case basis, working with the European Commission in the context of EU Directive 2001/18. In preparing the UK's opinion the Government will consult the Devolved Administrations on all applications. We will not support consent for commercial cultivation of any GM crops to which the results of the UK's Farm Scale Evaluation trials are relevant, until the results have been assessed and a conclusion drawn that the management of the crops concerned does not pose a risk to the environment. Under the single market regime of the EU, once a GM crop has commercial approval it can be imported and, if the consent conditions permit, cultivated anywhere in the EU.

  Illegal Meat Imports
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent representations she has received and discussions she has had regarding publicity material for international travellers through the "Don't Bring Back More Than You Bargained For" campaign to prevent illegal meat imports entering the UK. [101267]

  Mr. Morley
  We have received a number of representations about the "Don't Bring Back More Than You Bargained For" campaign through such means as Parliamentary Questions, Ministers Correspondence, and correspondence from individuals. Officials have had regular discussions with the National Farmers Union and the Women's Institute about our publicity campaign. Officials are also in discussion with the Central Office of Information and HM Customs about our future publicity strategy.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what health risks are associated with fish and fish products brought into the UK by international travellers through the "Don't Bring Back More Than You Bargained For" campaign. [101269]

  Mr. Morley
  The illegal import of live or dead fish could result in the introduction of serious fish diseases listed in Council Directive 91/67/EEC which could
  143W
  prejudice the high health status of farmed and wild species of fish in the UK. While such diseases have not been shown to cause illness in humans, the uncontrolled movement of fish and fish products could pose other hazards to human health.

  Light Pollution
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the cost of energy wasted by street lighting directed above the horizontal. [101184]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 6 March 2003]: I have been asked to reply.

  My Department has no central figures of the lighting characteristics of the many types of street lighting units in use and so cannot readily estimate the energy cost of light directed above the horizontal. However, the Department does advise the use of lighting units which restrict the amount of light directed above the horizontal to reduce light pollution.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department is taking to encourage the use of downward directed lighting and to improve the visibility of the night sky. [101185]

  Alun Michael
  This is not matter for this Department but one for the office of my colleague the Deputy Prime Minister.

  Integrated Farm Management
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on Linking Environment and Farming. [101435]

  Mr. Morley
  Linking Environment and Farming (LEAF) is a charitable organisation committed to the promotion of an holistic approach to viable farming and environmental enhancement through Integrated Farm Management (IFM).

  Defra continues to support the valuable work undertaken by LEAF.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the outcome of her visit to the Linking Environment and Farming project in Wirral, South. [101671]

  Mr. Morley
  The visit to Leverhulme Estate gave a useful insight into the value of demonstration farms and the adoption of Integrated Farm Management (IFM). These help promote the practical application of good farming principles—one of the key initiatives in the Strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food.

  Nightingale Hall Farm, Lancaster
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she intends to determine the appeal of Fats and Proteins (UK) Ltd. under section 15 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 issued on 5 December 1997 in respect of 144W
  Nightingale Hall Farm, Lancaster in relation to (a) the odour boundary condition and (b) the likelihood of increased spillage on surrounding roads. [102317]

  Mr. Meacher
  A letter, setting out the decision that the Secretary of State is 'minded to' issue in this appeal case, was issued to interested parties on 16 January, inviting further representations on the proposed decision. The Department is now carefully considering all the representations received in response to the `minded to' letter and will issue a final decision letter as soon as possible.

  Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) pursuant to her answer of 11 February,Official Report, column 664W, on nuclear fuel reprocessing, if she will list the different radioactive materials that make up (a) the low level waste, (b) the intermediate level waste and (c) the high level waste; [101437]

  (2) pursuant to her answer of 11 February 2003, Official Report, column 664W, on nuclear fuel reprocessing, what radioactive materials make up (a) the 28,000 cubic metres low level waste, (b) the 14,000 cubic metres intermediate level waste and (c) the 480 cubic metres high level waste. [102503]

  Mr. Meacher
  The waste from nuclear fuel reprocessing contains a variety of radioactively contaminated material, such as:Low level waste: stainless steel containers, steel flasks, sheet steel, paper, wood and plastic;
  Intermediate level waste: plutonium contaminated plastic or metal, stainless steel fuel cladding, scrap metal or plastic, barium carbonate, graphite, insoluble fission products, ion exchange material, sand, floc from effluent treatment and sludge from ponds;
  High level waste: fission products and trace actinides.

  Oil Pollution
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many incidences(a) have been recorded and (b) have resulted in fines and prosecutions relating to releases of oil from refineries caused by flushing processes in each year since 1997; how much each fine was; and what the estimated cost was of clearing up such incidences. [99278]

  Mr. Meacher
  No incidents relating to releases of oil from refineries caused by flushing processes were recorded by the Environment Agency in either 2001 or 2002.

  Information on such incidents before 2001 is not readily available although the Environment Agency is not aware of any between 1997 and 2001.

  Perchloroethylene
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what incidences of(a) water and (b) air pollution resulting from businesses which use perchloroethylene in their day to day operations there have been in each year since 1997; and how many led to (i) fines and (ii) prosecutions, including the amount of fines levied. [99268]
  145W
  Mr. Meacher
  Environment Agency data shows that there have been 10 incidents of water and air pollution since 1997 involving perchloroethylene. The Agency's database is only accurate from 2001.

  All of the recorded incidents were of a minor nature, although one did attract enforcement action of a "site warning nature". None attracted fines or legal action.

  Pest Designations
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to de-designate(a) starlings and (b) house sparrows as pests. [99617]

  Mr. Morley
  Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 all birds are protected. There is no legal definition of wild birds as pests. However, under Section 16 of the 1981 Act general licences are issued that allow the killing or taking of certain birds for the purposes of public health and air safety, conservation of wild birds and to prevent serious damage to crops. Both the starling and house sparrow are currently listed on some of these licences. Research conducted on behalf of my Department last year into the declines of both these species showed that control under the general licences has an insignificant effect upon their conservation status and their population numbers.

  All general licences are reviewed annually and re-issued only after seeking the advice of our statutory advisor, English Nature. Officials are currently examining all the general licences, including those for killing or taking of certain birds, and will be discussing with stakeholders any relevant improvements.

  Pesticides
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list pesticides whose use in the UK has been rescinded in each of the last 10 years. [101271]

  Mr. Morley
  All the pesticides containing the active substances listed in the table have had their use rescinded over the last 10 years within the UK.

  Last product expired on:

  Active substance

  28/02/2003

  parahydroxyphenylsalicylamide

  22/09/2002

  zineb

  31/07/2002

  seconal

  27/06/2002

  bioallethrin

  27/06/2002

  quintozene

  20/06/2002

  lindane

  31/05/2002

  dicofol

  31/03/2002

  1,2-dichloropropane

  28/02/2002

  fenpiclonil

  28/02/2002

  sodium silver thiosulphate

  28/02/2002

  tridemorph

  31/01/2002

  tecnazene

  31/12/2001

  carbofuran

  31/12/2001

  chlorfenvinphos

  31/12/2001

  disulfoton

  31/12/2001

  etrimfos

  31/12/2001

  propoxur

  30/09/2001

  methoprene

  27/09/2001

  disodium hydrogen phosphate

  27/09/2001

  p-[(diiodomethyl)sulfonyl]toluol

  31/07/2001

  carbaryl

  146W

  Last product expired on:

  Active substance

  31/07/2001

  fenitrothion

  31/07/2001

  quizalofop-ethyl

  01/07/2001

  phorate

  30/06/2001

  copper hydrate

  30/04/2001

  heptenophos

  30/04/2001

  phenothrin

  30/04/2001

  tetramethrin

  20/04/2001

  ethiofencarb

  20/04/2001

  mephosfolan

  20/04/2001

  methomyl

  20/04/2001

  phosalone

  20/04/2001

  pyrazophos

  20/04/2001

  trichlorfon

  31/12/2000

  dienochlor

  30/11/2000

  thiometon

  31/10/2000

  demeton-s-methyl

  30/09/2000

  cresylicacid

  30/09/2000

  diazinon

  30/09/2000

  triazophos

  31/07/2000

  fenoxaprop-ethyl

  31/07/2000

  fonofos

  31/07/2000

  quinalphos

  29/02/2000

  flamprop-m-ethyl

  31/01/2000

  chlorbufam

  31/12/1999

  dodecylbenzyl trimethyl ammonium chloride

  31/12/1999

  propham

  30/11/1999

  dalapon

  31/03/1999

  anilazine

  04/03/1999

  imazethapyr

  28/02/1999

  tca

  31/01/1999

  alloxydim-sodium

  11/11/1998

  diphenamid

  31/05/1998

  tebuthiuron

  28/02/1998

  benzoylprop-ethyl

  28/02/1998

  ethephon

  13/01/1998

  ferbam

  30/11/1997

  iodofenphos

  30/09/1997

  fenvalerate

  14/08/1997

  mineral oil

  12/08/1997

  bromophos

  31/03/1997

  dimefuron

  31/12/1996

  trichodermaviride

  30/11/1996

  quassia

  31/01/1996

  oxydemeton-methyl

  30/11/1995

  hexazinone

  30/09/1995

  pirimiphos-ethyl

  04/09/1995

  epic

  30/06/1995

  nitrothal-isopropyl

  30/06/1995

  omethoate

  31/05/1995

  thiofanox

  28/02/1995

  formaldehyde

  31/01/1995

  sodium tetraborate

  31/08/1994

  phoxim

  31/08/1994

  vamidothion

  10/08/1994

  dithiocarbamate complex

  28/02/1994

  nabam

  31/01/1994

  azinphos-methyl

  31/12/1993

  boric acid

  20/04/2001

  mephosfolan

  20/04/2001

  methomyl

  20/04/2001

  phosalone

  20/04/2001

  pyrazophos

  20/04/2001

  trichlorfon

  31/12/2000

  dienochlor

  30/11/2000

  thiometon

  31/10/2000

  demeton-s-methyl

  30/09/2000

  cresylicacid

  30/09/2000

  diazinon

  30/09/2000

  triazophos

  31/07/2000

  fenoxaprop-ethyl

  31/07/2000

  fonofos

  147W

  Last product expired on:

  Active substance

  31/07/2000

  quinalphos

  29/02/2000

  flamprop-m-ethyl

  31/01/2000

  chlorbufam

  31/12/1999

  dodecylbenzyl trimethyl ammonium chloride

  31/12/1999

  propham

  30/11/1999

  dalapon

  31/03/1999

  anilazine

  04/03/1999

  imazethapyr

  28/02/1999

  tca

  31/01/1999

  alloxydim-sodium

  11/11/1998

  diphenamid

  31/05/1998

  tebuthiuron

  28/02/1998

  benzoylprop-ethyl

  28/02/1998

  ethephon

  13/01/1998

  ferbam

  30/11/1997

  iodofenphos

  30/09/1997

  fenvalerate

  14/08/1997

  mineral oil

  12/08/1997

  bromophos

  31/03/1997

  dimefuron

  31/12/1996

  trichodermaviride

  30/11/1996

  quassia

  31/01/1996

  oxydemeton-methyl

  30/11/1995

  hexazinone

  30/09/1995

  pirimiphos-ethyl

  04/09/1995

  epic

  30/06/1995

  nitrothal-isopropyl

  30/06/1995

  omethoate

  31/05/1995

  thiofanox

  28/02/1995

  formaldehyde

  31/01/1995

  sodium tetraborate

  31/08/1994

  phoxim

  31/08/1994

  vamidothion

  10/08/1994

  dithiocarbamate complex

  28/02/1994

  nabam

  31/01/1994

  azinphos-methyl

  31/12/1993

  boric acid

  31/12/1993

  potassium sorbate

  31/12/1993

  sodium metabisulphite

  31/12/1993

  sodium, propionate

  30/06/1993

  bioresmethrin

  30/06/1993

  chloroxuron

  30/06/1993

  chlorsulfuron

  30/06/1993

  fluazifop-butyl

  30/06/1993

  norbormide

  30/06/1993

  thiourea

  28/02/1993

  2,4,5-t

  28/02/1993

  2,4-des

  28/02/1993

  barban

  28/02/1993

  benzethonium chloride

  28/02/1993

  bitumen

  28/02/1993

  carbophenothion

  28/02/1993

  chlorthiamid

  28/02/1993

  cufraneb

  28/02/1993

  di-allate

  28/02/1993

  ditalimfos

  28/02/1993

  fenchlorphos

  28/02/1993

  fenoprop

  28/02/1993

  flamprop-methyl

  28/02/1993

  fluoroacetamide

  28/02/1993

  mevinphos

  28/02/1993

  oxine-copper

  28/02/1993

  silica

  28/02/1993

  sodium hydrogen carbonate

  28/02/1993

  thionazin

  28/01/1993

  drazoxolon

  31/12/1992

  1-naphthylacetamide

  31/12/1992

  alkylaryl trimethyl ammonium chloride

  31/12/1992

  allethrin

  31/12/1992

  anthraquinone

  31/12/1992

  chlordane

  31/12/1992

  ethylmercury phosphate

  148W

  Last product expired on:

  Active substance

  31/12/1992

  formothion

  31/12/1992

  paraformaldehyde

  31/12/1992

  pine sawfly npv

  31/12/1992

  quinonamid

  31/12/1992

  sodium carbonate

  31/12/1992

  tetrachlorvinphos

  31/12/1992

  zineb-ethylenethiuram disulphide

  01/07/1992

  pentachlorophenol

  31/03/1992

  2-methoxymethylmercury acetate

  31/03/1992

  mercuric oxide

  31/03/1992

  mercurous chloride

  31/03/1992

  phenylmercury acetate

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list pesticides whose use in the EU has been rescinded in each of the last 10 years; and what their current status is in the UK. [101272]

  Mr. Morley
  Since 1993 there has been a European wide review programme to ensure that all active substances used in plant protection products meet modern human and environmental protection standards. To date decisions have been taken to withdraw 22 pesticides. These are listed as follows along with their status within the UK.

  Active

  Year approvals rescinded

  Current status in UK

  Acephate

  2004

  Not approved

  Azinphos-ethyl

  1996

  Not approved

  Benomyl

  2003

  Not approved

  Chlozolinate

  2002

  Not approved

  Cyhalothrin

  1995

  Not approved

  Dinoterb

  1998

  Not approved

  DNOC

  2000

  Not approved

  Fentin acetate

  2002

  Not approved

  Fentin hydroxide

  2002

  Not approved

  Fenvalerate

  1999

  Not approved

  Ferbam

  1996

  Not approved

  Lindane

  2002

  Not approved

  Metalaxyl

  2004

  Still approved

  Monolinuron

  2001

  Not approved

  Parathion-ethyl

  2003

  Not approved

  Parathion-methyl

  2004

  Not approved

  Permethrin

  2003

  Still approved until end 2003

  Propham

  1997

  Not approved

  Pyrazophos

  2001

  Not approved

  Quintozene

  2002

  Not approved

  Tecnazene

  2003

  Not approved

  Zineb

  2003

  Not approved

  The EU review programme will result in many substances being withdrawn for commercial as well as safety reasons. By the end of 2003, about 50 per cent. of the 850 substances currently used in agricultural pesticides throughout the EU will have been withdrawn because companies did not support them. The review of the outstanding supported compounds are due to be completed by 2008.

  Plastic Bags
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what
  149W
  assessment has been made of the potential role of degradable plastic bags in improving environmental protection; [99266]

  (2) what steps her Department is taking to encourage industry to move towards the use of degradable plastic bags. [99245]

  Mr. Meacher
  Government have not yet carried out an assessment of the potential role of biodegradable plastics bags in improving environmental protection. The Environment Agency has however been asked to include a project on impacts of replacing supermarket plastic bags with biodegradable alternatives in its 2003–04 research programme.

  The Government support the development of biodegradable plastics from non-fossil fuel sources. The Government Industry Forum on Non-Food Uses of Crops was set up in March 2001 to provide strategic advice to Government and industry on the development of non-food uses of crops. The Forum has examined the UK potential to produce compostable packaging materials from mainstream agricultural crops and has concluded that there is a clear opportunity for both UK agriculture and industry to develop these materials. The Forum is encouraging industry to respond to this opportunity and develop products to supply an expanding market.

  Plastics Recycling
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the(a) costs and (b) benefits of plastics recycling; what plans she has to encourage plastics recycling; and if she will make a statement. [101343]

  Mr. Meacher
  No assessments have been made of the costs or benefit of plastics recycling.

  Our highest priority is to increase recycling and composting rates for biodegradable waste (i) to meet the Landfill Directive targets and reduce the greenhouse gas emissions generated when biodegradable waste is landfilled, (ii) because biodegradable waste comprises 53 per cent. by weight of the waste fraction and (iii) because at present, the economics of plastics recycling are much more difficult.

  We do, however, take plastics recycling seriously, and as local authorities have to meet increasingly demanding recycling targets, they will have to start tackling the more difficult waste streams, including plastics.

  Under the 1997 Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 (as amended), obligated businesses which handle plastic must recover or recycle a designated amount of plastic each year. This has led to a substantial amount of plastic packaging waste being recycled and the quantity is expected to increase further, partly as a result of revisions to the European directive on packaging waste, which are currently being negotiated.

  The amount of plastic packaging waste being recovered and recycled has increased significantly in recent years from 125,539 tonnes in 1998 to 269,962 tonnes in 2001. The revised directive is expected to set challenging targets which will require the provision of new infrastructure. Revenue from the Packaging Waste
  150W
  Recycling Notes (provided for under the UK packaging and waste regulations), which amounted to £70 million in 2001, can be used as a mechanism for directing money towards investment in the collection and recovery infrastructure and the development of end use markets for recyclate.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 11 February 2003,Official Report, column 664W, on nuclear fuel reprocessing, what the storage plans are for the various components of (a) the 28,000 cubic metres low level waste, (b) the 14,000 cubic metres intermediate level waste and (c) the 480 cubic metres high level waste. [102504]

  Mr. Meacher
  The low level waste will be disposed of at the Drigg facility near Sellafield. The remaining waste will be stored on the Sellafield site.

  Secondments
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs how many of her Department's officials have been seconded to(a) Greenpeace and (b) other NGOs since 1 January 2002; and on what areas of policy seconded individuals have worked. [101702]

  Alun Michael
  None to Greenpeace and one placement to an NGO. This secondment to the Rural Stress Information Network was in place before 1 January 2002 and has been very productive.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) British Energy, (b) BNFL, (c) Greenpeace, (d) Friends of the Earth and (e) other (i) companies and (ii) NGOs staff have been seconded to her Department since 1 January 2002; and on what areas of policy seconded individuals have worked. [101703]

  Alun Michael
  No staff have been seconded to the organisations shown at(a) to (d) in the question. Under item (e) one person has been seconded from a company, which does not fall within the above list, and 13 staff have been seconded from NGOs. These staff have been seconded to the Departments Science, Environment, Land Use and Rural Affairs, Directorates and the Rural Delivery Service.

  Smoking
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what policy her Department has adopted on smoking in the workplace. [100937]

  Alun Michael
  Smoking is not permitted anywhere on Defra premises other than in designated smoking room that are suitably equipped and ventilated. On premises where this is not feasible a total ban on smoking has been introduced.

  The Policy was revised in January 2003 to place further emphasis on fire risk hazards and to discourage smoking in official vehicles.
  151W
  Information and a video on loan are available to staff who wish to give up smoking.

  Sustainable Development
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans her Department has to conduct research on the relationship between production and consumption with reference to the delivery of sustainable development. [101672]

  Mr. Meacher
  The agenda for sustainable consumption and production (SCP) agreed at WSSD last year is a very ambitious one, in terms of the scope of the issues to be addressed, the range of actors involved, and the range and inter-dependence of the measures that could be considered. The Government have been actively building up the knowledge base to support this agenda: in particular, substantial research and analysis has been carried out over the last three years as inputs to the Cabinet Office Strategy Unit reports on resource productivity ("Making More With Less") and waste ("Waste Not, Want Not") and the Energy White Paper published last month. The Government now plan to draw some of the main threads together in a strategy document on Sustainable Consumption and Production, to be published in the summer. My Department is coordinating this work, which will itself feed into the review of the UK Sustainable Development Strategy and its associated sustainable development indicators, to be completed in 2005.

  We will be considering what further research the Government may need to commission as part of this evolving work on a longer-term strategy. In addition, organisations outside central Government are also looking at issues connected with the SCP agenda and we shall be making full use of such material where we can.

  Water Services
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of households pay for water supplies based on the 1973 rateable value of the property, broken down by supplier area. [101692]

  Mr. Morley
  The following is the information for households in England.

  Percentage of households charged for water supplies based on the rateable value of a property, 2002–03 (estimates by Ofwat based on provisional and forecast data provided by each company)

  Percentage

  Water and sewerage companies

  Anglian

  49.5

  Northumbrian:

  Northumbrian

  92.1

  Essex and Suffolk

  68.9

  Severn Trent

  78.1

  South West

  62.8

  Southern

  76.0

  Thames

  80.9

  United Utilities

  86.5

  Wessex

  69.6

  Yorkshire:

  Yorkshire

  75.2

  York

  92.4

  152W

  Percentage of households charged for water supplies based on the rateable value of a property, 2002–03 (estimates by Ofwat based on provisional and forecast data provided by each company)

  Percentage

  Water only companies

  Bournemouth and W. Hampshire

  75.3

  Bristol

  79.1

  Cambridge

  47.9

  Cholderton

  89.1

  Dee Valley

  72.1

  Folkestone and Dover

  64.4

  Mid Kent

  71.0

  Portsmouth

  96.7

  South East

  72.2

  South Staffordshire

  86.8

  Sutton and East Surrey

  81.9

  Tendring Hundred

  46.3

  Three Valleys:

  Three Valleys

  80.7

  North Surrey

  81.2

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much water was estimated to be lost from water pipes broken down by(a) company supply pipes and (b) piping between the water company connection point and the householder's tap in (i) 1997 and (ii) 2002. [101681]

  Mr. Morley
  Water company leakage data is published annually by the Director General of Water Services in the 'Security of supply, leakage and the efficient use of water' reports, copies of which are available in the Library of the House. The reported leakage figures for companies' pipes and customers' supply pipes for 1996–97 and 2001–02 (in litres/property/day) were as follows:

  Company pipes

  Customer supply pipes

  1997

  2002

  1997

  2002

  Water and sewerage companies

  Anglian

  79.4

  82.1

  75.8

  36.5

  Dwr Cymru

  216.4

  162.0

  67.8

  24.8

  Northumbrian North

  120.3

  99.8

  53.2

  42.2

  Northumbrian South

  72.6

  57.1

  43.0

  39.5

  Severn Trent

  103.1

  69.3

  48.7

  35.4

  South West

  141.7

  90.8

  45.9

  24.9

  Southern

  79.6

  68.8

  36.8

  23.1

  Thames

  231.6

  186.4

  88.9

  63.7

  United Utilities

  174.8

  117.0

  43.5

  28.6

  Wessex

  204.4

  111.8

  50.2

  37.3

  Yorkshire

  164.0

  109.5

  49.9

  31.9

  Water only companies

  Bournemouth and W. Hants

  110.4

  83.9

  46.8

  36.3

  Bristol

  98.3

  89.9

  41.6

  23.1

  Cambridge

  102.5

  89.9

  36.7

  31.1

  Dee Valley

  75.2

  61.3

  41.2

  36.8

  Folkestone and Dover

  115.0

  83.2

  49.6

  33.7

  Mid Kent

  124.8

  81.4

  41.5

  38.4

  Portsmouth

  59.1

  74.0

  49.0

  29.3

  South East

  119.4

  92.8

  56.6

  34.7

  South Staffordshire

  122.7

  88.8

  47.5

  42.4

  Sutton and East Surrey

  60.8

  54.9

  42.8

  36.1

  Tendring Hundred

  60.5

  63.9

  33.0

  10.2

  Three Valleys

  117.1

  82.5

  55.8

  46.4

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to ensure that leakage levels in piping between the water company connection point and the householder's tap are reduced. [101682]
  153W
  Mr. Morley
  Following the Water Summit in 1997, Ofwat has set water companies annual leakage targets. This mechanism has achieved a significant reduction in leakage, both on the distribution network and customers' supply pipes. The Government also asked water companies to make a further commitment to reduce leakage in customers' supply pipes. As a result, all companies offer some degree of free or subsidised repair and replacement for domestic customers' supply pipes. This activity is undertaken as part of water companies' statutory duty to promote the efficient use of water by their customers. Ofwat has a responsibility to enforce this duty, and annually reviews water companies' policies and activities in this area.

  Details regarding water company activity on water efficiency, the number of supply pipes replaced and repaired annually, and the supply pipe policies can be found in the Ofwat report 'Security of supply, leakage and the efficient use of water 2001–02', a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent studies(a) have been conducted and (b) are planned to establish the extent of leaking pipes in (i) the public water supply and (ii) domestic and business properties. [101683]

  Mr. Morley
  Since the Water Summit in 1997, Ofwat has set water companies annual leakage reduction targets, which cover the distribution network and customers' supply pipes. Companies submit details each year on progress with their leakage control activities, including information on supply pipe leakage. Water company leakage data is published annually by the Director General of Water Services in the 'Security of supply, leakage and the efficient use of water' reports, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which water companies(a) have and (b) have not accepted responsibility for a free leak repair service for domestic supply pipes. [101685]

  Mr. Morley
  All water companies offer some degree of free repair for domestic customers' supply pipes. The exact nature of the repair policy and any restrictions to that policy are dependent on the water company and its operating conditions, although many companies also offer free or subsidised supply pipe replacement. Further details of the supply pipe policy for each water company are provided in Appendix 5 of the Ofwat report 'Security of supply, leakage and the efficient use of water 2001–02', a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

PRIVY COUNCIL

  Ministerial Representation
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the President of the Council what plans he has to propose allowing the appearance in the House of Ministers that are not Members of the House(a) to answer questions and (b) to pilot legislation for which they are responsible. [101899]
  154W
  Mr. Robin Cook
  I have no such plans and I have not previously been invited to bring forward such plans.

  Privy Council
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council what reforms to the(a) working methods and (b) system of appointment of the Privy Council have been (i) initiated and (ii) carried through since 1997. [101900]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Appointments to the Privy Council are made by Her Majesty on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. There has been no fundamental change to that practice since 1997.

  Private Members' Bills
  John Mann
  To ask the President of the Council if he will bring forward proposals to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons to move private Members' Bills to Tuesday and Wednesday evenings. [101901]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The Procedure Committee is currently conducting an inquiry, which includes procedures for Private Members' Bills and the time for debate on them. I look forward to their report.

  House of Lords Reform
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the President of the Council what representations he has received arising from the recent votes on the reform of the House of Lords. [101902]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I have received several letters from hon. and right hon. Members on behalf of their constituents, and a number more* from members of the public. In addition, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) asked me about reform during last week's Business Statement. I said then that I had no plans to bring the issue back to this House until a fresh consensus has emerged.

  * 115 since October 2002.

  Mr. Heath
  To ask the President of the Council he will make a statement on progress towards House of Lords reform. [101903]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Following the votes in both Houses last month, the Joint Committee is now considering options for the way forward. I understand they are to meet again on 25 March 2003. It will be for the Joint Committee to decide what, and when, they wish to report to both Houses. As I told the House on 6 March 2003,Official Report, column 969, I think that it would be premature to bring the matter back to the House until there is at least the makings of a majority in this Chamber for a particular way of reform.

  Lord Chancellor (Pension Arrangements)
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the President of the Council when the Lord Chancellor's pension arrangements were last reviewed. [101904]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The Review Body on Top Salaries reviewed the Lord Chancellor's pension arrangements in 1988; section 3 of the Ministerial and other Pensions and Salaries Act 1991 formalised the salary lead over the
  155W
  Lord Chief Justice, which went through both Houses with all party agreement; and under the Ministerial and other Pensions and Salaries Order 1996, the Lord Chancellor's salary is automatically set at £2,500 more than the salary of the Lord Chief Justice.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the President of the Council what the value is of the national pension funds that would be required to pay the Lord Chancellor's pension calculated on the basis of(a) the salary resulting from the recommendations of the report No. 54 of the Senior Salaries Review Body and (b) the reduced salary which the Lord Chancellor has indicated that he would accept. [97799]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 13 February 2003]: The notional value of the Lord Chancellor's pension package (including dependants' benefits) which in fact is payable from the Consolidated Fund is estimated at around £2 million based on his current salary of £180,045. All other things being the same, this figure will vary on a pro-rata basis with his salary.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the President of the Council whether the Lord Chancellor's pension will be based on the full salary he has been awarded from 1 April. [97800]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 13 February 2003]: The SSRB has been asked to look at the remuneration of the office of Lord Chancellor and make recommendations. Pending the outcome of this review, the Lord Chancellor's pension will be based on his salary at the time he leaves office.

  Sitting Hours
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the President of the Council if he will make a statement on the sitting hours of the House. [101905]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  In October last year, a majority of Members voted to alter the sitting hours so that the House sat from 11.30 am on Tuesday and Wednesday.

  I know that some Members are not comfortable with the change. I accept that adaptation will take time. It is for that reason that the Standing Orders were changed for the rest of this Parliament. This allows a sufficient period for colleagues to make a considered judgment on the effect of the changes. Members will then have the opportunity to decide whether they wish to revert to late-night sittings.

  To review the changes after only a few months of the experiment would risk giving the public the impression that the most important decision-making body in the country could not take a clear decision even about its own working practices.

  Peers (Convictions)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council what discussions he has had with the Lord Chancellor concerning the appropriateness of peers convicted of an offence resulting in imprisonment(a) retaining their title and (b) retaining their membership of the House of Lords; and if he will make a statement. [101814]
  156W
  Mr. Robin Cook
  The Government made it clear in its November 2001 White Paper "The House of Lords: completing the reform" (Cm 5291) that it wished to consider the question of disqualification for membership of the House of Lords. Bringing the rules into line with those for the House of Commons, under which MPs convicted of an offence and sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding 12 months lose their seats, was one of the options proposed. Such a change would require primary legislation, as would any change to deprive a convicted peer of his or her title.

  Public Funding
  Tony Wright
  To ask the President of the Council how much public funding the Conservative Party has received since 1997. [101953]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Since 1997, the Conservative Party has received the following under the arrangements for financial assistance to opposition parties:

  Year

  £

  1997–98

  986,763

  1998–99

  1,112,886

  1999–2000

  3,377,670

  2000–01

  3,465,132

  2001–02

  3,439,066

  2002–03

  3,459,537

  Total

  15,841,054

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Accountancy Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the total cost to his Department was for accountancy services in 2002. [101567]

  Mr. Rammell
  The total cost to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for accountancy services in 2002 was £1,796,000.

  British Indian Ocean Territories
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the dates on which agreements have been reached with the United States authorities regarding the requirements for the construction of facilities on the British Indian Ocean Territories; and how many separate agreements have been made concerning(a) development of specific areas and (b) technical requirements. [100885]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The agreements that have been concluded with the US authorities relating to the construction of facilities in the British Indian Ocean Territory, including agreements concerning development of specific areas and technical requirements, are the following:

  (a) The Exchange of Notes of 30 December 1966 (Cmnd. 3231);

  (b) The Exchange of Notes of 24 October 1972 (Cmnd. 5160);

  (c) The Exchange of Notes of 25 February 1976 (Cmnd. 6413)

  157W
  In addition, at various times the UK and US Governments have recorded their understanding regarding the application of the above agreements.

  In 2001, certain infrastructure upgrades to the existing US Navy Support Facility on Diego Garcia and its designation as a Bomber Forward Operating Location were agreed. Further infrastructure upgrades were also agreed in 2002.

  Convention on the Future of Europe
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the UK Government tabled proposals to repatriate powers to the UK from the EU in the Convention on the Future of Europe. [102264]

  Mr. MacShane
  The UK Government have not tabled any proposals in the Convention to return powers from the EU to the UK. We are content with the existing division of powers. We have however tabled proposals to strengthen the subsidiarity and proportionality principles to ensure that the EU only acts where it adds value to national action.

  Defence Adviser (Harare)
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the functions of the Office of the Defence Adviser in the British High Commission in Harare. [102385]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The main role of our Defence Adviser in Harare is to provide military advice to our High Commission, to maintain liaison with the Zimbabwe Defence Force and report on their military activities and capabilities. He also has a regional role, covering Botswana, Malawi and Mozambique, in addition to Zimbabwe. Our Defence Adviser's duties in Zimbabwe are circumscribed by the UK embargo on Zimbabwe, imposed in May 2000.

  Defence Attachés/Defence Advisers
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the difference in roles is between a Defence Attaché and a Defence Adviser in UK embassies and diplomatic missions overseas. [102383]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Defence Attachés serve at embassies and Defence Advisers serve at High Commissions. Their role is the same.

  Military Advisers as also attached to the Permanent Representatives to the UK Mission to the UN in New York and to the UK Delegation to the OSCE in Vienna.

  Diego Garcia
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the financial arrangements are for the use of Diego Garcia by the United States; and what payments have been received in each year since 1997. [100893]
  158W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The United States makes no payments to the UK in respect of the US defence facility in Diego Garcia. All costs incurred are borne by the United States.

  European Union
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Government's policy is on the EU enlargement negotiations on(a) the size of regional funds and (b) the role of (i) member states and (ii) the Commission in their distribution. [102261]

  Mr. MacShane
  At the Copenhagen European Council in December 2002, the UK along with other EU member states finalised the terms of accession with 10 new members. This included an allocation of €25.5 billion (£17.4 billion) for structural and cohesion funds (SCF) in the new member states between 2004–06, distributed to the 10 countries in line with existing rules. These will be administered by regional authorities, Central Governments and the Commission on the basis of the current SCF regulations.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the enlargement negotiation in the EU on the(a) size and (b) method of distribution of EU regional funds will be concluded. [102263]

  Mr. MacShane
  Enlargement negotiations with 10 countries were concluded at the Copenhagen European Council in December 2002.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what negotiations are in progress on the regional funds of the EU. [102262]

  Mr. MacShane
  EU negotiations on the future of the Structural and Cohesion Funds after 2006 are unlikely to commence until the European Commission has issued its proposals. Those proposals are expected to issue in November 2003.

  Iraq
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether it is his policy that the arms embargo upon Iraq should continue in the event of a post-Saddam Hussein administration; and if he will make a statement. [101216]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The present arms embargo on Iraq was imposed by the United Nations Security Council under resolution 661(1990). We would support the lifting of this embargo as and when circumstances warrant.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has held with the(a) US and (b) Turkish Governments on the presence of Turkish troops in northern Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [101410]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has been in frequent contact with the US Government on issues related to Iraq; from time to time discussions have
  159W
  included this topic. The Foreign Secretary last met Turkish Foreign Minister Yakis at Copenhagen on 13 December. They did not discuss Iraq.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether British Government representatives were invited to the recent meeting in northern Iraq between the US special envoy and Kurdish and Iraqi opposition groups.[101411]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The conference was organised by the Iraqi opposition as a follow-up to the conference held in London in December last year. We were invited to attend but, for logistical reasons, decided not to send a representative. However, UK officials continue to maintain contacts with a wide range of Iraqi opposition groups.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether it is the policy of his Government to support a UN administration in Iraq following any change of regime in that country. [101598]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We would support a UN-authorised transitional civilian administration, if there were a change of regime in Iraq. We would want this to be followed by a new broad-based, effective and representative Iraqi Government.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the UK's relations with European countries with regard to Iraq.[101646]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have had frequent discussion on Iraq with European counterparts in multilateral format, most recently at the meeting of the European Union's General Affairs and External Relations Council on 24 February 2003 and the special European Council on 17 February 2003. The position of the European Union is set out in the statement of the European Council on 17 February 2003, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Israel
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what discussions he has had with(a) the Israeli authorities and (b) the United Nations regarding the construction of the concrete separation wall in the West Bank;[101202]

  (2) what representations he has made to (a) the Israeli authorities and (b) the United Nations on the concrete separation wall deviating from the 1967 green line border.[101201]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Our Embassy in Tel Aviv has raised with the Government of Israel our concerns about the location and likely impact of the "security fence". We deplore the seizure of Palestinian land, the isolation of Palestinian villages, and the creation of a further physical obstacle to the two-State solution. While we fully understand Israel's need to take steps, within the law, to protect itself from terrorist attack, lasting security can only be achieved through a negotiated peace. We have also discussed the security fence with UN representatives.
  160W
  A final settlement must provide for a viable Palestinian State to exist alongside Israel, both within secure and recognised borders. We look forward to the Quartet publishing its road map, which will set out a phased programme leading to a final settlement within three years, soon. In implementing the road map, all parties must also refrain from actions which obstruct the search for peace.

  Military Equipment (Overseas Sales)
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the role of UK embassies and diplomatic missions overseas in promoting sales of British military equipment.[102384]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Some of our embassies and diplomatic missions have defence sections who help in promoting the acquisition of British defence equipment, and this is supplemented in a small number of missions by defence sales representatives. Heads of mission and their deputies may give support to this work as appropriate.

  Mr. Peter Longworth
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Mr. Peter Longworth left his post as British High Commissioner in Harare.[102386]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Mr. Peter Longworth left his post as British High Commissioner in Harare on 30 June 2001.

  Regional Assistance
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Government's policy is on the proportion of regional assistance determined by(a) the EU and (b) the UK Government.[102260]

  Mr. MacShane
  Current arrangements for EU regional assistance through the Structural and Cohesion Funds apply from 2000 to 2006. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced to the House on Thursday 6 March,Official Report, column 86WS, the Government have launched a consultation on the future of European Union Structural Funds after 2006.

  The Government have put forward the EU Framework for Devolved Regional Policy as their preferred approach. This would focus EU regional assistance on the poorest member states of the EU; richer member states such as the UK would finance their regional policy domestically, and we would increase UK Government spending to ensure that the UK nations and regions did not lose out financially as a result of reform.

  Sinn Fein-IRA
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on investigations and legal proceedings
  161W
  against members of Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA for activities related to FARC in Colombia since 1998.[101944]

  Mr. MacShane
  It would not be appropriate to comment on an on-going investigation or legal proceedings, including those against non-British nationals.

  United Nations
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcomes of the UN Convention on Conventional Weapons Meeting of States Parties in December 2002, with particular reference to the issue of explosive remnants of war.[101293]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The States Parties to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons agreed at their meeting in December 2002 to negotiate an instrument to reduce the humanitarian risks posed by Explosive Remnants of War. The UK played an active role in efforts to secure this decision at this meeting and the preparatory work carried out by the Group of Governmental Experts throughout the preceding year. The UK will continue to participate in this group as negotiations progress, and we hope States Parties will be able to reach agreement on the text of an instrument by the end of 2003. We also look forward to continued discussions on the parallel issue of Mines Other than Anti-Personnel Mines, as also mandated by the December 2002 meeting of States Parties.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the extant resolutions of the United Nations, indicating the measures taken by Her Majesty's Government to secure compliance with each one.[101407]

  Mr. Rammell
  The resolutions of the Security Council and General Assembly are listed on the UN website (www.un.org). The very large number of resolutions (e.g. 300 from the General Assembly in 2002 alone) makes it impractical to comment in detail on the follow up to each without incurring disproportionate cost. Nonetheless the Government seek to ensure compliance with all UN Security Council resolutions.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Private Clubs (Sex Discrimination)
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Minister for Women what recent research she has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated which assesses discriminatory treatment experienced by women at private members' clubs open to both men and women.[102259]

  Ms Hewitt
  There has been no formal assessment of discriminatory treatment experienced by women members of mixed sex private clubs.

  We have consulted interested parties. For example, the Club and Institute Union (CIU), which represents over two million club members, and to which the vast majority of "working men's clubs" belong, reports that of their 2,680 clubs, some 60 per cent. still deny their female members full rights.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Accounting and Audit Failures
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will appoint inspectors to investigate the accounting and audit failures at(a) My Travel, (b) RBG Resources and (c) Slug and Lettuce.[100744]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  If my hon. Friend will send me any evidence in support of his requests to appoint inspectors to My Travel Group Plc and SFI Group Plc and its subsidiary, the Slug and Lettuce Group Ltd., I will consider it.

  The Serious Fraud Office announced in May 2002 that it is investigating RBG Resources plc. This Department would not normally duplicate those inquiries.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will initiate an investigation into accounting failures at Amey. [100754]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  If my hon. Friend will send me any evidence in support of his request to appoint inspectors, I will consider it.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will appoint inspectors to investigate accounting irregularities acknowledged by Cable and Wireless. [100954]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  If my hon. Friend will send me any evidence in support of his request to appoint inspectors, I will consider it.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when DTI inspectors were appointed to investigate the affairs of Queens Moat Houses; when the report was published; what the report cost; and what regulatory action was taken against the auditors. [100829]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Inspectors were appointed to investigate the affairs of Queens Moat Houses plc (QMH) under section 432(2) of the Companies Act 1985 on 12 November 1993. The inspectors submitted a report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State under section 177 of the Financial Services Act 1986 on 30 September 1997. Such reports are not published and are subject to severe disclosure restrictions. Following submission of the section 177 report, on 12 June 1998, the Accountants' Joint Disciplinary Scheme (JDS) announced an investigation. Following JDS tribunals, three former QMH directors have been excluded from the ICAEW:

  Maurice Hard, a former partner in QMH's former auditors, Bird Luckin and a non-executive director of QMH

  David Hersey, former finance director

  Allan Porter, former deputy finance director.

  The JDS has announced that tribunals as regards Bird Luckin, and a partner in Bird Luckin, Alan Radford FCA are to be convened. Martin Marcus, former deputy chairman of QMH, has appealed against the JDS tribunal decision as regards him.
  163W
  Additionally, proceedings have been brought on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State under section 8 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. These have resulted in disqualification orders of 8 and 7 years respectively being made in July 2000 against David Hersey and Allan Porter and an undertaking not to act as a director for a period of 10 years being given by Martin Marcus in December 2001. Defended disqualification proceedings against John Bairstow, the former chairman of QMH, continue.

  It is expected that the inspectors will submit their final report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the near future. The cost of the investigation to 1 December 2002 was £7.3 million.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will appoint inspectors to investigate the accounting errors at RBG Resources.[100955]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  If my hon. Friend will send me any evidence in support of his requests to appoint inspectors to My Travel Group Plc and SFI Group Plc and its subsidiary, the Slug and Lettuce Group Limited, I will consider it.

  The Serious Fraud Office announced in May 2002 that it is investigating RBG Resources Plc. This Department would not normally duplicate those enquiries.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when DTI inspectors were appointed to investigate the affairs of Resort Hotels; when the report was published; what the report cost; and what regulatory action was taken against auditors.[100981]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There has been no appointment of inspectors under the Companies Act and therefore no publishable report.

  Further to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) to my hon. Friend's question on 8 July 1997, Official Report, column 414, where he referred to the inquiry by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, I can confirm that following an investigation by the Accountants' Joint Disciplinary Scheme ("JDS") and subsequent JDS Tribunals, in January 2001, Mr. Roland Peter Lewis FCA, former Finance Director of Resort Hotels plc ("Resort"), was severely reprimanded and fined £15,000 and in February 2001, the former auditors of Resort, Coopers and Lybrand, were fined £100,000 and a former Coopers and Lybrand partner, Alun Thomas FCA, was fined £5,000 and severely reprimanded.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will appoint inspectors to investigate the accounting failures at Swiss Life. [100831]
  164W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  If my hon. Friend will send me any evidence in support of his requests to appoint inspectors, I will consider it.

  Export Credit Guarantees
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many inquiries have been carried out each year since 1995 to check whether export credit guarantees cover has not been offered on commissions.[95681]

  Ms Hewitt
  It is not clear what form of inquiry my hon. Friend refers. If he cares to write to me with details I will consider the points he raises.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when her Department's inspectors were appointed to investigate the affairs of Polly Peck; when the report was published; what the report cost; and what regulatory action was taken against auditors.[100982]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did not appoint inspectors to investigate the affairs of Polly Peck.

  Ministerial Transport
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her estimate is of the cost of(a) ministerial cars and drivers and (b) taxis for her Department in 2002.[101848]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information is as follows.

  (a) The estimated cost to the Department for ministerial cars and drivers for the financial year 2002–03 is £387,000.

  (b) The Department have devolved to local management the authorisation of travel claims for its staff, subject to checking procedures. It does not record details of the cost of taxis used by staff in the Department. To obtain data on this to produce a meaningful estimate of the information requested would entail disproportionate cost.

  Private Clubs (Sex Discrimination)
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to end the exemption for private clubs in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.[102258]

  Ms Hewitt
  I welcome the Sex Discrimination in Private Clubs Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) on 4 February 2003, which seeks to extend the scope of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 to cover mixed-sex clubs of 25 members or more. We welcomed a similar Bill introduced in the other place in the last session by Lord Faulkner of Worcester.

  There can be no justification for treating women as second-class citizens in private clubs. Such practices are out of date and contrary to this Government's principles of opportunity for all.

  While I can make no commitment on parliamentary time, this is a matter which we will keep under review.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Formula Spending Share
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps he took, in establishing formula spending share, to ensure that compensation for sparsity in the education formula did not benefit urban authorities with a large number of small primary schools; what proportion of the aggregate national education FSS allocation was distributed on the basis of sparsity; and if he will list the authorities which benefited from the education sparsity factor.[101547]

  Mr. Miliband
  The issue of sparsity was addressed in three papers to the Education Formula Strategy Group. Sparsely populated authorities face higher costs as they have higher proportions of small schools than non-sparse authorities. The education formula uses sparsity as the funding factor, rather than the actual number of small schools so that authorities are compensated for the need they have, rather than the way they choose to organise their provision. Therefore urban authorities with a large number of small primary schools will not benefit from this factor. 1.8 per cent. (£440 million) of Education Formula Spending for 2003–04 was distributed on the basis of sparsity. The authorities that benefit are listed in order of decreasing sparsity:

  Isles of Scilly

  Herefordshire

  North Yorkshire

  Rutland

  Shropshire

  Lincolnshire

  Devon

  Wiltshire

  Cumbria

  Norfolk

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  Cornwall

  Northumberland

  Somerset

  Cambridgeshire

  Dorset

  Suffolk

  North Lincolnshire

  Oxfordshire

  Gloucestershire

  West Berkshire

  Isle of Wight Council

  Warwickshire

  Bedfordshire

  Northamptonshire

  Buckinghamshire

  East Sussex

  Derbyshire

  Leicestershire

  Durham

  Doncaster

  Cheshire

  Staffordshire

  166W

  Hampshire

  Essex

  Worcestershire

  Nottinghamshire

  North Somerset

  Kent

  South Gloucestershire

  West Sussex

  Lancashire

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  The Wrekin

  Darlington

  Milton Keynes

  Bath and North East

  Somerset

  Peterborough

  Wokingham

  Redcar and Cleveland

  Calderdale

  Hertfordshire

  North East Lincolnshire

  Kirklees

  Surrey

  Swindon

  York

  Solihull

  Rotherham

  Stockton-on-Tees

  Medway

  Knowsley

  Barnsley

  Hartlepool

  Thurrock

  Blackburn

  Leeds

  Bradford

  Oldham

  Wakefield

  Bracknell Forest

  St. Helens

  Sheffield

  Gateshead

  City of London

  Halton

  Warrington

  Bromley

  Faith Schools
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the proposals for new faith schools that have been published since September 2001 and approved by School Organisation Committees, broken down by(a) the faith, (b) the status of the proposed school, (c) the amount of public funds committed to the project by central Government, (d) the amount of public funds committed to the project by local government and (e) the proposed opening date.[101061]
  167W
  Mr. Miliband
  The table lists the proposals for new faith schools that have been published since September 2001 and approved by School Organisation Committees.

  LEA

  School name (if known)

  Faith

  Category

  Governor costs—eligible for 90 per cent. grant (£000)

  LEA capital costs (£000)

  Proposed opening date

  Dorset

  St. Mary the Virgin CE Primary

  C of E

  VA

  2,093

  68

  1 September 2003

  Kent

  Name not known (primary school)

  C of E/ Methodist

  VA

  2,000

  Nil

  1 September 2004

  Leicester City

  Name not known (primary school)

  C of E

  VA

  2,305

  Nil

  1 September 2004

  Swindon

  Name not known (primary school)

  C of E

  VA

  1,347

  234

  1 September 2004

  Wandsworth

  Name not known (primary school)

  Muslim

  VA

  5,400

  Nil

  1 September 2004

  Doncaster

  Rossington CE High School

  C of E

  VA

  Nil

  Nil

  1 September 2002

  Dorset*

  Name not known (primary school)

  C of E

  VA

  Nil

  Nil

  1 September 2003

  Essex

  New Model Special School

  C of E

  VA

  Nil

  Nil

  1 September 2003

  Northants

  Name not known (secondary school)

  C of E

  VA

  Nil

  Nil

  1 September 2004

  Warrington

  Sankey Valley St. James CE Primary

  C of E

  VA

  Nil

  Nil

  1 September 2002

  Warrington

  Sir Thomas Boteler CE High

  C of E

  VA

  Nil

  Nil

  1 September 2002

  Wiltshire

  Wyvern College

  C of E

  VA

  Nil

  Nil

  1 January 2003

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  Churchmead CE VA School

  C of E

  VA

  Nil

  Nil

  1 September 2002

  * The proposals for the new Church of England school in Dorset were approved conditionally ie subject to the acquisition of some land and also the necessary planning permission being obtained.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list visits to higher education institutions by Ministers in his Department that have taken place since 22 January.[100154]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I have visited the Institute of Education, the University of East Anglia and Wolverhampton University.

  My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education has visited Bristol University, Cambridge University, the University of East London and Gloucester University.

  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Schools has visited Birmingham University.

  In addition all Ministers have held a range of meetings with Vice-Chancellors, Student Unions and others.

  Modern Languages
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 26 February 2003,Official Report, columns 588–89W, whether modern languages are defined as a (a) generic and (b) specialist learning skill in an English-style baccalaureate; and which continental baccalaureate systems do not include modern languages as a generic skill.[101273]

  Mr. Miliband
  Modern foreign languages are generally included as a requirement in European baccalaureate type qualifications. In the context of an English-style baccalaureate, we explain in our policy document 14–19: "opportunity and excellence" that we have asked a Working Group chaired by Mike Tomlinson to take forward work on possible longer-term 14–19 developments including a unified framework of qualifications for this age group. It would be premature at this stage to be developing specific baccalaureate models before the group has reported. The group has been asked to issue an interim report within a year and to finalise its work within 18 months.
  168W
  Capital costs shown are the most recent estimates, but final decisions on the level of public funding will be determined when detailed plans have been received or are agreed by the Department's architects.

  Post-16 Education
  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the post-16 staying on rate was for(a) Doncaster and (b) Barnsley in (i) 1992, (ii) 1997 and (iii) 2002.[101696]

  Mr. Miliband
  The percentage of 16-year-olds participating in full-time education for Barnsley LEA and Doncaster LEA in 1992,1997 and 2000, the latest year for which figures are available, is set out as follows.

  Percentage of 16-year-olds participating in full-time education1

  1992

  1997

  2000

  Barnsley LEA

  54

  52

  56

  Doncaster LEA

  59

  58

  63

  1 Includes participation in schools, sixth form colleges and further education colleges.

  Participation rates by LEA for 16 and 17-year-olds are published in an annual statistical bulletin, `Participation in Education and Training by 16 and 17 Year Olds in Each Local Area in England'.

  Pupil Expenditure
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much was spent by each local education authority per(a) primary and (b) secondary pupil in descending order in the latest year for which figures are available.[101247]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is contained in tables, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the expenditure per child in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in (i) Westminster and (ii) Kensington and Chelsea was in (A) 1997–98 and (B) 2001–02.[100071]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is contained in the following table.
  169W

  Nursery/Primary

  Secondary

  1997–98

  Kensington and Chelsea

  2,920

  3,810

  Westminster

  2,810

  3,440

  2001–02 (provisional)

  Kensington and Chelsea

  3,470

  4,360

  Westminster

  4,060

  4,620

  Notes:

  1. The figures consist of Net Institutional Expenditure (NIE) per pupil in nursery/primary and secondary schools and does not include central costs.

  2. Cash figures are adjusted to 2001–02 levels using December 2002 GDP deflators.

  3. The figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  4. The expenditure data in 1997–98 is drawn from the annual `RO1' spending returns which local authorities submitted to the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions. 2001–02 data is taken from Local Education Authorities' section 52 outturn statements submitted to the DfES. The pupil data are drawn from the DfES Annual Schools' Census.

  Sex Education
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what options are available to parents of children attending schools which teach forms of sexual education that they deem inappropriate for their children to be exposed to on moral or religious grounds.[101969]

  Mr. Miliband
  Parents should be consulted by their child's school about its sex and relationship education (SRE) policy and informed about what is taught in SRE lessons. Policies should be culturally appropriate and inclusive of all children. Consulting pupils and their families will help establish what is appropriate and acceptable to them. Where schools work within the SRE guidelines that the Department published in July 2000, and consult effectively, parents should be reassured about the content of lessons.

  Parents do have the right to withdraw their child from some, or all, SRE lessons, but not statutory science lessons. Parents who are considering such a step should talk it through with their child and then with either the headteacher or another senior teacher at the school. The schools should provide information about the lessons being missed and ideas for other sources of support for the parent to fulfil the task of educating their child.

  Sixth Form Funding
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list schools with sixth forms for which the provisional funding for their sixth form for the next financial year would be lower than that for the current year, giving the(a) cash value and (b) percentage of the reduction in each case.[102153]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 10 March 2003]: The Learning and Skills Council has now announced finalised sixth form allocations for the 2003–04 academic year. These will be used by local education authorities in calculating schools' budget shares for the financial year 2003–04. The allocations are primarily the responsibility of the LSC and John Harwood, the Chief
  170W
  Executive, will write to the hon. Member and a copy of his letter will be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Specialist Schools
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools with a specialist designation there were in each of the last five years; and what percentage of specialist schools have chosen to exercise the option to select by aptitude.[101038]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 10 March 2003]: The number of schools in the Specialist Schools Programme in September for the last five years is as follows:

  Number

  1998

  327

  1999

  403

  2000

  536

  2001

  685

  2002

  992

  Our figures suggest that less than 6 per cent. of schools that were specialist in summer 2002 (685 schools) used aptitude as part of their admission arrangements.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Accountancy Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the total cost to her Department was for accountancy services in 2002.[101859]

  Clare Short
  In 2002 DFID spent £940,000 on accountancy services for the development programme and £75,000 on support to our accounts department. These figures do not take into account lower value contracts, details of which are not held centrally.

  Afghanistan
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the United Nations Statement of 20 February regarding the potential for terrorist acitivity in Southern Afghanistan in the event of military action in Iraq; and what impact the statement will have on her Department's humanitarian programme in Afghanistan.[100920]

  Clare Short
  DFID's support for humanitarian (emergency) activities is channelled through UN Agencies and NGOs. We will continue to monitor the security situation, and needs, in conjunction with the Afghan Transitional Authority and the UN.

  DFID has recently received reports of an improvement in the security situation in the South. The Afghan National Army and the national police force are now much more visible in Kandahar. All the NGOs (with the exception of Oxfam) that had left Kandahar due to security concerns have now returned as security has improved.

  International Organisation for Migration
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions her Department has had with the UN regarding the funding of a visit by the International Organisation for Migration to Liberia. [101712]

  Clare Short
  We funded the visit of a four-person IOM team to Liberia in October 2002. to conduct an Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) assessment survey. The visit was to evaluate the numbers, vulnerability and socio-economic profiles of the IDP population; to assess the cost of potential future programmes of assistance; and to participate in a UN co-ordinated IDP registration exercise, launched in collaboration with the Liberian authorities.

  Subject to agreement on detailed objectives, we have agreed in principle to fund a return visit, in part to carry out some preliminary work on identifying urgent caseloads of IDPs who can be returned to their homes, and the costs of such an exercise.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment her Department has made of the security issue in UNHCR transit centres and surrounding villages in Grand Gedeh County, Liberia. [101718]

  Clare Short
  The recent eruption of fighting, apparently between Liberian opposition groups and Liberian armed forces, around Toe Town in Grand Gedeh County, has seriously affected the UNHCR transit centres in Toe Town itself and in Zwedru. There are reports that the Liberian opposition groups involved are operating from within Cote d'Ivoire.

  UNHCR has reported that, following an attack on Toe town on 28 February, local residents and an estimated 2,500 Ivorian refugees and third country nationals fled towards Zwedru. UNHCR has established a transit centre at Zwedru. A skeleton staff of UNHCR, WFP and N GO staff are running the centre. On 4 March, following rumours that the town would be attacked, many people left Zwedru. As a precautionary measure, a month's food rations were issued to all refugees and third country nationals staying in the centre.

  The security situation in Grand Gedeh County remains unstable and uncertain. This is due to the combined effects of fighting in Liberia and Cote d'lvoire. We are strongly supporting efforts by the international community to press for an end to conflict in both countries.

  Iraq
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on aid to be made available to Iraq for the forthcoming year. [101647]

  Clare Short
  Our ongoing programme of humanitarian support in Iraq, is expected to disburse around £6 million in the forthcoming financial year. I have also recently committed an additional £10 million from the current financial year to assist UN agencies and NGOs with contingency planning. My Department 172W
  maintains a contingency reserve of £88 million, which I would draw on in the event of any worsening humanitarian crisis in Iraq.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the impact on Iraqi civilians, in terms of(a) hunger and (b) disease, of military hostilities against Iraq. [101652]

  Clare Short
  The vulnerability of the Iraqi people to humanitarian crisis should not be underestimated. People's private coping strategies have been worn away by years of misrule. 60 per cent. of the population are totally dependent for food on the UN Oil For Food Programme which is likely to be disrupted in the event of military action. A majority live in urban areas, with a dependence on electrically-powered water and sanitation systems which might also be disrupted, leading to a number of potential health problems. My Department is in regular discussion with the Ministry of Defence, the UN, partner Governments and other humanitarian actors about minimising the humanitarian risks of any conflict to the Iraqi people, and responding to any crises which might arise.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the(a) cost and (b) logistics of aid operations established to replace the oil for food programme for Iraq. [101654]

  Clare Short
  Current annual expenditures under the UN oil for food programme run at around $10 billion, the largest elements of which are the food allocation ($3 billion) and basic service delivery supplies (health, education, water and sanitation, and electricity—$2 billion). In the event of military action, we will work with others to minimise disruption to the programme and re-establish it as quickly as possible. During any period in which the programme was not able to function, the responsibility to provide immediate humanitarian relief would fall to those best placed to help, and my Department has been working with the Ministry of Defence and other partners on how best this might be done. The potential scale of this task, for a population of whom 60 per cent. are dependent on the programme, is enormous. The costs involved would obviously vary depending on the length of any disruption, but the ability of the international community to meet them will be greatly enhanced if a lead role for the UN is put in place for the relief and reconstruction of Iraq following any conflict.

  Liberia
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions her Department has had with the UN regarding the rights of third country nationals to receive UNHCR care in the transit centres of Grand Gedeh County, Liberia. [101716]

  Clare Short
  Although UNHCR is providing shelter and food for many of the estimated 12,000 third country nationals in Liberia, most of whom are from Burkina Faso and Mali, it is not part of its mandate to do so. They are unable to return to their countries of origin because of the closure of the Guinean border by the Guinean authorities. UNHCR has agreed with IOM
  173W
  that they will take over responsibility for third country nationals. We have recently funded a visit to Liberia by [OM to look into the situation of IDPs. We are discussing with them possible funding for a second mission to include an assessment of the situation of third country nationals and the preparation of a plan for their return to their countries of origin, to be used in part to persuade the Guinean authorities to allow them transit through Guinea.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions her Department has had with the UN regarding the food scarcity affecting(a) third party nationals, (b) Russian refugees and (c) Liberian returnees in UNHCR transit centres in Grand Gedeh County, Liberia.[101717]

  Clare Short
  Due to the serious deterioration of the security situation in Grand Gedeh County, and the movement of people in response to attacks or fear of attacks, distribution of food rations has been difficult. UNHCR has issued one month's rations to refugees and third country nationals in Zwedru transit camp. Those who are not in reach of the transit centre are almost certainly very short of adequate supplies of food. Third country nationals are prevented from leaving Liberia through Guinea to return to their countries of origin by the closure of the Guinean border by the Guinean authorities. We are keeping closely in touch with UNHCR and IOM on efforts to address this issue.

  UNHCR does not know of any Russian refugees in the area.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions her Department has had with the International Organisation for Migration regarding the provision of care to third country nationals in the event of military intervention in Iraq.[101714]

  Clare Short
  My Department has held several discussions in recent weeks with the International Organisation for Migration (TOM) at their Headquarters in Geneva and with regional representatives in Jordan, Cyprus, Kuwait and Egypt. These discussions have focused on IOM's planning for possible outflows of third country nationals from Iraq. They are preparing for a wide range of scenarios. In the event of movements of large numbers of people, IOM is likely to be the lead agency responsible for the support and transfer of up to 70,000 third country nationals from border areas or from neighbouring countries to their countries of origin, and would assist UNHCR with the movement of asylum seekers from border areas to designated camps. The largest group of third country nationals in Iraq are Egyptians, many of whom might be expected to try to leave the country through Jordan in the event of military action.

  Overseas Trips
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list each of the overseas trips made by herself and other members of her ministerial team in 2002; and what the(a) purpose and (b) cost of each trip was.[101842]
  174W
  Clare Short
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on 22 January 2003,Official Report, column 334W, by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office.

  Pre-natal Scanning
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) if she will list those(a) countries and (b) organisations her Department financially supports for the provision of (i) ultrasound and (ii) other pre-natal scanning technology; and how much is given to each such country and organisation;[101497]

  (2) what financial support her Department gives for the provision of (a) ultrasound and (b) other pre-natal scanning technology.[101496]

  Clare Short
  DFID does not support any projects or programmes with the specific objective of providing prenatal scanning technology to health facilities. At country level, DFID supports maternal health services through safe motherhood programmes, and as a part of wider health sector development. While in some circumstances improving the quality of maternal health care may include the provision of pre-natal scanning, use of such advanced technologies in most of the DFID focus countries would not be the most appropriate use of scarce resources, and therefore would not be provided.

  My Department also funds other organisations involved in maternal health care, including the International Planned Parenthood Association (IPPF) and the United Nations Family Planning Association (UNFPA). These organisations, when appropriate, provide equipment for pre-natal scanning to the antenatal care facilities they support in order to better diagnose and manage complications of pregnancy. Because the funding they receive from DFID is in the form of a core contribution, it is not possible to identify how much (if any) is channelled into provision of scanning equipment.

  Sudan
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with the Governments of(a) Uganda, (b) Kenya and (c) Ethiopia in relation to the refugee situation on their borders with Sudan.[101589]

  Clare Short
  Following an inter-agency Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) mission in November 2002, supported by the Humanitarian Aid Commission and Sudan Relief and Rehabilitation Authority, a Displaced Persons Task Force under the auspices of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), with representatives from UNDP, UNICEF, IOM and others, has been established. UNHCR are also participating. We continue to look for and support sustainable solutions for effective reintegration of the millions of displaced people across the region. An enduring peace, and subsequent stability, is the key determinant in this regard.
  175W
  In terms of specific discussions that we have had with regards to the refugee situation on the borders with Sudan, we have:

  (a) on Uganda kept in close touch with humanitarian agencies, including UNHCR, as over the past year the activities of the rebel group the Lords Resistance Army (LRA) has caused increasing insecurity in parts of northern Uganda, affecting both the refugees and host population. In co-operation with the Government of Uganda UNHCR has an innovative self reliance strategy in place in Uganda, under which refugees have been provided with access to land and local services;

  (b) We have had no recent discussions with the Government of Kenya concerning the refugee situation on their border with Sudan;

  (c) We have not had any direct contact with the Ethiopian Government on this issue, but continue to monitor the situation through contact with NGO partners.

  West Africa
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions her Department has had with the governments of(a) France, (b) Mali, (c) Burkina Faso, (d) Togo and (e) Senegal regarding their nationals trapped in refugee camps on the border of Liberia and the Ivory Coast.[101713]

  Clare Short
  My Department has not had any direct discussions with the governments of France, Mali, Burkina Faso, Togo and Senegal about third country nationals trapped in refugee camps on the Cote d'lvoire and Liberian border. Over the past two years we have contributed about £2.6 million to UNHCR for assistance to refugees in the region, as well as £1 million in humanitarian assistance specifically for work in Cote d'lvoire. The latter includes assistance to internally displaced people and refugees of many nationalities who have been affected by the conflict in both government and rebel controlled areas. We are continuing to monitor the humanitarian situation and are working closely with others in the international community to help bring about a swift and peaceful resolution to the conflict.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Accountancy Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the total cost to her Department was for accountancy services in 2002.[101855]

  Dr. Howells
  The cost to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport of external accountancy services in the financial year 2001–02 was £218,051.

  Advertising Expenditure (Scotland)
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much the Department spent on advertising in Scotland in each year since 1999 on(a)television, (b) newspapers, (c) radio, (d) magazines, (e) billboards and (f) sporting events.[102326]

  Dr. Howells
  No expenditure has been committed by the Department in any of these areas since 1999 either in Scotland or elsewhere in the UK.

  Award Schemes
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the award schemes in(a) 2001 and (b) 2002 promoted by the Department; what their scope was; when the relevant participating organisations are scheduled to be sent results; and whether other parties will be given notification of the results at the same time.[102057]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department is represented on the awards panel which confirms and finalises the result of each application for the Artsmark award, which is awarded by the Arts Council of England. Artsmark is a national arts award for schools in England. It is a symbol of recognition for schools making a strong commitment to the full range of the arts—art and design, music, dance and drama. There is one round of awards per year.

  Round three results will be announced at the end of May. Schools will be notified first, then results will be announced to the public.

  The Beacon Council scheme is promoted largely by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, However the Department is involved in criteria setting and bid analysis when the theme of the award relates to the Department's areas.

  The Beacon Council themes in which the Department has been involved are; 2001–02—Regeneration through Culture, Sport and Tourism and 2002–03—Libraries as a community resource.

  BBC
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to extend National Audit Office scrutiny to the BBC.[101212]

  Dr. Howells
  The National Audit Office (NAO) already has access to the BBC to examine the value for money of the administration of the television licensing system and the BBC World Service. As indicated in the Government's response of 6 March 2003 to the Public Accounts Committee report "Collecting the Television Licence Fee", the coming review of the BBC's Charter provides the context in which to consider the case for extending NAO access to the BBC. As part of that review the Government will decide what should be the future role of the C&AG in relation to the Corporation.

  British Library
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the income receipts of the British Library were in each year from 1990–91 to 2003–04 (planned), excluding grant in aid; and if she will make a statement.[99843]

  Dr. Howells
  The total income of the British Library, less any grant in aid received, but including all trading income, investment income, donations and sponsorship is shown in the table for the period 1990–91 to 2003–04. The figures for 2002–03 and 2003–04 are based on budgets and business plans.
  177W

  Financial year

  Non GIA income (£000)

  1990–91

  24,311

  1991–92

  29,532

  1992–93

  27,105

  1993–94

  30,498

  1994–95

  32,722

  1995–96

  35,753

  1996–97

  32,459

  1997–98

  35,025

  1998–99

  40,009

  1999–2000

  33,867

  2000–01

  *27,997

  2001–02

  32,283

  2002–03

  31,041

  2003–04

  31,263

  * The figure for 2000–01 shows a dip in relation to the medium term trend. We are advised by the British Library that this is largely attributable to a change in accounting which resulted in payments for services used at the beginning of 2000–01 being attributed to 1999–2000.

  Community Fund/New Opportunities Fund
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to consult with the voluntary sector concerning the proposed merger of the Community Fund and the New Opportunities Fund; whether the consultation period on the merger will be 12 weeks in accordance with the compact; and if she will make a statement.[101949]

  Mr. Caborn
  The business case for a merger between the Community Fund and the New Opportunities Fund is strong, but we shall consult further with the voluntary sector and other interested parties before determining the nature of the new body. Proposals emerging from these discussions will be included in a White Paper later this year, which would provide a 12-week consultation period, in accordance with the compact.

  English Heritage
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many properties have been compulsorily purchased by English Heritage in each year since 1999.[101826]

  Dr. Howells
  English Heritage has not compulsory purchased any properties since 1999. It served a compulsory purchase order in that year, in respect of a property in the City of Westminster, but the owner commenced repair work and the order was put in abeyance. English Heritage has not served a compulsory purchase order since then.

  Free Television Licences
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will estimate the annual cost of providing free television licences for retired people over the ages of(a) 70 years and (b) 65 years.[101811]

  Dr. Howells
  The estimated cost of providing free television licences for every household with a member aged 70 years or over is £200 million a year, while providing free television licences for every household with a member aged 65 years or over would cost an 178W
  estimated £410 million a year. These costs are additional to the provision of free television licences for people aged 75 and over.

  Hyde Park
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what costs were incurred in the clearing and restoration of Hyde Park following the Queen's Jubilee Celebrations.[99944]

  Dr. Howells
  The cost of cleaning up amounted to £6,000 and the cost of reinstatement was £5,000 (both figures exclusive of VAT).

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what costs were incurred in the clearing and restoration of Hyde Park following the Stop the War rally on 15 February.[99942]

  Dr. Howells
  The cost of cleaning up after the demonstration amounted to £10,000 and the cost of reinstatement is estimated at £140,000 (both figures exclusive of VAT).

  Listed Buildings
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many(a) Grade I and (b) Grade II listed buildings there are in (i) Northamptonshire and (ii) the Borough of Northampton; and what public funds, with particular reference to Lottery funds, have been spent on them in each of the last five years for which figures are available.[100804]

  Dr. Howells
  There are 191 Grade I, 356 Grade II* and 5,833 Grade II listed buildings in Northamptonshire, and 14 Grade I, 23 Grade II* and 390 Grade H listed buildings in the Borough of Northampton. English Heritage funding made available over the past five years is listed as follows:

  Amount in £

  Financial year

  1997–98

  212,399

  1998–99

  51,817

  1999–2000

  104,896

  2000–01

  68,236

  2001–02

  19,826

  Year

  1997

  212,399

  1998

  49,175

  1999

  45,792

  2000

  123,536

  2001

  25,272

  The information on Lottery funding is not immediately available. It is being put together now. I shall write to my hon. Friend as soon as it is available.

  Overseas Trips
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list each of the overseas trips made by herself and other members of her ministerial team in 2002; and what the(a) purpose and (b) cost of each trip was.[101846]
  179W
  Dr. Howells
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on 22 January 2003,Official Report, column 334W.

  Tourism
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to promote(a) tourist attractions and (b) resorts outside London. [101421]

  Dr. Howells
  The British Tourist Authority has a target in its Funding Agreement with my Department to promote a regional spread of overseas visitors to the UK. The Department also contributes funding (£250,000 in 2002–03) to the Greater London Authority to help support its statutory duty of promoting London as a Gateway to the rest of the UK.

  As part of the Government's tourism reform programme the new national tourism organisation will be launched on 1 April 2003 with a remit that will include domestic marketing. Also, the Regional Development Agencies in England will from 1 April play a stronger part in the strategic leadership of tourism, and this will help stimulate awareness of the importance of maintaining high quality amenities and services across the country, including traditional resorts. Local Authorities, working with tourist attractions, also play an important role in attracting visitors.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to increase the numbers of visitors to the UK from(a) EU countries and (b) non-EU countries. [101422]

  Dr. Howells
  The British Tourism Authority (BTA) is responsible for promoting Britain overseas. It has offices around the world which undertake a full range of promotional activities in 27 countries, including EU and non-EU countries. Its activities include advertising, marketing, direct mail, new media, travel trade liaison, press and public relations work, to increase the number of visitors to Britain.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the total Government expenditure on the promotion of tourism in the UK to visitors from overseas was in 2002. [101423]

  Dr. Howells
  In 2002–03, the total amount of funding for tourism promotion overseas was £57.4 million. DCMS allocated the British Tourist Authority £35.5 million in baseline grant in aid for the promotion of Britain overseas as a tourist destination. An additional £20 million was allocated to help tourism to recover from the impact of foot and mouth disease and 11 September. A further £1.9 million was allocated to the Greater London Authority for the promotion of the capital as a tourist destination and as a gateway to the rest of the UK.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what targets are identified under the current grant in aid funding agreement with the English Tourism Council. [101424]
  180W
  Dr. Howells
  Funding agreement targets agreed between the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the English Tourism Council (ETC) are included in the ETC's recent annual report, which was laid before Parliament and is available in the Libraries of both Houses.

DEFENCE

  Anti-personnel Mines
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many anti-personnel mines belonging to other countries are stored on UK territory, broken down by country of storage; and which countries these weapons belong to. [102362]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are no anti-personnel mines belonging to other countries stored on United Kingdom territory.

  Armed Forces Deployment (Gulf)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British armed forces personnel are deployed to the Gulf region. [101964]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the statements my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has made in the House where he has detailed the composition and deployments of United Kingdom forces from all three Services to the Middle East region, presenting a significant and credible threat of force in support of UNSCR 1441 and the disarmament of Iraq.

  We currently envisage the total deployment of around 45,000 servicemen and women. The majority of the UK's total force package has now successfully deployed to theatre, making a significant contribution to the flexible and balanced range of coalition capabilities.

  Dol Dol Primary School
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps were taken to(a) address and (b) redress complaints of Masai women following the meeting on 19 October 1983 between representatives of the women with the officer commanding troops involved in reconstruction of the Dol Dol primary school in Kenya; how many incidents are alleged to have been committed by members of Her Majesty's armed forces; how many admissions of responsibility or apology have been sent; how many disciplinary actions have been taken against serving soldiers; and how many have been dismissed from the Army. [101819]

  Mr. Ingram
  A document relating to the meeting purportedly held on 19 October 1983 has recently been disclosed to the Department and is currently under consideration. However, no formal claims or legal proceedings have been served on the Ministry of Defence in respect of alleged assaults on Masai women in Kenya by British soldiers.

  EU Military Capabilities
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his US
  181W
  counterpart regarding the European Union plans for undertaking the NATO operation in Bosnia-Herzegovina. [101959]

  Mr. Ingram
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has had no discussions with his United States counterpart regarding the European Union plans for undertaking the NATO operation in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what recent discussions he has had with European defence ministers about measures to improve EU military capabilities; [101962]

  (2) when he last discussed progress on the ESDP with the (a) French, (b) German and (c) Belgian defence ministers. [101961]

  Mr. Hoon
  I last discussed progress on ESDP(a) with my French counterpart at the Le Touquet summit on 4 February 2003, (b) with my German counterpart in Berlin on 5 November 2002, and (c) with my Belgian counterpart on 19 November 2002. I discussed European military capability improvements with other EU Defence Ministers at our informal meeting on 4–5 October 2002, and at the General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC) on 19 November 2002. The subject was also discussed in the three bilateral meetings mentioned earlier, as well as meetings with my Italian and Greek counterparts on 21 January and 3 March 2003 respectively. We are working on remedying key European defence capability shortfalls under the European Capabilities Action Plan established last year.

  Fylingdales
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) US, (b) RAF, (c) MOD and (d) Ministry of Defence Police Agency personnel are deployed at RAF Fylingdales. [101688]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are: 76 RAF personnel, 43 MOD civilian personnel, 189 UK contractors, one USAF personnel, and 10 US contractors employed at RAF Fylingdales. I am withholding the information relating to the Ministry of Defence Police deployed at RAF Fylingdales in accordance with Exemption 1 (Defence, security and international relations) of the Codes of Practice on Access to Government Information as it could compromise the security of the Station.

  Iraq
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what investigations have been established in his Department into the role played by Royal Ordnance in providing military equipment and explosives to Iraq. [101651]

  Mr. Ingram
  Information on inquiries into the export of Defence Equipment and Dual-Use Goods to Iraq is contained in the Report of that same name by Sir Richard Scott that was published on 15 February 1996.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many(a) medical and (b) nursing reservists he expects to be called up in the event of conflict in Iraq; and from which clinical specialities these will be drawn; [102380]
  182W
  (2) whether medical and nursing reservists will be rotated in the event of conflict in Iraq. [102427]

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

  La Spezia
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with(a) his Italian counterpart and (b) NATO officials about the security implications for British warships at La Spezia resulting from the presence of personnel attached to impounded Iraqi corvettes. [98413]

  Mr. Ingram
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not had discussions with either his Italian counterpart or NATO officials on this matter. There are currently no British warships based in La Spezia or indeed scheduled to visit the port and consequently on that basis there are currently no perceived security implications.

  NATO
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his NATO counterparts about giving the alliance a greater role in Afghanistan. [101963]

  Mr. Ingram
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his officials have on several occasions discussed possible roles for NATO in Afghanistan with NATO colleagues. We fully support the decision by Germany and the Netherlands to benefit from NATO assistance in their leadership of ISAF III.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are for the European Union to undertake the NATO operation in Bosnia-Herzegovina. [101965]

  Mr. Hoon
  The European Council indicated the European Union's willingness to lead a military operation in Bosnia following SFOR, when it met at Copenhagen on 12–13 December last year. Initial consultation has commenced with NATO, and other international players, with a view to the EU potentially assuming responsibility for the stabilisation role in Bosnia next year.

  Political Memorabilia/Emblems
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what rules govern(a) the display of political memorabilia and emblems and (b) the wearing of sectarian emblems and apparel inside army barracks in Northern Ireland; at what level responsibility rests for removing inappropriate displays; and how many personnel have been disciplined for offences arising from such displays since April 1998. [101154]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Army has clear guidelines on Equal Opportunities Policy and Complaints which are laid out in Army General Administrative Instructions. These are reinforced in Northern Ireland by Northern Ireland Standing Operations Procedures (NISOP) including a section on Equal Opportunities and Diversity with an annex on Northern Ireland Sectarian Harassment
  183W
  Policy and Guidelines which covers areas such as flags and emblems. The implementation of these policies rests with the appropriate Commander of a Battalion, unit or station. A copy of this NISOP was placed in the Library of the House of Commons in April 2000. Since 1998 the Army Board has considered administrative action against one officer and awarded an administrative sanction against him.

  Royal Navy Vessels
  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many invitations to tender have been made to Farrow System Ltd. in relation to the cleaning of(a) Royal Navy vessels and (b) glass-fibre reinforced materials in Royal Navy vessels since completing work on HMS Quorn and on the orlop deck of HMS Victory; [101625]

  (2) how much has been spent on surface cleaning of (a) Royal Navy vessels and (b) glass-fibre reinforced materials in Royal Navy vessels since 2nd February 2000; [101624]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the application of public procurement procedures in inviting tenders for the surface cleaning of glass-fibre reinforced materials in Royal Navy vessels. [101623]

  Mr. Ingram
  Cleaning of Royal Navy Vessels and glass-fibre reinforced materials in Royal Navy vessels is undertaken as part of larger packages of work carried out during a vessel's regular maintenance and refit period, known as Upkeep Periods, undertaken by one of the three dockyards at Devonport, Portsmouth and Rosyth. The Ministry of Defence would not, therefore, have issued invitations to tender for cleaning direct to Farrow Systems.

  Upkeep Periods involve a whole range of work activity and to identify how much has been spent on the specific task of surface cleaning would involve disproportionate cost.

  Invitations to tender for Upkeep Periods follow public procurement procedures; any work subcontracted out would be subject to the procurement procedures laid down by the company undertaking the Upkeep Period.

  US Bases
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when the US formally asked permission from the UK Government to deploy B-52 bombers to British bases for anticipated operations in Iraq; if he will list the bases involved; and when the UK Government gave their consent; [101686]

  (2) how many US B-52s have been authorised to deploy to RAF Fairford; for how long; with which types of ordnance US B-52s will be armed while deployed at RAF Fairford; and whether these will include the Joint Direct Attack Munition. [101687]

  Mr. Hoon
  I told the House on 3 March 2003,Official Report, column 566, that I had agreed a United States request to deploy fourteen B-52 bombers to RAF Fairford. No time scale has been placed upon their deployment there. The Government have also agreed to a request to base B-52s at Diego Garcia.
  184W
  I am withholding details of the discussions and timings of decisions on the deployment of USAF B-52 aircraft to British bases and their ordnance in accordance with Exemption 1 (Defence, security and international relations) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Personal Injury Claims
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to reduce the share of costs borne by public funds for claimants bringing personal injury cases against their employers. [101705]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  There are no plans at present.

  Smoking
  Mrs. Ann Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans there are to review legislation on worker safety dealing with the effects of passive smoking. [98506]

  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to meet employers to formulate a policy to ban smoking at the workplace. [98481]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no such plans.

  Employers have a duty under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 to protect the health, safety and welfare of their employees. This duty includes any risks arising from passive smoking. The Health and Safety Executive has published free guidance that gives advice to employers on introducing effective smoking policies in the workplace.

  Accountancy Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the total cost to his Department was for accountancy services in 2002. [101560]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what guidance the Health and Safety Executive gives on the handling of asbestos products; what tests have been carried out for the purposes of the guidance to establish the fibre levels released by such products; who carried out the tests; and on what dates. [98682]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 25 February 2003]: The Health and Safety Executive has given guidance in six publications on the handling of asbestos products. They are the two Approved Codes of Practice, Work with asbestos insulation, asbestos coating and asbestos insulating board and Work with asbestos, which does not normally require a licence, and four guidance documents—Introduction to Asbestos Essentials,

  185W
  Asbestos Essentials Task Manual, Controlled Asbestos Stripping Techniques and Working with Asbestos Cement.

  The Health and Safety Laboratory studied the fibre levels released from the main types of asbestos-containing materials by various maintenance activities in 1998. They also reviewed existing literature from the United Kingdom and United States. The results of the study and review are in Annexe I of the Regulatory Impact Assessment on the amendments to the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations.

  A copy of the guidance and the regulatory impact assessment are available in the Library.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what(a) instructions and (b) guidance is given to health and safety inspectors on the action they should take if they discover that asbestos removal contractors have acted improperly in determining that work should be undertaken to remove asbestos; and if he will make a statement. [98685]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 25 February 2003]: HSE inspectors promote HSE's policy, which is that asbestos in good condition should be left in place and managed and that asbestos in poor condition, or which is likely to be damaged or disturbed, should be repaired, sealed, enclosed or removed.

  If HSE are notified of "improper" removal, their prime concern is whether the contractor has put someone at risk as a result of working with asbestos and their investigation would concentrate on this aspect of the complaint. Although there are no specific instructions or guidance to inspectors about the action to take where it has been alleged that a contractor or other third party has acted fraudulently, HSE staff may give guidance to the complainant on the appropriate authorities (for example Trading Standards or the Police) to pursue the issue.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the level of fraud in(a) 2002–03, (b) 2003–04 and (c) 2004–05 in (i) income support, (ii) housing benefit, (iii) disability living allowance, (iv) the CSA, (v) national insurance, (vi) contractor fraud, (vii) jobseekers allowance and (viii) IC. [102257]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We do not make estimates of future levels of fraud. Currently we have only ongoing measurement of the level of fraud and error in Income Support, Jobseeker's Allowance and Housing Benefit and we have set firm targets for the reduction of these in the future.

  Employers' Liability Insurance
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when his Department will report on the investigation it has been making into the rise in employer liability insurance. [100697]
  186W
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 4 March 2003]: I refer the hon. Member to the written ministerial statement I gave on 12 December 2002, Official Report, columns 23–24WS, which said that the review will report to Ministers in the spring.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the review of the Employers' Liability Compulsory Insurance scheme will be published. [100243]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 3 March 2003]: I refer the hon. Member to the written ministerial statement I gave on 12 December 2002, Official Report, columns 23–24W, which said that the review will report to Ministers in the spring.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the progress of his review of employers' liability insurance. [99612]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written ministerial statement I gave on 12 December 2002,Official Report, columns 23–24W. Contributions to the review are now being considered and the review will report to Ministers in the spring.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether his Department's review of employers' liability insurance will assess whether the health and safety assessments carried out as part of the Department of Trade and Industry's Quality Mark scheme could be extended to other sectors. [101349]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written ministerial statement I gave on 12 December 2002,Official Report, columns 23–24W. Contributions to the review are now being considered and the review will report to Ministers in the spring.

  Employment Statistics
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of people over the age of(a) 70, (b) 65, (c) 60, (d) 55 and (e) 50 years were in employment in (i) 2001–02, (ii) 1997–98, (iii) 1990–91 and (iv) 1980–81; and if he will make a statement. [99835]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  We are vigorously promoting the benefits of age diversity and the recruitment, training and retention of older workers to employers through our Age Positive campaign. The campaign focuses on raising employers' awareness of the business case for an age diverse workforce and encourages them to use the Code of Practice on Age Diversity in Employment to inform their employment policies.

  Our recent Green Paper "Simplicity, security and choice: Working and saving for retirement" published on 17 December 2002 sets out our proposals for encouraging the adoption of flexible approaches to retirement, giving people the choice to stay in work longer.
  187W
  The information requested on employment rates is in the table.

  Estimated employment rates

  Percentage

  50 and over

  55 and over

  60 and over

  65 and over

  70 and over

  1981

  35.6

  26.9

  15.4

  6.2

  3.5

  1991

  31.5

  22.6

  12.6

  5.1

  2.8

  1998

  33.5

  22.3

  12.1

  5.1

  2.5

  2002

  36.0

  25.5

  13.3

  5.3

  2.5

  Notes:

  1. The LFS is a sample survey and as such estimates are subject to sampling error.

  2. The LFS does not cover individuals in certain communal establishments, including residential or nursing care facilities.

  3. Estimates are not consistent with census 2001 interim adjustments.

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey (LFS), spring of each year

  Household Poverty
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his estimate is of the proportion of(a) children and (b) pensioners living in households in the bottom two deciles of income distribution. [97349]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information on the proportion of children and pensioners in the bottom fifth of the income distribution can be found in the publication `Households Below Average Income 1994–95 to 2000–01', a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Department

  Agency/Body

  Staff days lost

  Department for Work and Pensions

  Jobcentre Plus

  197,058

  —

  The Pension Service

  38

  —

  Corporate Centre

  Nil

  —

  Child Support Agency

  14

  —

  Debt Management

  2

  —

  The Appeals Service

  Nil

  Non Departmental Public Bodies

  Pensions Ombudsman, Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board, Independent Case Review Service for Social Fund, Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority, Pensions Provision Group, Office of the Social Security and Child Support Commissioners and Pensions Compensation Board

  Nil

  Total

  97,112

  1 All but 814 days relates to a single dispute. Two disputes in total.

  Pensions
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether pensioners will be able to have their pension paid into a(a) bank current account, (b) basic bank account and (c) post office card account weekly after April. [100292]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The change will be phased in over a two-year period. Pensioners will be contacted when it is their turn to change. If they are currently paid weekly they will automatically continue to be paid at this frequency after April.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what action his Department has taken to increase consumer awareness that many insurance companies deduct commission from their pension savings as a fee for financial advice. [101361]

  Independent Medical Examiners
  Sandra Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what incentive system there is for the independent medical examiners contracted by SchlumbergerSema in respect of the personal capability assessment for incapacity benefit; and if he will make a statement. [102124]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Sessional doctors contracted by SchlumbergerSema to carry out medical assessments in respect of benefit claims are paid on a fee per assessment basis. Safeguards are in place to ensure that appropriate quality standards are maintained.

  Decisions on entitlement to benefit are made by Departmental decision makers, and there is no link between doctors' remuneration and the outcome of a claim.

  Industrial Action
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many working days were lost owing to industrial action by staff in(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies in 2002. [101509]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information on the number of staff days lost owing to industrial action for the Department for Work and Pensions, is set out in the following table for the period 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2002.

  Mr. McCartney
  As part of the Government's Pension Education publicity campaign, we make it clear through the appropriate guides, for example, the guide `Personal pensions—Your guide' that people might pay for financial advice through fees or commission which is deducted from their pension contributions. People are advised to ask for details of fees or commission. The Department publicises the guides, and they can also be accessed through The Pension Service website www.thepensionservice.gov.uk.

  The Government are committed to providing people with the information they need to make informed choices about saving for retirement. The proposals set out in the recently published Green Paper 'Simplicity, security and choice: Working and saving for retirement' (Cm 5677) are intended to reinforce that.

  Permanent Staff
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many permanent staff worked for his Department and its agencies in each year from 1996–97 to 2003–04 (planned); what the reasons are underlying changes in staff numbers; and if he will make a statement. [97348]

  Mr. McCartney
  Information on the number of permanent staff working for the Department for Work and Pensions is in the table.

  Figures for the Department for Work and Pensions are shown for 30 June 2001 when the Department was formed and 31 March 2002. There was a planned and managed increase in staffing levels in certain parts of the Department in 2001–02. Staffing was increased because of the modernisation agenda, in particular relating to the introduction of Child Support Reforms and the establishment of The Pension Service.

  The information for the years March 1996 to March 2001 show the figures for permanent staff in the Department of Social Security and the Employment Service.

  Profiles for staffing levels for 2003–04 are still being developed.

  Department for Work and Pensions

  30 June 2001

  126,069

  31 March 2002

  133,553

  Department of Social Security

  Employment Service

  Total

  31 March 1996

  94,932

  41,156

  136,088

  31 March 1997

  98,917

  34,174

  133,091

  31 March 1998

  94,886

  33,528

  128,414

  31 March 1999

  97,056

  35,430

  132,486

  31 March 2000

  91,173

  35,299

  126,472

  31 March 2001

  89,774

  36,930

  126,704

  Notes:

  Figures are consistent with Cabinet Office definitions other than the inclusion of staff on paid maternity leave.

  The figures are based on headcount (staff in post) and are point in time at the dates shown

  Departmental Telephone Helplines
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many telephone helplines are sponsored by his Department; and which of these helplines are charged at(a) national rate, (b) premium rate and (c) local rate. [95713]

  Mr. McCartney
  DWP sponsors 60 telephone helplines. Of these:(a) seven are charged at national rate, (b) none charged at premium rate (c) 46 charged at local rate and (d) a further seven numbers are free phone numbers.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will estimate the number of 2002–03 winter fuel payments that have been delayed because of departmental computer problems; and of that number, how many have yet to be issued; [99731]

  (2) what corrective action he is taking to resolve the departmental computer problems that have delayed 2002–03 winter fuel payments; and if he will make a statement. [99732]

  Mr. McCartney
  Over 11.1 million winter fuel payments have been made so far for this winter, and the vast majority of these were paid automatically before Christmas. There will of course be circumstances where, because of a variety of reasons, payment cannot be made without further inquiries. We seek to resolve these as soon as we can.

  However, some customers reported not receiving a payment for this winter. This was promptly investigated and it was found that, because of a system fault, some further 936 people should have been considered for an automatic payment. All of these people who were entitled to a payment for this year have now been paid. We are taking steps to ensure that this does not happen for the next winter.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Arts of Irish and Ulster-Scots Project
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether any members of the Board of the Arts Council of Northern Ireland are on the Steering Group for the Council's research project on The Arts of Irish and Ulster-Scots. [101917]

  Angela Smith
  Dr. Maurna Crozier is the only member of the Board of the Arts Council of Northern Ireland who is also a member of the Steering Group.

  Dr. Crozier was nominated to the Steering Group by the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure.

  Blue Card Holders
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many blue card holders there are in each Northern Ireland constituency. [102035]

  Mr. Browne
  The information requested is not available in the format requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Compulsory Purchase Orders
  Lembit Õpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what appeals procedures(a) exist and (b) are planned for residents of Northern Ireland whose property is subject to a compulsory purchase order; and if he will make a statement. [101569]

  Mr. Pearson
  Compensation is claimed by affected parties and generally settled in negotiation with the Valuation and Lands Agency acting on behalf of the acquiring authority. If a party is not content with the level of compensation offered, there is a right to refer the matter to the Lands Tribunal for Northern Ireland for a determination.

  There is no intention to alter this right of appeal to the Lands Tribunal.

  Disability Discrimination Act
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what additional resources will be made available to the Equality Commission to enable it to fulfil its duties in respect of the changes in disability discrimination legislation planned over the next three years. [101009]

  Jane Kennedy
  The consultation process on proposals for legislation that will enhance the educational opportunities of children and young people in Northern Ireland with special educational needs and disabilities has recently been completed. Consideration is currently being given to the content of such legislation, in light of the outcome of the consultation. Where the legislation provides for additional responsibilities for the Equality Commission, consideration will be given to the resources necessary to enable the Commission to fulfil these responsibilities.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the outcome of the consultation on proposals for a special educational needs and disability Bill will be published; and when the legislation will be enacted. [101005]
  192W
  Jane Kennedy
  The consultation process on proposals for legislation that will enhance the educational opportunities of children and young people in Northern Ireland with special educational needs and disabilities has recently been completed. Consideration is currently being given to the content of such legislation, in the light of responses. The outcome of consultations will not be published, but it is expected that draft legislation will be issued before the summer and this will be the subject of further consultation. It is intended to introduce an Order in Council at Westminster or a Bill to the Northern Ireland Assembly towards the end of 2003, with a view to beginning implementation of the legislation in September 2004.

  Hydro-pools
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which special schools in Northern Ireland have a hydro-pool; and if his Office will contribute funds towards the provision of a hydro-pool at each new special school to be built in Northern Ireland. [99350]

  Jane Kennedy
  Special schools in Northern Ireland, which currently have a hydrotherapy pool are:

  BELB

  Fleming Fulton, Belfast

  NEELB

  Beechgrove, Ballymena

  Sandelford, Coleraine

  SEELB

  Knockevin, Downpatrick

  Parkview, Lisburn

  SELB

  Lisanally, Armagh

  WELB

  Elmbrook, Enniskillen

  Foyleview. Londonderry

  There are a number of criteria that must be met before the Department of Education can contribute funds towards the provision of a hydrotherapy pool. If the criteria are met then it is departmental policy to provide hydrotherapy pools where appropriate, subject to the recurrent costs being met by the Education and Library Board.

  Independent Financial Advisers
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many claims were made by independent financial advisers in Northern Ireland on their professional indemnity insurance in each of the last five years; and how much money was paid out as a result of claims made by independent financial advisers in Northern Ireland on their professional indemnity insurance in each of the last five years. [99325]

  Mr. Pearson
  The information requested by the hon. Lady is not collated by Government Departments in Northern Ireland, the Financial Services Authority, which regulates Independent Financial Advisers, HM Treasury or the Association of British Insurers and could not be obtained without entailing disproportionate costs.

  Industrial Investment
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the effect the current downturn in the stock market is having on industrial investment in Northern Ireland. [100428]
  193W
  Mr. Pearson
  Adverse global economic conditions have impacted unfavourably on stock markets, Foreign Direct Investment, trade and confidence worldwide and adversely affected industrial investment both nationally and in Northern Ireland. Recent surveys indicate a negative outlook for investment intentions in buildings and plant and machinery in the short term, with more companies planning to decrease rather than increase investment. Despite current uncertainties the Northern Ireland economy has been forecast to grow by between 2.5 per cent. and 3.5 per cent. in 2003 and manufacturing productivity has continued to rise.

  Newtownards Library
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether a new library for Newtownards will be provided as part of the recently announced investment in local infrastructure. [102020]

  Angela Smith
  The Strategic Investment Programme includes a sum of £20 million for library projects and other information resources identified for potential procurement through public-private partnerships.

  The provision of a new library for Newtownards will be one of a number of projects which will be considered by the Department under this programme.

  Nurses
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps the Government is taking to encourage nurses to enter the neurosurgical branch of medicine; and what(a) immediate and (b) long term steps the Government are taking to overcome shortages of neurosurgical nurses. [102036]

  Mr. Browne
  The recruitment of staff is a matter for individual Health and Social Services Trusts taking into account factors such as service needs and available resources. The Royal Group of Hospitals Trust has confirmed that three newly qualified local nurses were recruited in October/November 2002 and they have just completed a three month supervised consolidation period. They are now established members of the neurosurgical nursing team in the neurosurgical ward. A further eight nurses were recruited from overseas in January 2003 and require a period of supervised practice before they can register with the Nursing and Midwifery Council. The Trust anticipates that these nurses will join the nursing team on the neurosurgical ward in May/ June 2003. This will facilitate the opening of further beds.

  The regional Neurosurgical Unit based in the Royal Group of Hospitals have introduced several initiatives to encourage nurses to work in neurosurgery. These include working closely with Queen's University Belfast to increase the number of student nurses who have the opportunity to experience neurosurgical nursing. In addition the University of Ulster and staff in the Neurosurgical Unit have developed specialist nursing programmes. Nurses are encouraged and supported
  194W
  to attend these courses where they will gain the underpinning knowledge and skills required to work in such a specialised area.

  Organ Retention
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action has been taken against the pathologist at Altnagelvin Hospital who retained 59 organs without permission; and what investigation he has conducted into whether pecuniary gain was made from this organ retention. [102014]

  Mr. Browne
  The pathologist concerned was subject to the internal disciplinary procedures of Altnagelvin Health and Social Services Trust. The trust has confirmed that there was no pecuniary gain arising from this organ retention.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will reply to questions(a) 90132, (b) 90131 and (c) 90130; and what the reason is for the delay in answering. [102491]

  Jane Kennedy
  The three questions to which my hon. Friend refers were issued to the House on 31 January 2003. Although they were not printed on that date in the Official Report, they appeared on 7 March at columns 1248W, 9247W and 9247–48W respectively.

  Police Firearms Training
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland pursuant to the reply by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy) on 25 February 2003,Official Report, columns 225–26W, how many of those constables who received firearms training in May and July 2002 were (a) recruits and (b) members of the force with more than one year's service; and if he will make a statement. [102494]

  Jane Kennedy
  All of those constables who received firearms training in May and July 2002 were recruits. None of those who were trained were members of the force with more than one year's service.

  Post Mortems
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which hospitals in Northern Ireland continue the practice of hospital post mortems. [102015]

  Mr. Browne
  Hospital post mortems are currently carried out in the Royal Group of Hospitals, Ulster Hospital, Antrim Area Hospital and Altnagelvin Hospital. Normally hospital post mortems are also carried out in Craigavon Area Hospital, however the facilities are temporarily closed for upgrading.

  Royal Victoria Hospital
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Royal Victoria Hospital Mortuary Log Book came into existence. [102013]
  195W
  Mr. Browne
  The Royal Victoria Hospital mortuary register started with effect from 4 February 1961.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) coroners there were and (b) hospital post mortems took place at the Royal Victoria Hospital in each of the last three decades. [102017]

  Mr. Browne
  Information in the form requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Teachers' Salaries
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools he estimates will receive (i) more and (ii) less funding under the new common funding formula. [100975]

  Jane Kennedy
  The intention is to introduce the common formula in the calculation of school budgets for 2004–05.

  It is not possible at this stage to assess the impact of the common formula with any degree of precision as the size of the Aggregated School Budget (ASB) for 2004–05 has not yet been determined and final decisions about the make-up of the formula have still to be made.

  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had with representatives of(a) primary and (b) secondary schools with regard to changes to the common funding formula, with particular reference to threshold funds. [100976]

  Jane Kennedy
  The main forum for discussion about the Common Funding Formula is the LMS Steering Group. The membership of the Group includes representatives of the managers of all grant-aided schools in Northern Ireland. The last meeting was held in September 2002, when the Department's proposals for the handling of threshold payments were discussed.

  In addition to discussion at this formal forum, the Department also engages with representatives of schools and teachers through meetings such as Standing Conferences, and by responding positively to requests for meetings with representative associations such as the Secondary Heads Association and the Primary Principals Association.

  Tissue Act
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what changes are proposed to the Tissue Act 1961; and whether the Act is planned to be repealed. [102019]

  Mr. Browne
  The Department of Health, in conjunction with the Welsh Assembly Government, is currently working on a draft Human Organs and Tissue Bill to replace the Human Tissue Act 1961 in England and Wales. We are following developments closely to determine the best legislative solution for replacing the Human Tissue Act (NI) 1962.

CABINET OFFICE

  Laptop Computers
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many laptop computers were used by(a) Ministers and special advisers and (b) officials in his Department in each year since 1995; how many were (i) lost and (ii) stolen; what their cost was; and if he will make a statement. [97506]

  Mr. Alexander
  The number of laptops provided centrally on behalf of the Department in 2000, 2001 anti 2002 are 222, 540 and 629 respectively. However, some laptops have been procured by business units, and no information on the total numbers in use was collected centrally.

  The Cabinet Office Ministerial Group currently have a pool of three laptops for the use of Ministers, special advisers and officials within the group.

  There were two laptops reported stolen in 1998 and another one in 2001.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Criminal Records Checks
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he expects the Criminal Records Bureau to clear the backlog of criminal record checks for residential and nursing home care staff; and if he will make a statement; [100944]

  (2) according to the most recent figures available, what the average length of time has been for prospective residential and nursing home care staff to have their criminal records checked by the CRB; [100943]

  (3) how many prospective staff awaiting employment in residential and nursing homes have yet to have their criminal records checked by the Criminal Records Bureau. [100945]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 5 March 2003]: I am unable to provide data to the hon. Member on specific waiting times for job types because there are no IT procedures at present to extract this data from the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) database.

  This functionality is expected to be available during subsequent system releases. There are no figures available on the actual number of prospective employees in residential and nursing homes who are yet to apply for Disclosure.

  However, I can confirm that the backlog of all applications is falling steadily and now equates to less than two weeks' output. Backlog, defined as the number of applications outstanding across all sectors, over three weeks old, (the published CRB service standard), is 51,857. This compares with 115,483 in October 2002, and 62,687 in the last week in January 2003. I cannot state precisely when the backlog will be entirely eradicated. I can confirm that the average turnaround time for correctly completed applications is currently five weeks across all sectors. Applications are dealt with in date order and no professions are prioritised above others.

  Family Visit Appeals
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the report of the interdepartmental review of family visit appeals. [101404]

  Beverley Hughes
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 29 January 2003,Official Report, column 915W.

  We intend to publish the report as soon as possible.

  Pre-sentence Reports
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what steps he intends to take to speed up the provision of pre-sentence reports by the probation service; [101175]

  (2) what plans he has to speed up the provision of pre-sentence reports; and what the average time has been in the last 12 months for the provision of pre-sentence reports, broken down by magistrate' court. [101166]

  Hilary Benn
  Chief Officers of Probation are responsible for the provision of probation services in their area, including the provision of pre-sentence reports to the courts. To assist performance in this area, the National Probation Directorate (NPD) has issued guidance to areas on effectively prioritising workloads and developing local protocols with courts. The NPD has also formulated a revised agreement with the Crown Prosecution Service and the Police for the provision of necessary advance information to the Probation Service to help with the timely production of pre-sentence reports for the courts. The NPD will continue to monitor performance of probation areas on the provision of pre-sentence reports and to consider ways to improve performance.

  Information is not available centrally on average times for probation officers to submit reports to individual magistrates' courts. National Standards for the Supervision of Offenders in the Community 2000 (revised 2002), which apply to the National Probation Service for England and Wales, require pre-sentence reports to be prepared within 15 working days of request by the court. The National Probation Service currently has a target to produce 90 per cent. of pre-sentence reports within 15 days. The latest figures, which relate to magistrates' courts, show that for all probation areas in 2001–02, 79 per cent. of reports were provided within the 15-day target.

  Speeding
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to issue guidelines on consistency relating to speeding penalties. [101169]

  Hilary Benn
  The Magistrates' Association already produces sentencing guidelines for their members, which cover many of the main offences dealt with by magistrates, including speeding. The Criminal Justice Bill contains provision for the establishment of a Sentencing Guidelines Council. The Council will be responsible for setting guidelines for the full range of criminal offences and will be established as soon as possible after the enabling legislation is enacted. It is too 198W
  early to say at this point how soon the Council will turn its attention to the offence of speeding, and road traffic offences generally.

  Work Permits
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people in the last year have been covered by applications for work permits under the Intra-Company Transfer Scheme; how many ICT applications have been granted; how many were examined in detail and checked; and how many were rejected and why. [101503]

  Beverley Hughes
  In 2002 Work Permits (UK) made decisions on 26,373 applications for work permits under the arrangements for intra-company transferees (ICTs). Of these 26,005 were approved and 368 were refused. 110 applications were refused on grounds of insufficient skills and experience, 21 on the grounds that no genuine vacancy existed, 78 on grounds of inadequate salary and 159 for other reasons.

  All applications for work permits for ICTs are checked against the criteria of the work permit arrangements, which require that the company making the application is a UK-based employer with a direct link by common ownership with the overseas company; that both the post and the worker meet the skills, qualifications and experience requirements of the work permit arrangements; that the worker is an established employee with essential company knowledge and at least six months experience of working for the company; and that the pay and conditions of employment are equal to those that would be offered to a resident worker doing similar work.

  Work Permits (UK) may, if it has doubts about an application, request further evidence that these requirements are met.

  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many non-EU nationals are working in the UK under the Intra-Company Transfer Scheme; and how many of them are working in information technology. [101504]

  Beverley Hughes
  Since 1 January 1999, 88,820 work permits, including extensions to previously issued permits, have been approved under the Intra Company Transfer (ICT) category of the work permit arrangements, of which 33,951 have been issued in respect of workers in the IT industry. However, it is not possible to provide data as to the length of time for which these permits have been issued or the proportion of permit holders that have subsequently left the United Kingdom.

  Young Offenders
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many young people(a) are being (b) have been held in young offender institutions in each of the last five years. [95990]

  Hilary Benn
  The data requested is given in the table.
  199W

  Young people—institutions

  June 1998

  June 1999

  June 2000

  June 2001

  June 2002

  Young offender institutions

  5,614

  5,170

  5,251

  5,340

  5,518

  Juvenile institutions1

  1,661

  1,641

  1,847

  2,768

  2,991

  Total young people in all Prison Service establishments2

  11,550

  11,293

  11,231

  11,054

  11,610

  1 There were no female juvenile institutions prior to 2002.

  2 Young people are those under the age of 21. Those under the age of 18 are classified as juveniles, and those aged 18–20 are classified' as young offenders.

  Asylum Seekers
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many local drop-in centres for asylum seekers there were in each of the last five years; and who provided the service. [102464]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information is not available in the precise format requested. As part of the new support arrangements which came into force on 3 April 2000 the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) has provided grant funding to six voluntary sector organisations to provide a network of one stop services for asylum seekers. The organisations are the Refugee Council; Refugee Action; Refugee Arrivals Project; Migrant Helpline; Welsh Refugee Council and Scottish Refugee Council. Between them they run 28 one stop services across the United Kingdom. We have no central record of other drop in centres which are not funded by NASS.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers are residing in Coventry; and how many have been placed in Coventry in the last three months. [101665]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Information on the location of asylum seekers in the UK is currently linked to the support the asylum seeker receives. Asylum seekers in the UK either receive support from the National Asylum Support Service (NASS), local authorities or the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), or are supporting themselves.

  As at the end of December 2002, NASS was supporting 1,595 asylum seekers (including dependants) in accommodation in Coventry. A further 190 asylum seekers (including dependants) were receiving subsistence only support from NASS and were staying in Coventry.1

  From grant claims sent to the Home Office by local authorities, as at the end of December 2002, there were 35 single asylum seekers and 20 asylum seeker families being supported by local authorities in Coventry.

  The number of asylum seekers dispersed by NASS to Coventry over the past three months is not available.

  Statistics on the number of asylum seekers supported by NASS in each local authority are available on the Home Office's Immigration and Asylum Statistics website: http:// www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html

  1 All figures have been rounded to the nearest five.

  Aviation Security
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he has given to 200W
  the impact upon the Metropolitan Police Service of the potential use of hand-held surface to air missiles on aviation security.[100719]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Action has been taken to secure the critical ground around airports and full consideration is being given to the impact on the Police Service of this threat.

  This is a sensitive issue, on which it is naturally important to avoid providing information which could be of assistance to terrorists.

  Cannabis
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of(a) the amount of cannabis supplied and (b) the number of cannabis users in (i) the Ribble Valley and Fulwood, (ii) Lancashire. (iii) the North West of England, (iv) Wales and (v) England in each of the last six years.[100962]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  No estimates are currently available on the amount of cannabis supplied for the areas identified.

  The British Crime Survey is able to provide estimates of the proportion of cannabis users in an area (aged between 16 and 59 years old). However, this information is available only at the regional or country level.

  Last year use of cannabis (16 to 59 year olds)

  1996

  1998

  2000

  2001–02

  North West

  8.7

  9.8

  12.4

  11.9

  England

  9.7

  10.4

  10.6

  10.7

  Wales

  6.0

  8.0

  8.2

  7.0

  England and Wales

  9.5

  10.3

  10.5

  10.6

  There was a statistically significant increase in last year use of cannabis in the North West between the 1996 and 2000 British Crime Survey. Similarly, there was a significant increase in last year use of cannabis in England between the 1996 and 2000 British Crime Survey. From the [996 British Crime Survey to date, there has been no significant change in the proportion of people in Wales having used cannabis in the last year.

  The 1998 British Crime Survey estimates that the proportion of 16 to 59 year olds using cannabis in the last year in the North West was statistically higher than in England (9.8 per cent. and 10.4 per cent. respectively). In all other years, there is no significant difference in the proportion of users

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he will reply to the

  201W
  letter to him dated 19 December 2002 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. Amir Chaudhry;[100689]

  (2) when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 19 December from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. Amir Chaudhry.[102188]

  Mr. Blunkett
  A reply regarding this case was sent to my right hon. Friend's office on 11 March 2003.

  Criminal Justice Bill
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether a trial judge sitting alone under clauses 38 and 40 of the Criminal Justice Bill will consider evidence of allegations relating to jury tampering in the absence of the defendant.[102081]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 10 March 2003]: Evidence of allegations relating to jury tampering will be considered inter partes in accordance with standard practice. If, however, information relating to jury tampering is imparted to a judge on an ex parte public interest immunity application, it will be dealt with in accordance with current public interest immunity procedures.

  Mr. Marshall-Andrews
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether a successful application by the prosecution under clauses 38 and 40 of the Criminal Justice Bill will apply to all defendants tried on the same indictment.[102083]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 10 March 2003]: A successful application by the prosecution under clause 38, or a decision by a judge to discharge the jury and continue the trial sitting alone, or order a new trial without a jury under clause 40, would apply to all defendants tried on the same indictment. This would happen in all cases, subject to a successful application for severance of the indictment, which would be determined at the discretion of the judge.

  Mr. Marshall-Andrews
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complex or lengthy trials, as defined by clause 37 of the Criminal Justice Bill, were tried by jury trial in(a) 1999, (b) 2000 and (c) 2001; and how many were not serious fraud trials in each case.[102084]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 10 March 2003]: The Criminal Justice Bill makes provision, in clause 37, for the prosecution to apply for certain long or complex trials to be conducted without a jury. The circumstances under which a trial can be conducted without a jury under clause 37 are likely to apply to a range of offences. It is therefore not possible to supply the statistics requested. However, the Government do not expect there to be more than 15 to 20 such trials each year.

  Mr. Marshall-Andrews
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether a trial judge sitting alone under clause 37 of the Criminal Justice Bill will conduct applications relating to Public Interest Immunity in chambers in the absence of the defendant. [102082]
  202W
  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 10 March 2003]: Applications for non-jury trials under clause 37 made on the basis of information imparted to the judge on an ex parte public interest immunity application will be made in accordance with current Public Interest Immunity procedures.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his estimate is of real spending by his Department in each year from 1980–81 to 2005–06 (planned) at 2000–01 prices; and if he will make a statement.[99882]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The available information is set out in the following table.

  Figures for spending before 1985–86 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  £000

  Financial year

  Expenditure1

  1985–86

  4,958,000

  1986–87

  5,285,000

  1987–88

  5,565,849

  1988–89

  5,534,148

  1989–90

  5,869,193

  1990–91

  6,466,092

  1991–92

  6,946,235

  1992–93

  7,036,640

  1993–94

  7,036,242

  1994–95

  7,225,539

  1995–96

  7,280,656

  1996–97

  7,117,909

  1997–98

  7,221,273

  1998–99

  8,434,889

  1999–2000

  8,443,276

  2000–01

  9,345,305

  2001–02

  9,997,180

  2002–03

  11,331,924

  2003–04

  11,663,355

  2004–05

  11,622,541

  2005–06

  12,022,156

  1 At 2000–01 prices

  The major reasons for the increases in expenditure since 1997–98 include:
  Increased police numbers and increased funding in support services for the police, in particular the development of science and technology support.
  Funding new services including: Youth Justice Board, Crime Reduction Programme, Electronic Monitoring, Criminal Justice Information Technology, Victim Support
  and the Vulnerable and Intimidated Witnesses and the Home Office's contribution to the departmental cross cutting Criminal Justice System fund.
  Transfer of asylum support and associated responsibilities from other Government Departments and the increase in asylum numbers in recent years.
  Additional funding for improving conditions in prisons and development of programmes to reduce re-offending as well as the increase in the prison population.

  Drug Offences
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women

  203W
  have been convicted of drug offences by courts covering the Greater London area in each of the last three years. [100601]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The number of men and women convicted of drug offences by courts in Greater London for the last available three years is shown in the table.

  Number of persons convicted of drug offences in the Greater London area, by gender, 1998–2000

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Males

  10,435

  10,346

  9,389

  Females

  739

  799

  648

  Source:

  RDS, Drug and Alcohol Research

  Government Buildings (Security Review)
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the most recent review of the security at government buildings in London was undertaken; and what steps have been taken as a result of these reviews.[102115]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The security of all government buildings is kept under constant review. For reasons of security it would not be appropriate to comment on the range of security measures that are in place.

  Illegal Drugs
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his estimate is of the total cost of spending related to illegal drugs by government departments, broken down by(a) department and (b) drug; and if he will make a statement.[101765]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Information on resources is not available in the form requested. The planned pro-active expenditure, broken down between the four aims of the Drug Strategy, for this year and the next three years, is as follows:

  £million

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–05

  2005–06

  Protecting young people

  102

  149

  155

  163

  Reducing supply

  376

  380

  380

  380

  Safeguarding communities*

  110

  212

  297

  367

  Drug treatment**

  438

  503

  512

  573

  Total

  1,026

  1,244

  1,344

  1,483

  * Includes expenditure strengthening delivery

  ** Includes mainstream spending, prison treatment and pooled budgets

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Simon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the reasons are for the closure of the Birmingham Public Enquiry Office of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate; and when it is expected to reopen.[101660]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Birmingham Public Enquiry Office is closed for essential refurbishment purposes. As soon as the completion date is known the re-opening date and details of the services and facilities, which the refurbished office will provide, will be published.

  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 in Brussels on 27 to 28 February; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if she will make a statement.[101359]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  My noble Friend (Lord Filkin) represented the United Kingdom at the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council in Brussels on 27–28 February.

  The A points were approved as in document PTS A 8 (6756/03) (a copy has been placed in the Library) with the exception of point 3.

  The Council discussed the draft Council Decision 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. Member states remained divided on whether refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection should receive equal treatment on family unity (Article 21), access to employment (Article 24), social welfare (Article 26) and health care (Article 27). The Presidency reminded member states of the undertaking made at the Seville European Council to adopt the text by June.

  The Council reached a general approach on the draft: Council Directive an the right to family reunification subject to consideration of the European Parliament's opinion and one parliamentary scrutiny reserve. The UK has not opted in to the adoption of this measure.

  The Commission set out its ideas for strengthening of the procedures for passport control at the Schengen entry points, designed to tighten existing controls on the entry of third-country nationals at Schengen borders. Two member states presented a joint paper on the future use of biometrics in visas and residence permits. Lord Filkin stressed the importance of work in this area being carried out in line with existing international standards. He also invited the Commission to examine ways of using Eurodac data to assist in identifying those who overstayed in the Schengen area.

  The Commission gave a short presentation of the forthcoming feasibility study on improving sea-borders control, proposing the creation of three maritime zones covering the Western, Central and Eastern Mediterranean.

  This was followed by an orientation debate concerning the effectiveness of financial resources available at Community level for dealing with migration issues. Lord Filkin called for appropriate budget and burden sharing mechanisms and urged the Commission to produce its report on burden sharing before June. One member state called for an increase in the Community budget to support JHA-related work on burden sharing, whilst two others argued for restructuring of the European Refugee Fund to allow money to be used for repatriation measures.

  During the open debate on fighting organised crime in the Western Balkans the Presidency underlined its commitment to action in the Balkans and the need for concrete follow-up to the London Conference on organised crime in South East Europe. The Presidency also reiterated the view that responsibility for change

  205W
  rested with Governments in the region. Lord Filkin focused on the need to move from rhetoric to action, to implement the commitments made at the London Conference and to develop appropriate mechanisms to monitor progress. He also underlined that countries in the region must co-operate fully with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Other member states highlighted the importance of reinforcing the rule of law, the creation of stable institutions and of increased police co-operation in response to the trafficking of drugs and people through the Balkans.

  The Council suspended negotiations with the US on the draft Agreements between the EU and USA on Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters and on Extradition which remained subject to a reservation by one member state. The Presidency undertook to prepare documents for member states' use for the purpose of consulting their national parliaments on the proposed Agreements.

  The Council discussed the outstanding issues on the draft Framework Decision on combating racism and xenophobia. There was agreement that the scope of offences in Article 1 should not include acts directed against a group of persons defined by reference to their "belief'. However a recital was proposed explaining that the use of the word "religion" could include persons "'defined by reference to their religious convictions or belief'.

  Member states remained divided on the scope of criminal liability in Article 8. Four delegations favoured the inclusion of a provision obliging member states to derogate from dual criminality for mutual legal assistance in relation to offences of racism and xenophobia if they applied the stricter test for criminal liability. The UK and five other member states opposed. Lord Filkin reiterated the need to strike a balance between effective measures on racism and xenophobia and freedom of speech; he noted that improvements to judicial co-operation arrangements should be pursued through mutual recognition initiatives.

  The Council discussed a list of offences for which cross-border fines would be enforced in the absence of dual criminality in the draft Framework Decision on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties. A majority of delegations, including the UK, were content to use the list adopted for the European Arrest Warrant, adding road traffic offences and six other types of conduct. However, one member state said that the European Arrest Warrant list was unsuitable for this instrument and three others had reservations on the inclusion of specific offences.

  The Council reached a general approach on the draft Framework Decision on attacks against information systems subject to consideration of the Recitals, the European Parliament's opinion and parliamentary scrutiny reserves from five member states.

  Under Any Other Business, the Commission gave a progress report on the implementation of the Afghan Return Programme. Voluntary returns were due to commence on 1 April 2003. Over lunch, the Commission reported on negotiations with Switzerland for its
  206W
  participation in Schengen arrangements. There was also a discussion of current counter-terrorism arrangements, including the role of Europol.

  Lili Lin
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the proposed deportation of Lili Lin, Home Office reference number L1053356.[101322]

  Beverley Hughes
  Ms Lin was due to be removed from the United Kingdom on 6 March 2003, under administrative powers contained in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. She was not being deported. Ms Lin has since submitted a further application to remain in the United Kingdom. She will not be removed while this application is under consideration.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times since 2001 he has taken flights within his departmental duties in the UK; how many of these were(a) charter flights, (b) first or club class and (c) by helicopter; and who accompanied him on each trip.[95385]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I have taken eight flights within the UK while undertaking my departmental duties since 2001. With the exception of one standard, scheduled flight, all of these were RAF flights. 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 Library.

  In addition to my protection officers, I am normally accompanied by a private secretary and/or a special adviser.

  Misuse of Drugs Act
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 11 February 2003,Official Report, column 717W, on the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, when the Government expect to publish a summary of the responses to the consultation on draft guidelines.[100671]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  We have received a very large number of diverse comments in response to our consultation about the amended section 8. We are currently analysing the comments to the consultation exercise. A summary of these will be published once a decision on section 8 has been made.

  Nurses
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 5 February 2003,Official Report, column 317W, on the overseas nurse advice line, when the decision to continue funding the helpline was made; what meetings were held; and if he will list the organisations which were consulted.[100152]

  Mr. Hutton
  I have been asked to reply.

  The decision to continue funding the overseas nurses advice line was made in February 2003.
  207W
  Meetings are held on a quarterly basis by the International Nurses Working Group, set up to identify the problems faced by overseas nurses.

  Representatives from the Royal College of Nursing, UNISON, Nursing and Midwifery Council, Work Permits (UK), Independent Healthcare Association, Registered Nursing Home Association, Department of Trade and Industry, Philippines Embassy and Philippines Nursing UK attend the International Nurses Working Group meetings.

  Overseas Trips
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the overseas trips made by himself and other members of his ministerial team in 2002; and what the(a) purpose and (b) cost was in each case. [101476]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer provided by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Alexander) on 22 January 2003,Official Report, column 334W.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes), on the Angel Group, ref. 99702, if he will identify the nature of the contract to which the answer refers. [102488]

  Number of police dogs in each force area by breed

  Constabularies

  German Shepherd

  Labrador

  Border Collie

  Retriever

  German Pointer

  Springer Spaniel

  Cocker Spaniel

  Avon and Somerset

  45

  —

  —

  —

  —

  14

  —

  Bedfordshire

  15

  3

  —

  —

  —

  8

  1

  Cambridgeshire

  18

  8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cheshire

  23

  1

  —

  —

  —

  11

  2

  City of London

  6

  5

  —

  1

  —

  13

  2

  Cleveland

  18

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10

  Cumbria

  18

  4

  —

  —

  —

  3

  1

  Derbyshire

  21

  1

  —

  —

  —

  8

  —

  Devon and Cornwall

  42

  3

  2

  —

  1

  14

  —

  Dorset

  18

  1

  —

  —

  1

  5

  1

  Durham

  25

  4

  —

  —

  —

  9

  —

  Dyfed Powys

  16

  4

  1

  2

  1

  5

  —

  Essex

  42

  —

  —

  —

  —

  13

  —

  Gloucestershire

  16

  2

  1

  1

  —

  4

  1

  Greater Manchester

  135

  11

  2

  —

  —

  18

  —

  Gwent

  15

  4

  —

  —

  —

  7

  —

  Hampshire

  32

  4

  1

  —

  —

  9

  1

  Hertfordshire

  23

  1

  —

  —

  1

  7

  —

  Humberside

  27

  6

  —

  —

  —

  5

  —

  Isle of Man

  3

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Kent

  35

  5

  —

  —

  1

  12

  —7

  Lancashire

  41

  10

  —

  1

  2

  21

  —

  Leicestershire

  21

  5

  —

  2

  —

  5

  —

  Lincolnshire

  20

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9

  —

  Merseyside

  40

  3

  —

  —

  —

  19

  1

  Metropolitan

  193

  12

  —

  —

  —

  27

  7

  Norfolk

  18

  5

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  Northamptonshire

  11

  5

  1

  —

  —

  3

  —

  Northumbria

  62

  3

  —

  —

  —

  19

  —

  North Wales

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  North Yorkshire

  20

  4

  1

  —

  —

  9

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  24

  —

  1

  —

  —

  12

  —

  South Wales

  44

  5

  —

  —

  1

  13

  —

  South Yorkshire

  51

  47

  1

  —

  —

  9

  —

  Staffordshire

  20

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  —

  Suffolk

  14

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7

  1

  208W
  Beverley Hughes
  The Angel Group has a contract with the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) to provide accommodation for asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute and have no way of providing for their own accommodation.

  PFI Prisons
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were in(a) PFI and (b) non-PFI funded prisons at the latest date for which information is available.[101761]

  Hilary Benn
  On 5 March 2003, 6,683 prisoners were held in prisons managed by the private sector. This figure includes Doncaster and Wolds prisons, which are managed by the private sector but which were built under traditional procurement methods. On the same date, 65,732 prisoners were held in prisons managed by the public sector, making a total prison population of 72,415.

  Police Dogs/Horses
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) dogs and (b) horses are employed by each police force, broken down by species.[100370]

  Mr. Denham
  The Association of Chief Police Officers has provided the following information:
  209W

  Number of police dogs in each force area by breed

  Constabularies

  German Shepherd

  Labrador

  Border Collie

  Retriever

  German Pointer

  Springer Spaniel

  Cocker Spaniel

  Surrey

  28

  6

  1

  —

  —

  11

  —

  Sussex

  33

  7

  1

  —

  —

  21

  —

  Thames Valley

  33

  —

  2

  —

  —

  16

  1

  Warwickshire

  12

  2

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  West Mercia

  42

  3

  1

  —

  —

  13

  —

  West Midlands

  69

  3

  —

  —

  —

  24

  —

  West Yorkshire

  51

  —

  5

  —

  —

  24

  1

  Wiltshire

  12

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8

  —

  Constabularies

  Cross Breeds

  Weimaraner

  Malinois

  Rottweiler

  Bloodhound

  Working Sheepdog

  Totals

  Avon and Somerset

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  60

  Bedfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  28

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  26

  Cheshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  37

  City of London

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  27

  Cleveland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  30

  Cumbria

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  28

  Derbyshire

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  31

  Devon and Cornwall

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  63

  Dorset

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  27

  Durham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  38

  Dyfed Powys

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  31

  Essex

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  55

  Gloucestershire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  25

  Greater Manchester

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  167

  Gwent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  26

  Hampshire

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  48

  Hertfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  33

  Humberside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  38

  Isle of Man

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  Kent

  1

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  56

  Lancashire

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  77

  Leicestershire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  33

  Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  30

  Merseyside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  63

  Metropolitan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  239

  Norfolk

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  27

  Northamptonshire

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  21

  Northumbria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  84

  North Wales

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  14

  North Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  34

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  37

  South Wales

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  63

  South Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  108

  Staffordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  26

  Suffolk

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  22

  Surrey

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  47

  Sussex

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  63

  Thames Valley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  52

  Warwickshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  18

  West Mercia

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  60

  West Midlands

  2

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  102

  West Yorkshire

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  82

  Wiltshire

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  21

  Number of police horses by force area

  Constabularies

  Horses

  Avon and Somerset

  10

  City of London

  6

  Cleveland

  9

  Greater Manchester

  41

  Humberside

  8

  Lancashire

  20

  Merseyside

  24

  210W

  Number of police horses by force are

  Constabularies

  Horses

  Metropolitan

  120

  Northumbria

  9

  Nottinghamshire

  10

  South Wales

  8

  South Yorkshire

  16

  Thames Valley

  8

  West Yorkshire

  22

  Prisoner Transfers
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what role the Audit Commission plays in(a) auditing custody suites and (b) monitoring the cost of transfer of prisoners between custody cells and Court. [100387]

  Hilary Benn
  The task of transferring prisoners between custody cells and the courts is carried out by private contractors on behalf of the Home Office, which pays the costs. The Audit Commission would only become involved in monitoring these costs and in the auditing of custody suites if specific concerns were discovered by the Commission's auditors during the annual risk-based planning process for each individual police authority.

  Prisons
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what estimate he has made of the total operational capacity of prisons in England and Wales by 2006, based on current trends; [101211]

  (2) what extra capacity the new prisons at Ashford and Peterborough will provide the Prison Service by 2006; and if he will make a statement; [101210]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the Prison Service's Operation Container initiative. [101217]

  Hilary Benn
  Operation Container was the name given to the arrangements by which Prison Service prisoners were held in police cells in the early 1990s. Operation Container is no longer in force and the Prison Service now operates the holding of Prison Service prisoners in police cells under the name Operation Safeguard. Operation Safeguard was last activated between 12 July and 20 December 2002 and at present no Prison Service prisoners are held in police cells.

  The two new prisons at Ashford and Peterborough will together provide 1,290 places by 2004–05. It is planned that the prison at Ashford will accommodate 450 females and the prison at Peterborough is planned to have 840 places in total: of these, 480 will be for males and 360 for females.

  Current projections for the Prison Service anticipate a total useable operational capacity of 77,500 by 2006. This is an average figure, which is used for the purpose of planning the Prison Service estate. The Prison Service continues to investigate options for providing further increases in capacity over the coming years, as part of the Government's prison modernisation strategy. This is based on a combination of expanding capacity in existing prisons that we want to keep in the long term, and a programme to build new concept large multifunctional prisons.

  The work of the Correctional Services Review is looking at what measures can be taken in the short term to reduce the prison population. We are committed to managing any rise in prison population through the provision of additional capacity and reform to the Criminal Justice system.
  212W
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the performance of Premier Custodial Group Limited in its provision of private prisons. [101433]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 10 March 2003]: The management of Ashfield young offender institution was handed back from the Prison Service to Premier Prison Services Ltd. on 14 October 2002. Since then the performance of the establishment has been unsatisfactory and a rectification notice has been issued requiring Premier to rectify failures to comply with contractual requirements. Premier's programme of rectification is currently being audited.

  The performance of Premier at its other three establishments Doncaster prison and young offender institution, Dovegate and Lowdham Grange prisons has been generally satisfactory.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the(a) quality and (b) standards of performance of (i) private sector and (ii) public sector prisons. [101434]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 10 March 2003]: Private sector prisons are subject to the same assessments of their performance as that of public sector. These assessments include the following: inspections by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons; annual reports by the Independent Monitoring Boards (formerly Board of Visitors) of each prison; and regular audits made by the Prison Service on each prison in terms of compliance with Prison Service performance Targets and Standards.

  The Prison Service is looking to further develop its existing performance management framework as part of a performance improvement programme that will build on the success of Performance Testing. Consultations are underway and an announcement will be made shortly.

  Probation Services
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact of including property portfolios within the annual budget formula for probation services.[101173]

  Hilary Benn
  Property has, in fact, been removed from the annual resource allocation formula, and new standard charging arrangements introduced to ensure that increased investment creates a better and more equitable standard of probation property across England and Wales.

  Recidivism
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the trend in recidivism over the last decade. [101222]

  Hilary Benn
  Two-year `un-adjusted' reconviction rates for prisoners discharged from custody are available for 1987 to 1998. These were 57 per cent. in 1987, 55 per cent. in 1988, 53 per cent. in 1989, 52 per cent. in 1990, 53 per cent. in 1991, 51 per cent. in 1992, 53 per cent. in 1993, 56 per cent. in 1994, 58 per
  213W
  cent. in 1995, 57 per cent. in 1996, 58 per cent. in 1997 and 59 per cent. in 1998. These rates are published in 'Prison Statistics—England and Wales 2001'.

  The change in rates over the years will mainly be explained by changes in the underlying demographic and criminological characteristics of the offenders sentenced to custody over this period of time. These include gender, age when sentenced, number of previous convictions, type of offence and other factors. Due to this and other reasons custodial and community penalty reconviction rates should not be directly compared.

  Reconviction rates for offenders discharged from custody have also been published according to the requirements of the Governments Public Service Agreement (PSA) 10 target. These are adjusted to take out convictions for offences committed prior to discharge, giving a reconviction rate of 55.3 per cent. for the first quarter of 1999. The equivalent figures for the first quarter of 1997 and 1998 are 56.8 per cent. and 55.7 per cent. respectively.

  Neither set of rates indicates trends in rates over time, as they make no allowance for changes in the characteristics and criminal histories of offenders given custodial sentences. To do this a predicted rate is used. Comparisons between the actual and predicted reconviction rates for 1999 show that the actual rate was 3.3 percentage points lower than predicted relative to the 1997 baseline.

  Reconviction rates for more recent periods are not yet available.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department of those arrested for alleged terrorist offences since 11 September 2001, how many (a) have been charged with offences under anti-terrorism legislation, (b) were not charged but were handed over to immigration officials for alleged breach of rules; and how many of those not charged but handed over to immigration officials (i) have been deported and (ii) await deportation (A) in custody and (B) at liberty; how many have been detained without charge under anti-terrorism legislation; and if he will make a statement. [99620]

  Mr. Blunkett
  335 people have been arrested in total since 11 September 2001 of whom 53 have been charged and 42 have been released into Immigration Service custody. Fifteen people have been detained under the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001 of whom two have left the country. Figures on deportation are published quarterly.

  Wakefield Prison
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary o f State for the Home Department how many prisoners at Wakefield Prison have had their status reduced from enhanced to standard in the last 12 months; and how many prisoners are in each category. [101379]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 6 March 2003]: There have been 116 prisoners reduced from enhanced to standard level of the Incentives and Earned Privileges
  214W
  (IEP) scheme at Wakefield prison in the past 12 months. The number of prisoners on each level is currently: Basic 11; Standard 357; and Enhanced 202.

  There have been significantly higher numbers of prisoners downgraded from Enhanced to Standard IEP level across the prison estate this year. This is because of changes to the way in which incentive level reviews are now carried out. Under the revised procedures, prisoners who refuse to comply with their sentence plan and therefore to attend offending behaviour programmes, do not now progress as quickly towards enhanced status. In the case of Wakefield, prisoners not complying with their sentence would not gain as many points, under the local arrangements, towards progression to enhanced status. This has also resulted in larger numbers of this type of prisoner been downgraded from enhanced to standard.

  Work Permits
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many in-country work permits were approved in 2002; and what proportion were granted to those previously holding a work permit. [101078]

  Beverley Hughes
  There were 40,888 in-country work permits issued in 2002, and a further 24,506 authorised extensions to previously issued work permits. Applications can be made in respect of overseas workers already in the UK where there has been a change of employment or a technical change of work. The Immigration Rules also make provision for students who have obtained a degree whilst studying in the UK, and postgraduate doctors, nurses and dentists who have remained in the UK after becoming qualified, to "switch" to work permit status.

  The right hon. Member may have been misled into thinking that work permits can be issued to asylum seekers. Asylum seekers cannot apply for work permits, and are not in the categories of those allowed to "switch" into work permit status.

PRIME MINISTER

  Forward Strategy Unit
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the activities of Lord Birt as a member of the Forward Strategy Unit over the last 12 months; on how many occasions Lord Birt has travelled by public transport in the last 12 months as part of his work with the Forward Strategy Unit; and how much Lord Birt has claimed in expenses as a result of his appointment to the Forward Strategy Unit.[102382]

  The Prime Minister
  Lord Birt is my unpaid strategy adviser. He is not a member of the Strategy Unit, but works alongside the Strategy Unit on a range of issues. The nature of Lord Birt's work is to provide private internal advice to me and other Cabinet Ministers. This advice is not disclosed under Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Lord Birt works primarily in London and my understanding is that he regularly uses public transport. He has not claimed any expenses in the last 12 months.

  Iraq
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps the Government has taken(a) to minimise environmental damage and (b) to restore environmental damage caused in the event of a war in Iraq. [102498]

  The Prime Minister
  No decision to launch military action against Iraq has been taken.

  Johnson Press
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Prime Minister on (1) what occasions members of his Office have(a) met and (b) spoken to (i) Mr. Roger Parry, Chairman and (ii) Mr. Tim Bowdler, Chief Executive of Johnston Press, in connection with the Hartlepool Mail in the last 12 months; [102490]

  (2) on what occasions he has (a) met and (b) spoken to (i) Mr. Roger Parry, Chairman and (ii) Mr. Tim Bowdler, Chief Executive of Johnston Press in the last 12 months. [102489]

  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister when he last had discussions with Mr. Roger Parry of Johnson Press. [102540]

  The Prime Minister
  Ministers and Government officials have meetings with a wide range of organisations and individuals. As with previous Administrations it is not the Government's practice to provide details of all such meetings, under exemptions 2 and 7 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Kyoto Protocol
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister when he last discussed the Kyoto Protocol with President Bush; and if he will make a statement. [102499]

  The Prime Minister
  I have regular discussions with President Bush on a wide range of international issues including energy policy and climate change. The Government welcomes the US's recognition that climate change is a serious problem and the fact that it is taking domestic action.

  The UK is fully committed to the Kyoto Protocol, with its binding targets and timetables, which is designed to deliver absolute global emissions reductions. The UK will work with other governments to develop the technologies needed to reduce global emissions further in the longer term.

  Lords-Lieutenant
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister what requirements there are for Lord Lieutenants to declare political affiliation. [101886]

  The Prime Minister
  Lord Lieutenants are aware that their role is essentially non-political. As Her Majesty's representatives Lord Lieutenants should stand apart from politics in their respective counties or areas and should not, therefore, take part in local political activities or hold office in local political party organisations. Lord Lieutenants are also advised that 216W
  participation in national political activity may carry some potential risk for their impartiality at county or area level.

  Security Council (Veto)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his policy relating to judging a veto in the UN Security Council as unreasonable. [102496]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) at Prime Minister's questions on 26 February 2003,Official Report, columns 250–51.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Departmental Press Officers
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) full and (b) part time press officers were employed by her Department in April 1997; and how many are employed now. [101891]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave on 24 February 2003, Official Report., column 20W. In relation to(a) the Lord Chancellor's Department employed three full-time press officers in. 1997 and now employs 10.

  With regard to (b), the Lord Chancellor's Department has not employed any part time press officers.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much was spent in legal a id on funding asylum(a) hearings, (b) appeals and (c) judicial reviews in the last two years; and if she will make a statement. [101892]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Legal Service Commission's computer systems do not record expenditure according to the stage a case has reached; nor is it possible to identify asylum expenditure separately from the more general category of immigration matters. However, for the last two completed financial years, expenditure on immigration and asylum was £81 million in 2000–01 and £130 million in 2001–02, We estimate that at least 90 per cent. of that expenditure related to asylum matters.

  Legal Services (Consumer Choice)
  Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what progress has been made in increasing consumer choice in legal services. [101894]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  In April 1998, the Institute of Legal Executives joined the Bar Council and the Law Society as an authorised body in its own right and as a fully fledged part of the legal profession. In November 1999, the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents was similarly designated. These developments represent a small, but important, increase in the number of people
  217W
  qualified to appear before the courts, widening the availability of legal services to the public. Reform of the law relating to conditional fees agreements has also allowed innovative products to be developed, which have increased the funding options available to individuals with winnable cases.

  The Government remain keen to remove restrictive practices not in the public interest. The removal of such practices could provide an incentive for lawyers, or other providers, to introduce innovative, high quality and affordable services to the public. In most cases, open and competitive markets are the best way to ensure that consumers get the best possible service, while continuing to protect consumers and ensuring probity. The Government have consulted on matters that fall to it following on from the Office of Fair Trading's report on competition in professions. We are currently considering the responses to that consultation.

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans the Department has to open new Magistrates courts in Cambridgeshire. [101895]

  Yvette Cooper
  There are no plans to open any new Magistrates courts in Cambridgeshire. Cambridgeshire Magistrates Courts Committee (MCC) will continue to operate from the five Magistrates courts based at Peterborough, Cambridge, Wisbech, Huntingdon and Ely. The MCC in providing an effective and efficient service to all court users has responsibility to explore opportunities for the provision of replacement buildings if necessary.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) adults and (b) juveniles were tried at Chorley Magistrates Court in each of the last three years. [100839]

  Yvette Cooper
  The total number of adult and youth cases dealt with by Lancashire MCC in Chorley South Ribble and Ormskirk Magistrates Courts as whole is as follows:

  Adult

  2000–01

  2001–02

  12002–03

  Indictable

  2,394

  1,942

  1,848

  Breaches

  453

  295

  392

  Summary Non Motoring

  5,289

  5,027

  3,217

  Motoring

  4,316

  4,261

  5,278

  Youth

  825

  719

  685

  1 Projected

  The MCC has not allocated separation figures for Chorley.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what criteria are used when determining the(a) closure and (b) retention of magistrates courts; and what the process and timescale is. [100836]

  Yvette Cooper
  Under section 56(1) of Justice of the Peace Act 1997 (JPA), decisions to close or retain magistrates courts are made by locally based Magistrates Courts Committees (MCCs) after consultation with the local paying authority. The paying 218W
  authority concerned is notified in writing of any determination to close and has the right of appeal to the Lord Chancellor within one month of the written notification, section 56(3) JPA 1997. Opportunities for representation are given to all concerned parties and the appeal is concluded when the Lord Chancellor is satisfied that this has happened and then makes his decision. His decision is final and binding on both parties. There is no pre-determined timescale.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what progress is being made with those Magistrates courts that are working with computer network technologies. [101168]

  Yvette Cooper
  Under the Libra Project, a common national infrastructure and Office Automation has now been delivered to over 90 per cent. of Magistrates courts staff. There are four MCCs remaining in the rollout programme and these will be completed by spring 2003. A total of 9,116 workstations have been deployed, giving access to 10,701 users.

  Criminal Damages
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department in how many cases during the last five years a criminal has succeeded in obtaining damages in court against his victim. [101830]

  Yvette Cooper
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at a disproportionate cost to the Department.

  Lay Magistrates
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the Lord Chancellor will announce the national strategy for the recruitment of lay magistrates. [100464]

  Yvette Cooper
  My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has recently approved the final draft of the National Strategy for the Recruitment of Lay Magistrates and hopes to announce its launch as soon as the financial provisions are in place, which is expected to be next month (April 2003).

  The key aims of the strategy are to recruit and retain magistrates from a diverse spectrum of the population, to raise the profile of the magistracy and dispel misconceptions about its make up and entry requirements.

  Libra System
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what progress is being made with the installation of the Libra system; and what recent discussions he has had with Fujitsu. [101167]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Libra infrastructure and office automation has now been delivered to over 90 per cent. of magistrates courts staff. Development of the Libra national case-management software application is under way. Deployment of the application is expected to begin in 2004 and will be completed in 2005.

  A revised contract with Fujitsu Services was signed on 23 July 2002. Under this contract Fujitsu Services will provide the infrastructure and office automation

  219W
  services to MCCs until 31 March 2007. Discussions on a supplier/client basis take place continually within the contract.

  Mental Capacity Bill
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when she intends to produce a draft Mental Capacity Bill; and if she will make a statement. [101893]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I am pleased to say that we have already begun preparing a draft Mental Incapacity Bill for publication when all the necessary work is complete. This will be based upon our Policy Statement 'Making Decisions'. I regard this as an extremely positive and important step forward in the area of mental incapacity.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Dreamland Scenic Railway
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if his Department regards the Dreamland scenic railway, Margate, as a fixed object for the purposes of listed building content. [102429]

  Mr. McNulty
  It is for the local planning authority in the first instance to determine whether works require listed building consent in any particular case. Any definitive interpretation of the statutes would be for the Courts.

  Building Development (Flood Risk)
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make it a requirement that when local authorities draw up section 106 agreements with developers(a) consideration is given to any increased flooding risks caused by the developments and (b) developers should be obliged to meet the financial burdens caused by this flooding risk. [101341]

  Mr. McNulty
  Planning policy guidance note (PPG) 25 "Development and flood risk" already advises that Section 106 agreements, entered into before permission is granted, may be an appropriate means of ensuring that the provision and future maintenance of any necessary flood defence or flood alleviation works required because of a development are fully funded by the developer as part of the development. It also advises that similar arrangements may be needed in respect of the maintenance and renewal of culverts or of sustainable drainage systems.

  The primary responsibility for dealing with flooding issues lies with the landowner under common law. In particular, individual property owners are responsible

  Table 1

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Barking and Dagenham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Barnet

  2

  2

  2

  0

  0

  Bexley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Brent

  29

  19

  16

  7

  4

  Bromley

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Camden

  59

  66

  54

  38

  28

  City of London

  41

  36

  40

  30

  41

  220W
  for managing the drainage of their land to prevent nuisance to neighbouring property. Where a person's actions, such as acts of development of land, cause flooding that would not have occurred otherwise then that person may be liable in negligence for damages caused. However, proving the causal link may not be straightforward and that is a matter for the courts to determine. It is, therefore, very much in the interests of developers to ensure that the sites they build on are not vulnerable to flooding and do not add to flood risk at other properties.

  Electoral Register
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when the final day is for additions to the electoral register with respect to the 1 May 2003 election. [102316]

  Mr. Leslie
  The final day for electors to apply to be added to the electoral register for the local council elections on 1 May 2003 election is 11 March 2003, except in a small number of cases where electoral pilot. schemes, including alterations to the final registration date, are proposed. Arrangements in these cases are being published locally.

  Green Belt (Kent)
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what measures he is taking to maintain greenbelt land in Kent Thames-side. [101955]

  Mr. McNulty
  "Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future" indicates that the Government's target is to maintain or increase the current area of land designated as Green Belt in local plans in each region. It also states the Government's intention to use Green Belt and other countryside protection tools to maintain the openness of the countryside around areas of growth, such as in the Thames Gateway.

  Homelessness
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his Department's latest estimate is of the number of homeless people without regular shelter for each night; and how many there were in each of the last five years for each London borough; and if he will make a statement. [100269]

  Mrs. Roche
  Specific information on the number of homeless people without regular shelter is not held centrally. However, in terms of people sleeping rough, as of June 2002, local authority statistics show that nationally, around 596 people are sleeping rough on any one night. This represents a reduction of 68 per cent. since 1998 when it was estimated that in England, 1,850 people were sleeping rough on any one night.

  The table sets out data on rough sleeping for all London boroughs over the last five years.
  221W

  Table 1

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Croydon

  25

  25

  25

  7

  6

  Ealing

  24

  18

  14

  7

  4

  Enfield

  —

  14

  7

  0

  0

  Greenwich

  11

  21

  5

  0

  3

  Hackney

  6

  7

  8

  0

  11

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  11

  16

  13

  3

  4

  Haringey

  8

  6

  2

  2

  8

  Harrow

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Havering

  —

  5

  0

  0

  0

  Hillingdon

  —

  0

  8

  0

  0

  Hounslow

  20

  —

  11

  8

  3

  Islington

  13

  14

  12

  0

  2

  Kensington and Chelsea

  23

  28

  14

  15

  6

  Kingston upon Thames

  0

  3

  3

  3

  0

  Lambeth

  20

  46

  47

  23

  12

  Lewisham

  —

  2

  6

  3

  1

  Merton

  —

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Newham

  11

  0

  0

  8

  0

  Redbridge

  —

  0

  5

  5

  5

  Richmond upon Thames

  12

  16

  10

  5

  6

  Southwark

  31

  26

  7

  13

  2

  Sutton

  —

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Tower Hamlets

  31

  10

  6

  9

  2

  Waltham Forest

  6

  20

  3

  1

  4

  Wandsworth

  —

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Westminster

  237

  234

  227

  169

  169

  Total

  621

  635

  5476

  357

  321

  This data is taken from returns of the Housing Investment Programme (HIP) that are submitted annually in June by all local authorities. The figures represent the results of street counts or where counts have not taken place an estimation of the extent of the rough sleeping problem has been recorded.

  Table 2: Households in temporary accommodation at 30 September PIE data as reported by London boroughs

  1998

  1999

  2000

  LA code

  LA name

  Total

  Of which: Homeless at home

  Total

  Of which: Homeless at home

  Total

  Of which: Homeless at home

  Z5060

  Barking and Dagenham

  235

  0

  291

  0

  284

  0

  N5090

  Barnet

  1,176

  292

  1,663

  513

  n/r

  n/r

  D5120

  Bexley

  153

  0

  180

  0

  218

  0

  T5150

  Brent

  3,342

  349

  3,447

  154

  3,634

  139

  G5180

  Bromley

  n/r

  n/r

  535

  168

  571

  190

  X5210

  Camden

  2,000

  236

  2,225

  304

  2,014

  286

  K5030

  City of London

  59

  0

  72

  0

  55

  1

  L5240

  Croydon

  1,492

  0

  2,246

  0

  2,799

  0

  A5270

  Baling

  863

  0

  1,161

  0

  1,939

  341

  Q5300

  Enfield

  n/r

  n/r

  1,949

  0

  2,311

  0

  E5330

  Greenwich

  844

  590

  914

  670

  857

  560

  U5360

  Hackney

  n/r

  n/r

  1,484

  60

  n/r

  n/r

  H5390

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  757

  7

  995

  42

  1,237

  103

  Y5420

  Haringey

  3,131

  742

  3,549

  640

  4,353

  831

  M5450

  Harrow

  1,087

  88

  1,507

  263

  1,820

  314

  B5480

  Havering

  n/r

  n/r

  n/r

  n/r

  n/r

  n/r

  R5510

  Hillingdon

  1,464

  165

  1,742

  205

  1,677

  85

  F5540

  Hounslow

  977

  501

  948

  318

  1,012

  304

  V5570

  Islington

  797

  0

  1,084

  0

  1,324

  0

  K5600

  Kensington and Chelsea

  n/r

  n/r

  821

  0

  802

  0

  Z5630

  Kingston upon Thames

  n/r

  n/r

  584

  22

  544

  31

  N5660

  Lambeth

  1,167

  31

  1,428

  158

  1,679

  206

  C5690

  Lewisham

  834

  296

  1,076

  467

  1,428

  413

  T5720

  Merton

  70

  0

  96

  3

  87

  4

  G5750

  Newham

  1,957

  323

  2,123

  322

  2,836

  424

  W5780

  Redbridge

  597

  0

  723

  0

  1,184

  0

  L5810

  Richmond upon Thames

  535

  145

  626

  106

  557

  100

  A5840

  Southwark

  964

  517

  1,220

  629

  1,348

  715

  P5870

  Sutton

  331

  0

  375

  n/r

  586

  60

  222W
  The following table represents the number of households accommodated under the homelessness legislation in temporary accommodation, including homeless at home, in London over the last five years at the end of September each year.
  223W

  Table 2: Households in temporary accommodation at 30 September PIE data as reported by London boroughs

  1998

  1999

  2000

  LA code

  LA name

  Total

  Of which: Homeless at home

  Total

  Of which: Homeless at home

  Total

  Of which: Homeless at home

  E5900

  Tower Hamlets

  1,012

  250

  1,356

  227

  1,598

  211

  U5930

  Waltham Forest

  816

  162

  950

  187

  892

  106

  H5960

  Wandsworth

  n/r

  n/r

  466

  10

  912

  0

  X5990

  Westminster

  2,191

  377

  2,505

  346

  2,457

  245

  2001

  2002

  LA code

  LA name

  Total

  Of which: Homeless at home

  Total

  Of which: Homeless at home

  Z5060

  Barking and Dagenham

  398

  1

  667

  0

  N5090

  Barnet

  n/r

  n/r

  2,502

  392

  D5120

  Bexley

  234

  55

  246

  38

  T5150

  Brent

  3,719

  153

  3,647

  137

  G5180

  Bromley

  626

  258

  742

  295

  X5210

  Camden

  1,945

  214

  2,140

  250

  K5030

  City of London

  45

  0

  37

  0

  L5240

  Croydon

  2,967

  0

  3,259

  0

  A5270

  Baling

  2,275

  353

  2,216

  327

  Q5300

  Enfield

  2,323

  0

  2,593

  0

  E5330

  Greenwich

  807

  531

  1,070

  723

  U5360

  Hackney

  1,895

  142

  2,321

  160

  H5390

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,454

  132

  1,756

  144

  Y5420

  Haringey

  4,587

  751

  n/r

  n/r

  M5450

  Harrow

  1,638

  77

  1,647

  45

  B5480

  Havering

  n/r

  N/r

  290

  0

  R5510

  Hillingdon

  1,942

  125

  2,091

  165

  F5540

  Hounslow

  1,124

  305

  1,351

  299

  V5570

  Islington

  1,516

  0

  1,301

  0

  K5600

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1,120

  0

  971

  2

  Z5630

  Kingston upon Thames

  646

  20

  732

  15

  N5660

  Lambeth

  1,834

  358

  2,303

  417

  C5690

  Lewisham

  1,334

  355

  1,814

  625

  T5720

  Merton

  188

  4

  174

  5

  G5750

  Newham

  3,714

  560

  4,449

  991

  W5780

  Redbridge

  1,376

  0

  1,510

  0

  L5810

  Richmond upon Thames

  n/r

  N/r

  526

  25

  A5840

  Southwark

  907

  212

  1,261

  492

  P5870

  Sutton

  519

  94

  527

  99

  E5900

  Tower Hamlets

  1,866

  32

  2,366

  14

  U5930

  Waltham Forest

  759

  126

  1,044

  100

  H5960

  Wandsworth

  1,043

  0

  1,355

  35

  X5990

  Westminster

  2,720

  325

  3,042

  388

  n/r—Refers to PIE data not received from local authority

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the extra support recently given to homeless families. [101668]

  Mrs. Roche
  The March 2002 report, "More than a roof", set out the Government's approach to tackling and preventing homelessness. Specific measures included investment of £125 million in 2002–03 to support local authorities and the voluntary sector to support new approaches to preventing homelessness. Further support of £70 million is available in 2003–04. These resources will help to support the Government's commitment that by March 2004 no homeless family with children will have to live in bed and breakfast accommodation, except in an emergency, but for no longer than six weeks.
  224W
  Other measures include:
  the Homelessness Act 2002, which requires local authorities to undertake a review and put a strategy in place by July 2003 to ensure that support and accommodation is available within their districts for homeless people, and those at risk of homelessness;
  we are investing £6 million in 2002–03 and £11 million in 2003–04 on a special initiative to make 500 homes available for homeless families with children living in Bed & Breakfast (B&B) hotels in London;
  new advice to housing authorities on arrangements to ensure that all babies and children placed in temporary accommodation receive their health and developmental tests;
  proposals to consult on legislation and statutory guidance to prohibit the use of bed and breakfast accommodation for families with children, to raise standards in all forms of temporary accommodation, ensure that homeless households in temporary accommodation have access to health, education and social services;

  225W
  making up to £8.9 capital investment available from the Homelessness Directorate to help domestic violence survivors at risk of homelessness. Capital investment will normally be supported by the relevant local authority's Supporting People and Homelessness Strategies. This is backed up by a £2 million initiative in partnership with Comic Relief to help families in danger at home and at risk of homelessness because of violent partners.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many homeless families were placed in bed and breakfast accommodation in(a) 2001, (b) 2002 and (c) 2003 to date. [101669]

  Mrs. Roche
  Information collected relates to homeless households in temporary accommodation, including bed and breakfast, at the end of each quarter.

  Homeless households in B&B accommodation (inc. shared facility annexes)

  England

  31 March

  30 June

  30 September

  31 December

  2001

  10,830

  11,340

  12,290

  12,110

  2002

  11,800

  12,420

  13,300

  1—

  Note:

  Not yet available

  Since March 2002 the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has additionally collected information on families with children. It is estimated that at the end of each quarter of 2002 some 6,700 households in Bed & Breakfast were families with children and/or expectant mothers.

  Results for the fourth quarter 2002 will be published on the 13 March 2003.

  Housing (Stoke-on-Trent)
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister 'what resources for housing investment have been allocated to Stoke-on-Trent in each year since 1990–91. [101908]

  Mr. McNulty
  The information requested, is in the table:

  £million

  1990–91

  14.8

  1991–92

  12.5

  1992–93

  12.1

  1993–94

  11.9

  1994–95

  7.7

  1995–96

  7.3

  1996–97

  6.9

  1997–98

  5.5

  1998–99

  7.4

  1999–2000

  8.2

  2000–01

  12.1

  2001–02

  16.5

  2002–03

  16.7

  2003–04

  16.3

  The figures cover housing annual capital guidelines (which include an element to be financed from authorities' capital receipts); the major repairs allowance; support for disabled facilities grants; the Capital Receipts Initiative; and ring-fenced support for a number of housing schemes, e.g. Cash Incentive Schemes. Estate Action scheme funding is excluded. The
  226W
  reduction in 2003–04 mainly reflects a change in the local government capital finance system, which means the allocations no longer include an element assumed to be financed from authorities capital receipts.

  Key Worker Housing
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much of the money to be made available for key worker housing will be available for housing further education lecturers. [101050]

  Mr. McNulty
  Funding is being provided through the Starter Home Initiative, and the Challenge Fund in 2003–04, for key worker housing. The priority groups for assistance are teachers in the statutory sector, police, nurses and other essential health workers.

  From 2004–05 funding for the provision of key worker housing for rent and home ownership will be integrated into the Housing Corporation's main affordable housing programme. Funding will be allocated for this in the light of advice from Regional Housing Boards. The Housing Corporation expects to invite bids for key worker housing schemes at the same time as bids for other affordable housing schemes, around September 2003.

  Park Homes
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what action has been taken by the Government subsequent to the Government Response to the Recommendations of the Park Homes Working Party in November 2001; and if he will make a statement. [82518]

  Mr. McNulty
  The report on the Economics of the Park Homes Industry was published in October 2002, following the Working Party's recommendation that independent research be conducted to provide a comprehensive examination of the economics of the industry, and to consider options for change to the payment system. I am meeting the All Party Parliamentary Group for the Welfare of Park Home Owners on 4 December 2002.

  A sub-group of the Park Homes Working Party is reconvening a week later to discuss a number of other outstanding issues.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will answer question No. 82518, tabled by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton on 19 November 2002. [102426]

  Mr. McNulty
  The parliamentary question the hon. Member refers to was answered on 25 November 2002. However, it did not appear in the Official Report for this date. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has contacted the Official Reporter and arranged for the answer to appear in the bound and electronic volumes of Hansard. I attach a copy of the answer for the Member's information. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister liaises regularly with the Official Reporter to ensure that all parliamentary questions are answered accurately and on time.

  Public Housing
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what funds, in each of the last five years, have been provided to local authorities to make provision for replacement or repair of(a) leaking piping and (b) lead piping within public sector housing. [101680]

  Mr. McNulty
  The resources provided to local authorities to help fund work on repairing, renovating or improving council housing are not linked to specific items of expenditure.

  Telecommunications Masts
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister on how many occasions Articles(a) 4(1) and (b) 4(2) of the Permitted Development Order have been invoked by local authorities in Devon in each of the last three years in relation to telecommunications masts and telecommunications towers; and how many were approved by the Secretary of State to protect an interest of acknowledged importance. [102037]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister knows of no Article 4 Directions issued by Devon local authorities on these types of development over the last three years. None have been sent to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister for confirmation.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will discuss with Network Rail the location of the telecommunications mast planned to be erected in front of a historic monument in Totnes. [102038]

  Mr. McNulty
  Railway undertakers have permitted development rights for development on their operational land, required in connection with the movement of traffic by rail. If, however, the local planning authority believe that such development should not take place without specific planning permission, it is open to them to apply to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister for approval of a direction under Article 4 of the General Permitted Development Order.

  Travellers
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans the Government has to include proposals for(a) increasing provision of official traveller sites and (b) a system of charging fees for site usage of traveller sites in the Housing Bill. [101813]

  Mr. McNulty
  The information is as follows:

  (a) In formulating their development plans local planning authorities are encouraged to discuss Gypsies' accommodation needs with the Gypsies themselves, and with their representative bodies and support groups, with a view to identifying suitable locations for Gypsy sites in plans wherever possible.

  In addition, since 2001–02, we have provided a £17 million Gypsy Site Refurbishment Grant over three years. The Grant is aimed at refurbishing and extending the existing network of local authority Gypsy sites.

  (b)The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not have plans to introduce a system of charging fees for site usage. At present, this is the responsibility of local authorities.

  Urban Areas
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the 1991 Census definition was of urban areas; and what proportion of(a) the land area and (b) the population falls within such areas in each local authority. [101649]

  Mr. McNulty
  The data requested for England and Wales has been placed in the Library of the House.

  The basis of the 1991 definition of urban area (developed by the then Department of Environment (DoE) and the Welsh Office), is land use that is irreversibly urban in nature and extends for 20 hectares or more with a minimum population of 1000. Separate urban areas of land are linked if less than 50 metres apart.

  Further information is available at www.statistics.gov.uk/geography/urban_rural.asp

HEALTH

  Animal By-products
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received in support of a requirement to stain low risk animal by-products prior to disposal. [100813]

  Ms Blears
  (holding answer 4 March 2003]: I am advised on matters of food safety by the Food Standards Agency (FSA).

  In response to a public consultation on FSA proposals to require the staining or sterilisation of `high risk' poultry by-products, carried out between December 2001 and January 2002, a number of representations were received from enforcement organisations and consumer groups in support of compulsory staining or sterilisation of 'low risk' animal by-products. At the same time representations were also received from businesses and industry organisations that were opposed to the compulsory staining or sterilisation of 'low risk' by-products.

  Following this consultation, the FSA Board reviewed the arguments for and against the staining or sterilisation of 'low risk' animal by-products. The Board concluded that 'low risk' animal by-products should remain outside the requirements for staining/sterilisation, as this would be disproportionate, and that little public health benefit would be achieved.

  More recently, the FSA has received further representations from two local authorities in support of a requirement to stain low risk' animal by-products.

  Genetically Modified Food
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the Food Standards Agency are spending on the GM public debate. [100863]

  Ms Blears
  I refer my hon. Friend to the response I gave my hon. Friend, the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) on 9 December 2002,Official Report, column 146W.

  Accident and Emergency Admissions
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS patients were admitted to wards from accident and emergency departments within(a) one hour, (b) two hours, (c) three hours, (d) four hours and (e) more than four hours after being seen by a doctor or consultant in each of the last 12 months for which figures are available. [97824]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department collects data waiting times in accident and emergency post decision to admit.

  The numbers of patients waiting two hours, between two and four hours and over four hours in the last four quarters are shown in the table.

  Patients placed in bed in a ward

  Patients not placed in bed in a ward

  within 2 hours of a decision to admit

  within 2 to 4 hours of a decision to admit

  within 4 hours of a decision to admit

  Quarter 2, 2002–03

  388,247

  120,915

  56,581

  Quarter 1, 2002–03

  394,040

  115,250

  54,546

  Quarter 4, 2001–02

  394,456

  113,492

  73,370

  Quarter 3, 2001–02

  396,016

  111,493

  65,757

  Accountancy Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total cost to his Department was for accountancy services in 2002. [101558]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department's accounting system does not collect information in the form requested. However, during 2002 the Department paid £4,860,616.31 to the four largest accountancy firms.

  Acute Hospital Trust Budgets
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many acute hospital trusts are in discussions with his Department about how to deal with projected overspends or budget deficits for the current financial year. [100142]

  Mr. Hutton
  In line with the Government's policy of shifting the balance of power, discussions about individual health organisations' financial positions are undertaken locally with relevant commissioners and if required the relevant strategic health authority.

  Alcohol-related Illness
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the NHS has spent on alcohol rehabilitation services in each of the past three years; what form these services take; and how these services will be funded and expanded to take account of the removal of exemptions in the Mental Health Act 1983. [100821]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 4 March 2003]: Funding for alcohol treatment services is s pent via the general budgets of primary care trusts and local social service departments, which is consistent with provision being determined following a local consideration of need. This method of funding means that it is not possible to give details of the amount spent on the prevention and treatment of alcohol misuse. However, latest estimates
  230W
  indicate that £95 million per year is spent on alcohol treatment in England on a variety of types of treatment, and that most of this funding is provided by the Government. This estimate does not cover the cost of psychiatric in-patient treatment, which may be the first destination for people who need compulsory treatment.

  It is absolutely not our intention significantly to increase the numbers of people who are subject to compulsion by virtue of mental disorder. The definition of mental disorder in the draft Bill, coupled with the strict conditions that must be met before compulsory powers can be used, will ensure that only people for whom compulsory treatment is necessary can receive it. There should therefore be no need to make substantial provision for additional alcohol rehabilitation services.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer regarding the cost to the British economy of alcohol-related illnesses and deaths. [101067]

  Ms Blears
  The national alcohol harm reduction strategy is currently being developed by the Cabinet Office Strategy Unit, and will include an analysis of the costs that alcohol misuse incurs for the English economy. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has therefore had no recent discussions with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer which touched on the cost to the British economy from alcohol related deaths and illnesses.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many asylum seekers have used the NHS in Greater London in the last 12 months; and what the equivalent figures were in May 1997; [101300]

  (2) how many asylum seekers have, in the last 12 months, seen an NHS consultant; and how many had in May 1997. [101302]

  Ms Blears
  A patient's immigration status is not routinely recorded by health care staff. Therefore it is not possible to quantify the use of national health service services by persons applying for asylum.

  Biological Attacks
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what stocks of antibiotics have been made available for the treatment of infected populations in the event of a biological attack. [99352]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has stockpiled enough oral antibiotics to treat various bacterial infections including anthrax, plague and tularaemia. This stockpile exists in addition to national health service stocks in hospitals and pharmacies.

  A proportion of the stock is packed into "pods", to allow rapid distribution in an emergency. These pods are held at secure sites across the country to allow rapid delivery to any location within the country.

  Breast Screening
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the trend in the
  231W
  number of women accepting their invitations for breast screening; and what action his Department is taking to encourage women to attend. [101187]

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Coverage (women aged 50 to 64)

  66.4

  67.7

  69.3

  70.2

  69.8

  Uptake (women aged 50 to 64)

  75.4

  76.2

  75.6

  75.3

  75.6

  Notes:

  1. The coverage of the screening programme is the proportion of women resident who have had a test result at least once in the previous three years.

  2. The uptake of the screening programme is the proportion of women invited for screening for whom a screening test is recorded.

  Source:

  Statistical Bulletin—Breast Screening Programme, England

  Women invited to participate in the NHS breast screening programme need to understand the potential benefits and harm in doing so to be able to make an informed choice about whether or not they wish to participate. That is why we developed and launched new informed choice information leaflets in 2001, which are sent out with every invitation for breast screening.

  The NHS Cancer Plan stated that all primary care trusts should review their screening coverage rates and draw up plans to improve accessibility of screening for women in socially excluded and minority ethnic groups.

  Cancelled Operations
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many cancelled operations in Greater London were carried out within(a) 4 weeks, (b) 8 weeks, (c) 12 weeks, (d) 16 weeks and (e) over 16 weeks of their original cancellation; [101304]

  (2) how many operations in Greater London were (a) cancelled and (b) cancelled less than two days before the due date in each of the last 12 months. [101318]

  Mr. Hutton
  Quarterly data are collected on the number of operations cancelled by the hospital for non-clinical reasons at the last minute (for example on the day patients are due to arrive or after arrival in hospital or on the day of their operation), the number of operations cancelled by the hospital for non-clinical reasons on the day of surgery and the number of patients who have not been treated within 28 days of a cancellation 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 Contraception website at: www.doh.gov.uk/hospitalactivitv/data.htm.

  Since 1 April 2002, the NHS Plan cancelled operations guarantee has been in place, which states that: if a patient's operation is cancelled by the hospital on the day of surgery for non-clinical reasons, the hospital will have to offer another binding date within a maximum of the next 28 days or fund the patient's treatment at the time and hospital of the patients choice.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 24 February 2003,Official Report, column 26W, on care homes, if he will place in
  232W
  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 10 March 2003]: Coverage and uptake of the national health service breast screening programme in England for the last five years for which figures are available is shown in the table.

  the Library an anonymised copy of the letter he sent to care homes who failed to pass on the free nursing care payment to residents. [99781]

  Jacqui Smith
  No. Further to my response to the hon. Member on 15 October 2002,Official Report, column 810W, that correspondence related specifically to the commercial or contractual activities of care homes.

  Cataract Patients
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the London pilot scheme extending patient choice to cataract patients. [97315]

  Mr. Hutton
  Initial survey work has been undertaken internally within the pilot scheme to obtain feedback from patients who have already received treatment under the cataract choice scheme in London. The feedback from this research has helped inform the ongoing design of the London scheme for other specialties and the planned national roll out across England.

  Patients themselves when being offered choice are making an individual assessment of the relative attractiveness of the scheme to them. So far for cataracts, of the 2,247 patients offered the choice of earlier treatment, 1,685 have accepted. This means that there has been a very high take up rate, 75 per cent., of those patients who already had been waiting for treatment.

  Contraception
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which local area health authorities in England and Wales have authorised pharmacies to provide the morning-after pill free of charge under Patient Group Directives to(a) women over the age of 16 and (b) girls under the age of 16; and when authorisation was (i) given and (ii) withdrawn in each case. [99410]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not collected centrally. The decision whether to involve pharmacists in the provision of emergency contraception under patient group directions is for the relevant primary care trusts.
  233W
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many locations not covered by the KT31 form have been authorised to distribute the morning-after pill in each local area health authority to(a) girls over the age of 16 and (b) girls under the age of 16 in each of the last five years. [99411]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not collected centrally. The decision about local provision of emergency contraception under patient group directions is for the relevant primary care trusts.

  Court of Appeal Judgment
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what effect he estimates the Court of Appeal judgment of 29 January that a body has no legal personality will have on the NHS. [99756]

  Mr. Lammy
  The judgment was concerned with whom proceedings should be initiated against in the case of an insurance claim against the estate of a person who has died. It does not concern the status of the dead body, and, as such, has no implications for the national health service.

  Dead Bodies
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will require hospital trusts to set in place procedures to ensure that funeral staff are aware of infection that may be present in a dead body; [99758]

  (2) what action he will take to ensure that funeral staff are properly advised of risk of infection arising from the removal of an infected body from hospital premises. [99757]

  Ms Blears
  Trusts should already be aware of "Safe working and the prevention of infection in the mortuary and post-mortem room", produced by the Health and Safety Commission's Health Services Advisory Committee* published this year. This guidance focuses on preventing and controlling infection risks in mortuary and post-mortem room practice in accordance with duties under health and safety law. It also covers arrangements for undertakers and ambulance staff based on departmental advice that undertakers need to know if a body is or may be infectious and it provides a specimen infection control notification sheet.

  The Department has had contact with funeral directors' professional associations on this issue previously and will keep them informed as appropriate of any new guidance from our advisory committees.

  * ISBN: 0 7176 2293 2, 2003.

  Delayed Discharges
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds in Greater London were occupied by delayed discharge patients(a) at the latest available date and (b) in each of the last four quarters. [101316]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  234W

  Total number of patients occupying acute beds whose transfer has been delayed in London Directorate of Health and Social Care

  Number

  2001–02

  Q3

  1,108

  Q4

  919

  2002–03

  Q1

  855

  Q2

  808

  Q3 (Latest)

  795

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) cancelled operations and (b) delayed discharges there were in each NHS trust in England on the latest date for which figures are available. [98850]

  Mr. Hutton
  Quarterly data are collected on the number of operations cancelled by the hospital for non-clinical reasons (i) at the last minute (i.e. on the day patients are due to arrive or after arrival in hospital or on the day of their operation) and (ii) on the day of surgery. Data are available in the Library and on the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk/hospitalactivity/data requests.htm.

  Data on delayed discharges are collected on a quarterly and annual basis by survey. The information is at primary care trust level and the latest data for Quarter 3 2002–03 is available in the Library.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 13 February 2003,Official Report, column 949W, on delayed discharges, what changes were made to the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill following the responses received from the consultation. [99525]

  Jacqui Smith
  No changes were made to the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill as a result of the consultation responses. This is because the Bill was not drafted until after the consultation period, taking the responses into account.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) practising dentists and (b) dentist practices there are in Greater London; and how many there were in May 1997. [101306]

  Mr. Hutton
  3,130 general dental service (GDS) dentists were practising dentistry in 1,478 practices in the London national health service region at 30 June 2002. This compares to 2,884 GDS dentists practising in 1,458 practices at 30 June 1997. 470 and 230 dentists were working in the hospital dental service (HDS) and community dental service (CDS) in the London NHS region at 30 September 2002, this compares with 450 and 240 dentists respectively at 30 September 1997. Also 43 dentists were working in the personal dental service (PDS) in the London NHS region at 30 September 2002 who were not also working in the GDS. The PDS began in October 1998. Information on the number of practices for those dental services is not available. Most of the dental services are provided on community or hospital trust premises.
  235W
  The number of GDS dentists includes principals on a strategic health authority list, their assistants and vocational dental practitioners in the GDS in England. The figures for the number of GDS dentists are on a headcount basis rather than a whole time equivalent basis and therefore take no account of part-time working.

  GDS dentists provide NHS dental services in "high street" practices and carry out the majority of NHS dental treatment in the United Kingdom. The proportion of NHS or private dental treatment that a GDS dentist provides is solely at the discretion of the dentist. GDS dentists are required to provide a full range of NHS treatment to maintain the oral health of the patients that are registered with them for capitation (children) or continuing care (adults).

  Patients wishing to register with a GDS dentist can obtain details of dentists accepting new patients in their area by contacting NHS Direct.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS dentist vacancies there are in Greater London; and how many there were in May 1997. [101303]

  Mr. Hutton
  General dental practitioners (GDPs) working in the national health service general dental services are self employed. They are free to choose and vary the location of their practice and their level of commitment to GDS dentistry.

  It is therefore not possible to quantify the number of vacancies.

  The number of GDPs continues to increase. There were 3,130 general dental service practitioners working in the London NHS region at 30 June 2002, of which 2,758 were principal dentists. This compares to 2,884 and 2,676 respectively in June 1997.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of(a) adults and (b) children living in the Greater London area (i) are and (ii) were in May 1997 registered with an NHS dentist. [101308]

  Mr. Hutton
  The available information is for the general dental service (GDS) in the London national health service region.

  On 31 May 2002 37.9 per cent. of adults and 50.3 per cent. of children were registered with a GDS dentist in the London NHS region. The registration rates for 31 May 1997 for adults and children were 49.1 per cent. and 51.1 per cent. respectively.

  Registrations now lapse if patients do not return to their dentists within 15 months. Registration rates will exclude patients who haven't been to their GDS dentist within the past 15 months and patients who receive dental treatment from other NHS dental services.

  The registration rates for 31 May 2002 and 31 May 1997 cannot be compared because of changes in the registration period which affected the registration numbers from November 1997. Registration figures do not include patients attending dental access centres and patients who are not registered.
  236W
  Patients seeking dental treatment or wishing to register with a GDS dentist can obtain details of dentists accepting new patients in their area by contacting NHS Direct.

  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he will take to ensure provision of NHS dentistry in Sherbourne. [101618]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 7 March 2003]: The Government are committed to providing national health service dentistry for all who need and seek it. We recognise, however, that there are some areas of the country, including parts of Dorset, where it is difficult to find a NHS dentist.

  I am advised that North Dorset Primary Care Trust (PCT) and South West Dorset PCT have recently formed the West Dorset dental planning group, which held its first meeting in February. The planning group includes general dental practitioners and also represents community dentistry and is looking at cost-effective ways to support local NHS dentists and increase general access to NHS dental provision within the Dorset area.

  Osborne House, a new NHS dental practice in Yeovil, was opened in October 2002 and has recently registered 8,300 individuals within an overall capacity of 10,000. Some individuals living in the Sherborne area wishing to access NHS dental provision have been advised to register with Osborne House, which lies approximately six miles from Sherborne. Individuals within the Sherborne area who approach the Dorset Dental Helpline for routine dental treatment are currently also referred to general dental practitioners in Dorchester or Blandford Forum.

  In the forthcoming Health and Social Care Bill, the Government proposes to legislate for far-reaching reform of NHS dental services. It is proposed that each PCT be given a duty to provide or secure the provision of primary dental services in its area to the extent that it considers reasonable to do so and be given the financial resources to do this. This will give PCTs the flexibility to address access issues in their area. Dentists who contract with a PCT will have a secure income in return for making a longer-term commitment to the NHS.

  Departmental Performance Report
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 27 January,Official Report, column 672W, on the Departmental Performance Report, when the Chief Executive's report will be reviewed; and when his Department will publish its service delivery agreements. [99011]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department's Autumn Performance Report has been published and can be found on the Department's website at: http://www.doh.gov.uk/nhsreport/autumn2002perfreport.pdf. Copies have also been placed in the Library.

  The Department has set out its approach to delivery in a key publication, 'Improvement, Expansion and Reform: The next three years Planning and Priorities Framework 2003–06', which can be found on the departmental website at: http://www.doh.gov.uk/

  237W
  planning2003–2006/index.htm. This document fulfils the service delivery agreement requirements and is also available via Her Majesty's Treasury website.

  Diabetes
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many diabetic patients with heart disease were given stents in percutaneous coronary intervention in the last five years. [102142]

  Ms Blears
  No information is held on numbers of patients suffering from diabetes who have been given stents during percutaneous coronary angioplasty.

  Food Labelling
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been allocated for developing the identity and materials for the five-a-day logo for use on food packaging and in related campaigns. [96887]

  Ms Blears
  The total cost of developing the identity and materials for the five-a-day logo on food packaging and related campaigns is £125,000.

  Food Standards Agency
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) staff and (b) inspection staff have been employed by the Food Standards Agency in each year since 1997. [99765]

  Ms Blears
  The Food Standards Agency (FSA) was established in April 2000 on a United Kingdom-wide basis. It employed 594 staff at 31 March 2001 and 657 at 31 March 2002. The FSA's audit and veterinary meat hygiene adviser team of 11 staff carries out audit visits and reports on the performance of the meat hygiene service (MHS). The MHS employs 1,300 meat hygiene inspectors and meat technicians.

  Free NHS Treatment
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what checks GPs have to carry out on their patients during registration with the GP practice, in order to discover whether they qualify for free NHS treatment. [101245]

  Mr. Hutton
  Patients register with a general practitioner for general medical services by completing a GMS1 form. This asks for a name and address, previous address for the purposes of tracing previous medical records and whether the patient is from abroad. For personal medical services pilot providers, patients apply by making a signed application or presenting a medical card.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the calculations that have been made of the cost to the NHS in(a) London and (b) England of treating patients who are not eligible for NHS services; [101301]

  (2) how much money, in each of the last five years, has been paid to the NHS by people using the NHS who did not qualify for free NHS treatment and services. [101305]
  238W
  Mr. Hutton
  The national health service is first and foremost for the benefit of people who live in the United Kingdom. A person who is not ordinarily resident in the UK, but who requires NHS hospital treatment is subject to the provisions of the National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Regulations 1989, as amended (in 1991 (SI No: 438), 1994 (SI No: 1535), 2000 (SI No: 602), 2000 (SI No: 909)).

  These regulations place a duty on NHS trusts to establish the residential status of all patients. Where a NHS trust identifies a person who is not ordinarily resident in the UK and is not otherwise exempt from charge then the regulations provide for the making and recovery of a charge by the trust for most types of hospital treatment.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the latest average waiting time is for a GP appointment in Great London; and what the average waiting time for a GP appointment was in May 1997. [101252]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 6 March 2003]: The information requested is not collected or held centrally by the Department.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many GP practices in Greater London have closed their books to new registrations; and what percentage of GP practices in Greater London these represent. [101317]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information on closed lists is not held centrally.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many GP vacancies there are in Greater London; and how many there were in May 1997. [101307]

  Mr. Hutton
  The latest available information held centrally on general practitioner vacancies in London is for the 12 month period ending 28 February 2002. 280 unprincipled equivalent GP vacancies were reported in this period by health authorities within the Directorate of Health and Social Care London area.

  We did not carry out a GP vacancy survey prior to 2000.

  Health Protection Agency
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the Health Protection Agency will, from 1 April, be able to call for special investigations on outbreaks of infection. [100394]

  Ms Blears
  We intend to establish the Health Protection Agency as a special health authority from 1 April 2003. Its functions will be specified in the Order which establishes it.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 6 February 2003,Official Report, column 443W, on the Health Protection Agency, when the board of the agency will be appointed; and how long it will take for staff to be identified as at risk of redundancy. [101138]
  239W
  Ms Blears
  Subject to legislation it is intended that the non-executive members of the Board of the Health Protection Agency will be appointed on 1 April 2003. As indicated in the earlier answer, any staff at risk of redundancy cannot be identified until after the Board has agreed an organisational structure. The timetable will be for the Board to establish.

  Hospital Building Maintenance
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much funding to NHS trusts has been allocated this year for(a) essential repairs to hospital buildings and (b) ensuring that fire and safety regulations are met. [100508]

  Mr. Hutton
  National health service trusts and primary care trusts (PCTs) receive operational capital to maintain the asset base of the organisation. NHS trusts and PCTs decide how to spend their operational capital on the competing priorities they have for investment. These priorities will include fire and health and safety compliance work and other capital investment, such as the replacement of equipment.

  £767 million was allocated as operational capital in 2002–03. The recently announced three-year capital allocations provide £844 million for operational capital in 2003–04, £928 million for 2004–05 and £1,021 million for 2005–06.

  In addition, a proportion of both the strategic health authorities' strategic capital and the investment secured through the private finance initiative will go towards meeting fire and health and safety compliance.

  Iraq
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which hospitals are designated to accept potential casualties from any conflict in Iraq. [102381]

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the number of beds in national health service hospitals which are being prepared in anticipation of casualties from hostilities in the Gulf; and what proposals he has to fund them. [100412]

  Mr. Hutton
  There are no plans to ask hospitals to set aside specific beds in anticipation of any conflict in Iraq. We plan to operate a rotation of airports across the UK to which casualties will be returned and, as a result, make use of beds from a wider range of hospitals.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the impact on the NHS of the use of medical and nursing reservists in the event of conflict in Iraq. [102428]

  Mr. Hutton
  Medical reservists are being called out from a number of national health service organisations across the country. The NHS bodies concerned are developing plans to deal with the loss of staff, and we are working closely with the Ministry of Defence to ensure that the effects of call outs are kept to a minimum.

  Meat Imports
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many instances there have been since January 2003 240W
  of the detection of nitrofuran in poultry meat imported from Brazil; and what steps have been taken to respond to these. [101572]

  Ms Blears
  Since January 2003, nitrofuran residues have been detected in three consignments of poultry meat imported from Brazil. In each case the consignment was destroyed.

  Milk Tokens
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the likely impact on children's health of the proposal to remove the daily one pint milk token for low income families with children under five. [102430]

  Ms Blears
  The proposals for the reform of the Welfare Food Scheme are underpinned by the evidence of the scientific review undertaken by the Panel on Child and Maternal Nutrition of the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy (COMA) in 1999. The review concluded that the scheme does not meet the wider nutritional needs of pregnant women, mothers and young children due to its reliance solely upon milk provisions.

  The reform proposals, which were published for consultation in October 2002, involve broadening the range of foods under the scheme to include fruit, vegetables, and cereal-based foods, in addition to milk.

  Mixed-sex Wards
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which hospital trusts in England operate mixed-sex wards. [92537]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement I made on 14 January 2003,Official Report, column 24WS.

  We have no plans to publish the names of trusts which have or have not met the standards for mixed-sex accommodation set in January 1997.

  MRI Scanners (Animals)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has issued guidelines on the use of MRI scanners on animals; and if he will make a statement. [101208]

  Ms Blears
  The Department has not issued specific guidelines on the use of national health service Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scanners on animals, but the local rules of any MRI unit would ensure that scanning of animals did not contravene either health and safety or infection control policies.

  The Medical Devices Agency publication, "Guidelines for Magnetic Resonance Equipment in Clinical Use (Dec-02)", is available to all NHS hospitals and these guidelines cover important aspects of MRI equipment in clinical use, with specific reference to safety.

  Scanning of animals is very rarely undertaken in most NHS hospitals, but when it does occur, it usually takes place outside of routine working hours so that patient lists are not in any way disrupted.

  Multiple Clinical Symptoms
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what help is available to diagnose and prevent people suffering from multiple clinical symptoms. [97044]

  Ms Blears
  General medical practitioners are the first point of contact for most people seeking help with symptoms of ill health, regardless of their number or cause. Decisions about treatment or onward referral are then taken in the light of an individualised assessment of needs, the evidence for effective treatment, the wishes of the patient and the resources available.

  National Programme for IT
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the recommendations and conclusions of the report commissioned by the Department of Health to assess the capacity of the supplier market in relation to the National Programme for IT. [102080]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 10 March 2003]: I refer the hon. Member to the response I gave him on Thursday 6 March, Official Report, columns 1213–14W.

  NHS Consultants
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had with the National Assembly for Wales' Secretary for Health concerning NHS consultants' contracts in Wales. [101425]

  Mr. Hutton
  Following the announcement of the British Medical Association referendum on 31 October 2002, no direct discussions have taken place between my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State and the Minister for Health and Social Services in the National Assembly for Wales.

  However, officials from the four United Kingdom Health Departments have continued to keep in contact to ensure that developments in each country take place within a consistent framework based on the original objectives of contract reform, namely to provide better rewards for consultants who give most to the National Health Service and to support service reform.

  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had with the BMA concerning NHS consultants' contracts in Wales. [101426]

  Mr. Hutton
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State has had no discussions with the British Medical Association concerning consultants' contracts in Wales. This is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  NHS Finance
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the budget overspend was in each year since 1997 in each NHS trust in England. [96096]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  NHS Fraud
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent estimates he has made of the level of fraud in the NHS. [102135]
  242W
  Mr. Hutton
  The National Health Service Counter Fraud Service (NHS CFS) has an ongoing programme of risk measurement exercises designed to reveal levels of losses and, through repeated exercises, reduction in such losses. Phase one of these exercises concentrated on patient fraud. The following table detail the results.

  Phase two of the programme will focus on contractor fraud within the NHS. As the measurement programme extends, it will enable NHS CFS to accurately assess the totality of NHS fraud.

  Pharmaceutical patient fraud

  £ million

  Year data selected

  Fraud losses

  1998–99

  117

  1999–2000

  69

  Dental patient fraud

  1999–2000

  40.3

  2000–01

  30

  Optical Patient Fraud

  1999–2000

  13.25

  2001–02

  10.17

  Total patient fraud losses have reduced from approximately £170 million to £109.17 million per year, a reduction of 36 per cent., since the creation of NHS CFS in 1998.

  NHS Funding
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what basis his Department requires each NHS trust to submit a year-end cash balance that equates to the opening balance when the trust was established. [100708]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 5 March 2003]: Section 9(1) of the NHS and Community Care Act 1990, as amended by section 15 of the 1999 Health Act, requires each national health service trust to be set up with originating capital. This must be an amount that represents the excess of the value of the assets transferred to the trust over the value of the liabilities transferred. Originating capital takes the form of public dividend capital.

  Under section 9(7) of the NHS and Community Care Act 1990, the Secretary of State may, with the consent of Her Majesty's Treasury, determine the terms on which public dividend capital is issued. In accordance with a Determination made on 16 November 1999, the Secretary of State may require payments from the NHS trust in discharge of part (but not all) of its initial public dividend capital and in respect of all of its additional public dividend capital.

  In practice, capital repayments of public dividend capital are required, where appropriate, to reduce excess end of year cash balances to an acceptable level. Repayment is generally required where an end of year cash balance is forecast to exceed 0.3 per cent. of turnover. There is no specific requirement to reduce cash balances to the level when the trust was established.

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to(a) earmark, (b) hypothecate and (c) ring-fence funding for NHS Trusts. [97395]
  243W
  Mr. Hutton
  Revenue allocations to primary care trusts (PCTs) for 2003–04 to 2005–06 were announced on 11 December 2002. None of the growth money has been identified for specific purposes. PCTs will be able to use these extra resources to deliver on both national and local priorities.

  National health service trusts receive the bulk of their revenue funding from commissioning by primary care trusts. The remainder is linked to contracts for medical staff education services and for research and development.

  Smoking
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS hospitals operate a no smoking policy; and what steps the Government are taking to reduce smoking on all NHS sites. [100946]

  Ms Blears
  No data is held centrally on this issue but many national health service trusts have already banned smoking in their hospitals and hospital grounds and the Government have set milestones for implementing smoking policies across the NHS as part of the national service framework on coronary heart disease.

  The Government are currently considering measures they can take to obtain a clear and up-to-date picture of the current situation across the NHS and to assist in determining what further action should be taken.

  Any decisions on further action will need to be taken against the background that the purchase and smoking of cigarettes is not illegal in this country.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what policy his Department has adopted on smoking in the workplace. [100938]

  Ms Blears
  The Department recently reviewed its internal policy on smoking in the workplace. With effect from 1 April 2003, smoking will not be allowed anywhere within buildings which the Department manages.

  NHS Interpreters
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many interpreters are used by the NHS to assist staff working with patients. [102039]

  Mr. Hutton
  Data on the number of interpreters used by the National Health Service to assist staff working with patients is collected as part of the broader clerical and administrative function, which includes several other staff groups. As a result, it is not possible to identify the number of interpreters separately.

  Orthopaedic Operations
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health further to his answer of 26 February 2003,Official Report, column 639W, what type of orthopaedic operations were carried out on NHS patients in Germany and France. [100778]

  Mr. Hutton
  153 orthopaedic patients were referred to France and Germany as part of the overseas treatment pilot project. Of these, 131 were major joint procedures, 17 were intermediate day cases, and five were hands and feet procedures.

  Overseas Trips
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the overseas trips made by himself and other members of his ministerial team in 2002; and what the(a) purpose and (b) cost was in each case. [101488]

  Mr. Lammy
  I refer the hon. Member to the response that was given by my hon. Friend, the Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Alexander), on 2 January 2003,Official Report, column 334W.

  Pharmacists
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken to increase the number of people becoming qualified and taking up pharmacist roles. [101667]

  Mr. Hutton
  There were 258 or 15 per cent. more undergraduate students starting pharmacy training in 2001 than there were in 1997. Furthermore, new schools of pharmacy will provide additional graduates from 2007 onwards.

  Between September 1997 and 2001, there has been an increase of 2,140 or 26 per cent. in the number of qualified pharmacists employed in the national health service. As at 30 September 2001 there were 10,630 qualified pharmacists employed in the NHS.

  The Government are looking to achieve an increase in staff numbers across all scientific, therapeutic and technical staff groups, including hospital pharmacists. Delivering the NHS Plan published in April 2002 set out the Government's latest forecast for growth. By 2008, we expect the NHS to have net increase over the September 2001 staff census of at least 30,000 therapists and scientists. This includes pharmacists. This will include increasing the number of preregistration pharmacy training places in NHS hospitals. Over 550 were planned for 2002–03—at least 60 per cent. more than were available 10 years ago.

  The Department of Health published a Pharmacy Workforce and Training Working Group Report in 1997. It outlined the actions necessary for the NHS to increase training places, to review skill mix and working practices, to reduce demand, and to improve the recruitment and retention of pharmacy staff. Many local initiatives have been taken as a result. Following this up, the Department has taken a number of actions to help improve the recruitment and retention of hospital pharmacy staff. These include the publication of the Improving Working Lives for Pharmacy document in July 2001, extension of NHS Careers to pharmacy staff, the development of a hospital pharmacistsl recruitment advertisement and targeted higher than average pay rises.

  Community pharmacy employers have also taken action. Some pharmacy multiples have taken pro-active steps to increase staffing, eg recruiting pharmacists from abroad and by moving staff around.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many qualified pharmacy staff there are in(a) Coventry, (b) the West Midlands and (c) the UK. [101666]
  245W
  Mr. Lammy
  The information is in the table. Figures for the United Kingdom are not available, so data for England have been used.

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): Qualified scientific therapeutic and technical staff within the pharmacy area of work in the Coventry Health Authority area, West Midlands regional office area and England as at 30 September 2001

  Whole-time equivalents

  Headcount

  England

  9,372

  10,633

  Of Which:

  West Midlands

  850

  993

  of which:

  Coventry HA

  61

  66

  Notes:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest whole number

  Source:

  Department of Health non-medical workforce census

  Primary Care Trusts
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of and how many PCG chief executives continued their employment after 31 October 2002 as a chief executive of a PCT. [101946]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the proportion of and how many primary care group chief executives continued their employment after 31 October 2002 as a chief executive of a primary care trust is not available centrally.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff are employed within each primary care trust(a) within a general practice covered by that PCT and (b) without a general practice covered by that PCT. [100109]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information on general practitioners and staff employed in general practices, by current primary care trust (PCT) area at September 2001 has been placed in the Library.

  The information shows staff directly employed by every PCT that was in place at September 2001. These include community health staff such as district nurses and health visitors. All PCTs with a nil return were set up after that date.

  Private Health Schemes
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 29 January 2003,Official Report, column 901W, on private health schemes, whether his Department places restrictions on national health service bodies offering private patient services. [100093]

  Mr. Hutton
  By law, national health service trusts and primary care trusts may offer private patient services only to the extent that doing so does not to any significant extent interfere with the performance by the trust of its functions or of its obligations under NHS contracts.

  Public Service Agreements
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many public service agreements the Department(a) has met and (b) is on course to meet in the autumn. [100676]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department has recently published a supplement to its December 2002 chief executive's report to the national health service.

  This report provides information on autumn performance with meeting public service agreement targets and includes details of those targets that have been met or are on course to be met.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the Department has published an autumn performance report to show progress against the Department's PSA targets; and what reports it plans to publish before spring to show progress against PSA targets. [100677]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department has recently published a supplement to its December 2002 chief executive's report to the national health service. This provides a fuller account of autumn performance against the Department's public service agreement targets.

  The Department also plans to publish its 2003 departmental report in late April to show progress against its PSA targets.

  Supplier Payments
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has issued to trusts and PCTs on deadlines for paying suppliers. [100694]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 4 March 2003]: National Health Service trusts and primary care trusts are required to comply with the Confederation of British Industry's better payment practice code target of paying 95 per cent., of undisputed invoices within contract terms or 30 days where no terms have been agreed.

  Untoward Incidents (Health Trusts)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many serious untoward incidents were recorded in each hospital trust last year. [100550]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not collect this information from individual trusts.

  The Government have established the National Patient Safety Agency to improve the safety of national health service patient care by promoting an open and fair culture and by introducing a national reporting and learning system for adverse events. The system will be rolled out across the NHS from summer 2003. This will, in time, enable us to understand the true nature and extent of medical errors in the NHS and take action to prevent them being repeated. The reporting system will be anonymous and confidential in order to encourage local reporting and thereby enable the NHS to learn as much as possible to make systems safer. It will not therefore identify the number of incidents occurring in an individual hospital.

  Waiting Times
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in Greater London have been waiting more than 13 weeks to see a consultant. [101310]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer the hon. Member to the response I gave him on Friday 7 March,Official Report, column 1271W.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in Greater London have been waiting(a) up to six months, (b) 6–12 months, (c) 12–15 months and (d) 15 or more months for hospital treatment in each of the last 12 months. [101311]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer the hon. Member to the response I gave him on 5 March 2003,Official Report, columns 1123–24W.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the latest average waiting time for in-patient treatment is(a) in Greater London and (b) in England; and what the figures were in May 1997. [101312]

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

  Estimated average in-patient waiting time, all specialties

  Median wait (months)

  Commissioner based

  March 1997

  December 2002

  London

  3.49

  2.92

  England

  3.05

  2.88

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting time for orthopaedic surgery is(a) in England and (b) in Gloucestershire; what steps he is taking to reduce these times; and if he will make a statement. [101657]
  248W
  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 7 March 2003]: The information requested is shown in the table.

  Trauma and orthopaedics—average waiting time for inpatient admission at 31 December 2002

  Average waiting time (months)

  Provider-based

  England

  3.92

  Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS

  3.21

  Trust

  Commissioner-based

  England

  3.92

  Cheltenham and Tewkesbury

  3.10

  PCT

  West Gloucestershire PCT

  2.69

  Cotswold and Vale PCT

  2.88

  South Gloucestershire PCT

  4.74

  Source:

  DH Central returns KHO7 and QFO1

  One of the greatest performance challenges of the National Health Service is to improve the speed at which patients can gain access to orthopaedic services. We are addressing long waits for orthopaedics through the NHS Modernisation Agency's Action On Orthopaedic programme. The programme aims to significantly improve this access to care by working with local health communities, developing and sharing good practice.

  The Gloucester Hospitals Orthopaedic Departments are one of 37 trusts in the NHS Modernisation Agency's Programme, "Clinical Priorities—First And Fast", within which trusts are redesigning their systems so that all clinically urgent cases are admitted within six weeks and all others are admitted ahead of the Governments target. The programme has just started and is intended to run until next spring.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers (Language Analysis)
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes)
  In the light of concern that some asylum applicants from other countries are posing falsely as nationals from Iraq, we have decided to pilot language analysis testing for use in cases where appropriate when a person claiming Iraqi nationality applies for asylum. Language testing arrangements in such cases will start on 12 March 2003 and continue for an initial period of one month.

  The purpose of language analysis is to provide expert evidence which helps to identify the place of origin of asylum seekers. Language analysis is used in a number of European countries, and the results have been generally successful. In the UK language analysis has been used already in the case of asylum claims made by nationals claiming to be from Afghanistan, Somalia or Sri Lanka. It was found to be a valuable aid in the asylum consideration process, clearly identifying in many instances that the applicant was not of the nationality he or she claimed to be, or not from the area of the country from which they claimed to originate. Language analysis also benefited genuine applicants by confirming the information they gave about their nationality.

  The extension of language testing to nationals from Iraq is being given legal effect today by an authorisation made by myself under section 19D of the Race Relations Act 1976. Where there are objective reasons for doubting the nationality of a person claiming to be from Iraq, the authorisation will enable staff in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate to request the applicant to undertake a further interview which will be taped and sent to a language expert for analysis. Individuals may refuse to consent to this further interview (which will be conducted at the initial screening stage), but this refusal can be taken into account when determining whether the applicant has established the facts of their case. This may lead to their claim being refused.

  We will review the need for this further authorisation later in the year. Independent scrutiny of the likely effect of authorisations made by Ministers and how they are operated in practice by officials is exercised by the race monitor, Mary Coussey, who reports to Parliament via the Secretary of State.

  A copy of the addition authorisation has been place in the Library of the House. Any additional or amended authorisations will also be placed in the Library.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Local Authorities (Accounting Arrangements)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Christopher Leslie)
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister consulted last year on proposals to amend and consolidate the Accounts and Audit Regulations, which set out the duties of local authorities on the keeping of accounts. The three-month consultation period provided for in our consultation came to an end in December. Having carefully considered representations made, I have today laid the Accounts and Audit Regulations 2003 (SI 2003 No. 533), to implement the changes. The aims of the amendments are to update the rules governing the way local authorities keep accounts, to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy so the accounting burden is proportionate to the size of the authority, and to make improvements to provisions relating to local authority corporate governance and accountability. Various changes have been made to the original proposals to reflect the concerns of consultees. The regulations will come into effect on 1 April 2003. Guidance will be issued to assist authorities in implementing the regulations.

  Planning Inspectorate
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty)
  I am pleased to announce the Government's acceptance of all the recommendations of the Advisory Panel on Standards (APOS) for the Planning Inspectorate Agency, as set out in their Ninth Annual Report published in November 2002. APOS jointly advises the First Secretary of State and the First Minister of the Welsh Assembly Government on the maintenance and improvement of quality standards for the planning inspectorate.

  The panel's main finding was that the demanding quality standard target, that 99 per cent. of the Inspectorate's casework should be free from justified complaints, was being maintained. However, the panel also made a number of recommendations on steps that could be taken to further enhance quality standards. These included improvements to training and procedures, that have already been implemented, and the introduction of arrangements to correct simple errors within decision letters which is included in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill currently before Parliament. The remaining recommendations are all part of a continuous process of training, development and monitoring, such as the introduction of a rolling customer satisfaction survey, to build on the experiences of users of the system.

  I am particularly pleased to note the Panel's comments on the good work of the Inspectorate in encouraging diversity within the organisation, in promoting training interchange schemes to develop staff and in encouraging electronic access to information for the public and other interested parties through its planning portal project. These initiatives are playing an important part in the Government's wider initiative to promote planning as a positive instrument and to involve the community more effectively.
  9WS
  I commend the work of the panel and thank them for their helpful recommendations, and look forward to seeing further results of their hard work over the next year.

  House of Lords Report on Devolution
  The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott)
  I am today publishing the Government's response to the House of Lord's constitution Committee's report: "Devolution: Inter-Institutional Relations in the United Kingdom". The Government's response is published as CM5780 and copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The response will also be made available on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website.

HEALTH DEPARTMENT

  Dissolved NHS Trusts (Outstanding Public Dividend Capital)
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn)
  Pursuant to the dissolution of 59 National health Service trusts on 1 April 2002 and their reconfiguration through the establishment of nineteen new NHS trusts, I propose to create originating capital for the new NHS trusts equal to the net assets transferred to them and therefore to remit the outstanding debt of the dissolved trusts.

  A number of primary care trusts were also established during the year. Public dividend capital is not required for the establishment of new primary care trusts as they are subject to a different financial regime. Net assets transferred from dissolving NHS trusts to primary care trusts are reflected in the general fund of the primary care trust.

  These operations involved no overall loss to the Exchequer. Her Majesty's Treasury has today presented a minute to the House giving particulars and circumstances of the proposed remission which it has approved in principle.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Non-Producing Milk Quota Holders
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley)
  The ruling of the European Court of Justice in the Thomsen case has important implications for UK dairy farmers. It means that quota holders who do not produce against their quota for one year will have it confiscated to the national reserve. In effect, non-producing milk quota holders (NPQHs) will no longer be able to hold quota. Leasing out of quota will not be enough to avoid confiscation.

  There has understandably been considerable interest in the timetable for implementation of the ruling in the UK. I can confirm that the new rules will apply from 1 April 2004. Accordingly, NPQHs who have not produced against their quota in 2003–04 will be allowed until 31 March 2004 to sell it. If they do not do so by that
  10WS
  date, it will be confiscated to the national reserve. During the 2003–04 quota year NPQHs may lease out quota if they so wish.

  Currently, NPQHs who lose their quota may apply for its restoration within 6 years of confiscation if they resume active production. However, under current EC proposals this period may be reduced to two years.

  In association with this, we shall be going out to consultation later in the year on the possible introduction of a 70 per cent usage rule. Under such a rule producers who do not use at least 70 per cent of their quota over a period to be fixed would have all or part of the unused portion confiscated to the national reserve. The introduction of such a rule would depend on the outcome of the consultation exercise. Subject to final confirmation of the legal base, we also propose to consult on breaking the link between quota and land, which will make it easier for tenants to buy in their own right any quota released by NPQHs.

  We recognise that the change concerning NPQHs is an important one and have publicised the new rules widely, including sending individual letters to all NPQHs. We believe that we have put in place a fair transitional arrangement that both allows NPQHs a reasonable period of time to adjust to the new circumstances and also recognises the UK's obligations under Community law.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Television Licence Fee
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell)
  On 10 February 2003,Official Report, column 35WS, the Government announed that from 1 April 2003, the fee for a colour television licence would rise to £116 and the black and white licence fee to £38.50. Later on today I will be laying before the House the regulations necessary to bring these new fees into force.

  The new regulations also introduce preserved rights for beneficiaries of the Accommodation for Residential Care concessionary TV licence scheme whose accommodation ceases to meet the existing qualifying criteria, so long as it continues to be provided or managed by a local authority, a housing association or a development corporation.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Industrial Training Boards
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis)
  In accordance with the Government's policy of conducting quinquennial reviews of all non-departmental public bodies, my Department is today beginning reviews of the Industrial Training Boards, CITB and ECITB.

  Following Cabinet Office guidelines, the terms of reference for the first stage of the review will be:
  To review the functions of the Boards, and the likely need in the future for these functions

  11WS
  To consider whether some or all of the functions can be better performed through other means
  To review the efficiency and effectiveness of the Boards in carrying out their functions
  To consider the powers, terms of reference, constitutional status, membership and activities of the Boards
  To ensure initial findings are available for consideration in and, if appropriate, incorporation into, the Government's Skills Strategy
  To report the outcome of Stage 1 of the review by June 2003.

  We should welcome comments on those matters to be covered by the reviews from all those with an interest in the work of the CITB and ECITB. Comments, which may be made public unless respondents specifically request otherwise, should be sent by 30 April to:

  Anne Donkin

  Department for Education and Skills

  E4c

  Moorfoot

  Sheffield S1 4PQ

  Or by e-mail to: anne.donkin@dfes.gsi.gov.uk

  We have asked that this first stage of the review should be completed by 27 June 2003.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Water and Sewerage
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Angela Smith)
  Later today, I intend to launch a public consultation process on proposals for reform of water and sewerage services in Northern Ireland.

  Since assuming responsibility for the Regional Development Ministerial portfolio, I have been acutely aware of the need for massive investment in Northern Ireland's water and sewerage infrastructure. Such a step-change in long-term investment can only be achieved through the development of secure, self-financing arrangements which also address the needs of the public as fairly and efficiently as possible.

  In principle, this will require the introduction of domestic water charges in tandem with structural reform of the delivery of water and sewerage services in Northern Ireland to ensure that people will not be asked
  12WS
  to pay more than is absolutely necessary. I am committed to full and inclusive consultation through which I believe arrangements for the delivery of water and sewerage services, tailored to the specific needs and circumstances of the people of Northern Ireland, can be developed.

  The Consultation. Paper which I have published today sets out a range of possible options for domestic water charging. Possible structural arrangements for water and sewerage delivery and business models for a reformed Water Service are also outlined, along with the associated issues of economic and consumer regulation and mechanisms for consumer representation on water issues.

  The period of public consultation on these issues will run until June 2003. Following a period of assessment of the responses to the consultation document, detailed proposals will be brought forward for further public consultation in the autumn, ultimately leading into the production of appropriate legislation.

  Copies of the Consultation Document; "The Reform of Water and Sewerage Services in Northern Ireland" have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

WALES

  Public Sector Ombudsman Services
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Peter Hain)
  A consultation on the future of public sector Ombudsman services in Wales began in November last year when the First Minister of the National Assembly for Wales and I published "Ombudsmen's Services in Wales: Time for change?". That document invited views on a proposal to bring together the offices of Welsh Administration Ombudsman, Health Service Commission Wales and the Commissioner for Local Administration in Wales to create a unified Ombudsman's jurisdiction for Wales, led by a single individual. We undertook to consult further on the precise remit of the new office if the principle of a single jurisdiction was endorsed.

  I can announce that responses to the consultation have given the proposal for a single Ombudsman's jurisdiction in Wales almost unanimous support. We will therefore move later this year to a further round of consultation on the jurisdiction and powers of this new Office. Individual copies and a summary of the responses will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

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

Parish Councils
Lord Peyton of Yeovilasked Her Majesty's Government
What role they see for parish councils in the future.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, the Government fully recognise the importance of parish councils as the tier of local government closest to local communities. We value their work in representing and serving those communities. The Government have created more than 100 new parishes since coming to power and are working with local councils to enhance the role that they can play through the quality parish and town council initiative.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, could I encourage the noble Lord to spread that admirable Answer among his colleagues? Does he agree that the only reward that parish councillors receive is the satisfaction of knowing that they are useful, which is not something that everyone has as a politician? Such people, being in short supply, should be encouraged and not beaten over the head.
It occurs to me that the Deputy Prime Minister, from whom this nonsense comes, might fancy himself as St George, with the dragon. The noble Lord would do the Deputy Prime Minister a service if he reminded him that St George was martyred in the 4th century, that he has been of diminishing importance in recent years and that the dragon that he slayed was probably as non-existent as corruption is on parish councils.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, we should remember that St George was beheaded after the trials of drinking from a poisoned chalice and being stretched on the wheel. That is not a fate—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, agrees—that should befall our esteemed Deputy Prime Minister.
I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, but on this matter he is quite wrong. It must be right that if one holds public office, even if it is unpaid, one must be accountable. All of the fuss relating to the position of the register of interests goes back to Nolan. This was not a government initiative; it was recommended in the third report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life in 1997.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, could we come more up to date on this matter? Does the Minister recall that during the debate on 5th March on
1226
local government, I raised with some force the situation of people who are forced to reveal many details because of their position as parish councillors? Does he also recall that on that occasion I received no answer from the Minister but that he indicated that I might get one? Does the noble Lord have any knowledge that such an answer may shortly he coming my way?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I have no recollection of the question because I do not believe that I was the Minister at the Dispatch Box. However, I shall look into the matter and be in touch.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the criteria laid down by the Government to judge a quality parish council are process driven, dry and boring? They involve how many times a year a parish council meets or delivers a newsletter. Should they not involve outcomes that the community wants?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for asking that question. The whole quality parish and town council initiative is certainly not only process driven; it is a responsible attempt by government and parish councils to integrate parish councils into their local community and give them real and positive roles. On 18th March the National Association of Local Councils will run a quality parish council scheme seminar that will launch the whole process; we will then all be able to see what a valuable initiative this will be for parish councils.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, as a former member of the Nolan committee, I point out that it was our deepest wish at all times that any recommendations that we made were exercised with some common sense. Does the Minister recognise that part of the Government's problem is that they failed to recognise adequately that parish councils cover communities whose populations range from 30,000 to a couple of hundred'? If they had the sense to apply some form of de minimis rule, they would have avoided many of the problems that they now have.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, the fundamental issue is that if a person holds public office, whether even in a small or a large parish. he should be prepared to answer questions about his interests. If he is the local builder in a parish of 300, that important point should be placed on the register.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps my noble friends will forgive me if I ask the Minister whether he will bear in mind that in planning matters parish councils have a closer and better knowledge of what will be needed in the future than any other body that might have a say. Therefore, will he do his best to ensure that, in any future planning legislation, parish councils are given a right of appeal?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am grateful for that question and I agree with what the

1227
noble Lord said. I hope and anticipate that, as a result of the quality initiative that I mentioned earlier, planning will not become part of parish councill activities but that there will be a greater degree of consultation than exists at present.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that we are asking parish councils to maintain higher standards than those currently practised in the by-election for the vacancy which exists in the House of Lords? Is there not a case for demanding similar declarations of interest from candidates before they stand for such an election?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, amusing as that question may be, I believe that it goes far beyond the scope of the Question on the Order Paper.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords—
Lord Kilclooney: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, we have not had an opportunity to hear from the Cross Benches. The Conservatives have asked three questions so far.
Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, did the noble Lord say that the present Government had created more parish councils or more parishes? If the latter, as they are connected with the Church, has consultation taken place and agreement been reached with the Church of England?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not know the answer to that question but I shall write to the noble Lord.

Directors' Pay
2.45 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easingtonasked Her Majesty's Government:
How effective present legislation is in restraining excessive increases in payments made to company chairmen and chief executives.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, directors' pay is largely a matter for companies and their shareholders. Last year, the Government brought in new legislation—the Directors' Remuneration Report Regulations 2002—which will improve transparency, shareholder accountability and linkage to performance for directors' pay. Those regulations apply to quoted companies with financial years ending on or after 31st December 2002. That means that shareholder votes at company annual general meetings on the new
1228
directors' remuneration reports will begin from April onwards. The Government will pay close attention to the operation and effect of the new regulations.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, judging from newspaper reports, present legislation and the regulations to which my noble friend referred do not appear to be very effective. Hardly a week goes by without our reading of big increases being awarded. Is my noble friend aware of the new disclosure rules on retirement benefits, including one of £10.1 million for a group chairman? Why do a Labour Government approve of such big increases for executives and approve of the difference between those and increases awarded to the general workforce?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, ultimately the payments made to directors must be the responsibility of the shareholders, whose money it is. As I said, the regulations came into effect only on 31st December 2002. Although I believe that they are probably having an effect already, we shall not see that effect until the commencement of the annual general meetings at which votes will take place on the remunerations as reported in the accounts. I believe that we should await the impact of those meetings.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I declare an interest as a non-executive chairman of a small listed company. Would my noble friend care to give us a definition of the word "excessive", as used in the Question? Surely the proper Answer to the Question is that legislation could not conceivably be used to decide how best to obtain a fall in so-called "excessive" remuneration. How on earth could legislation achieve that?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, on the few occasions that one is both asked a question and given the answer, I believe it is very foolish not to accept the answer.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, does the Minister agree with his noble friend Lord Barnett that excessiveness is in the eye of the beholder? Having said that and having listened carefully to the noble Lord's first Answer to the Question, can he say why, if that is what the Government really believe, they killed off the Bill introduced in another place by my honourable friend Archie Norman to deal with such a problem?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we have a good deal of sympathy with the objectives behind Archie Norman's Bill but there are extremely important questions about how it would work in practice. Predominantly, the fundamental point is that it would interfere with contractual rights and that would raise serious issues. The Government have agreed to consult on the matter because we consider it to be an issue of importance. However, the Bill requires careful examination if it is to be made to work in practice.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that he is telling us that a

1229
government who are prepared to pursue abroad an uncertain moral case to the brink of war will not lift a pusillanimous finger effectively to curtail the licentious appetites of fat cats which workers throughout Britain recognise very well and which cast a stain upon the moral fabric of our society?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not agree with the first assumption about an uncertain moral case. As for the rest of the Question, one needs to consider carefully the consequences of governments becoming involved in trying to determine the salary levels of directors. As my noble friend rightly said in his question—and answer—excessiveness is extremely difficult to determine other than by two parties freely making a contract.
Viscount Slim: My Lords, is the Minister aware that my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, always frames his questions as though every chairman, every director and every manager is helping himself from the till? Is he aware that today many managers, particularly in manufacturing—an area in which I used to work—are not receiving pay rises and sometimes receive less than they received the previous year?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is fair to say that the situation is variable in different sectors of the economy. Nevertheless, directors' salaries are still rising faster than inflation. The major area of concern to many is rewards for failure. There is an almost unanimous view that, if possible, that should be stopped. The right people to stop it are the shareholders.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, would the Minister consider it interesting to circulate the findings of his noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Layard. on the connection between remuneration and happiness? It is not all that shareholders sometimes believe it is.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, my noble friend gave an interesting series of lectures. Whether there is a connection between remuneration and happiness is a philosophically interesting point. Unfortunately, when negotiating contracts for jobs most people put that consideration to one side.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, my noble friend said that dealing with excessive rewards for failure in British industry—surely a blight on this country—should be left to shareholders. How confident is he that the mechanism for decision-making by shareholders is adequate to deal with rewards for failure?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, in a number of cases shareholders have shown that the issue is of concern to them and much pressure has been placed on that point. That is why it is extremely important that they will now have the automatic right to vote on the remuneration report. The answer to excessive rewards for failure concerns getting the contract right in the first place, rather than having a bad contract and
1230
trying to correct it through legislation. It seems to me that the Association of British Insurers and the National Association of Pension Funds' recent best practice guidelines on directors' contracts and compensation is the right way to go for shareholders.

GM Crops
2.53 p.m.
Lord Taverneasked Her Majesty's government:
Whether the views expressed by Mr Michael Meacher MP published in the magazine The Ecologist on 17th February represent the policy of the Government.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I he article in The Ecologist was based on a lengthy and complex interview with my right honourable friend Michael Meacher. It covered a lot of ground. There is no inherent contradiction between what he said and the position of the Government.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, it was an astonishing interview. Apart from showing a certain disloyalty to a ministerial colleague, namely the Minister responsible for science—perhaps not an unknown phenomenon in the present Government—he claimed that there was no independent assessment of the safety of GM crops whereas some seven national academies of science have carried out such assessments. Most importantly, is it wise for the Government to have as the Minister responsible for the environment someone who has swallowed the policies and agenda of Greenpeace hook, line and sinker?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the House should appreciate the tremendous job that Michael Meacher has done on environmental policy over the past five or six years. He has established the United Kingdom as one of the lead participants in progress towards sustainable development. I do not believe that the strictures of the noble Lord can in any sense be accepted. My colleague was simply pointing out that some of the testing procedure requires testing by the companies themselves. Therefore, there is scope and need for caution on the part of the British and European authorities which are assessing whether we should allow the marketing of GM crops.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the article was fairly specific? Michael Meacher said that GMs are not necessary, which is a surprising contribution from the responsible Minister. He went on to say:
"As the current trials are only testing what effects GM crops might have on the environment…and as the government has neither the money nor the manpower to do anything else, we have to rely upon the biotech companies themselves to tell us if they discover any other problems",
particularly with regard to health. Does the Minister find that a very unsatisfactory situation?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, my right honourable friend will be gratified by the time and attention paid to his article and to the interview. I wish that the rest of the literature produced by departments received the same degree of attention. Whether anything is necessary or not, it is clear that one has to establish a benefit. If there is a benefit, we have to establish whether a risk attaches to that benefit; and if there is such a risk we have to decide on what terms the product will be developed, grown or imported. That is the system that my right honourable friend was trying to describe. We are reliant on much of the information coming from private companies sponsoring the products. It is necessary therefore for a degree of double-checking to take place and for a degree of caution to be exercised. The Government have always adopted a cautionary approach but we are neither for nor against these individual products, and the system reflects that.
Lord Carter: My Lords, can the Minister say what is the timetable on GMOs? There should not be the precipitate rush into GMOs for which some would argue, including perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Taverne. Equally, there should not be a blanket ban, as others would argue. There should be proper evaluation and full and public discussion. What is the timetable for publication of research results, the commercial evaluation of GM crops and their release?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, different issues are involved. In regard to the GM crops grown in this country, the trials finish later this year. Primarily they are to assess the effects on the environment. As yet, there is not adequate testing. In the light of the results of those tests we shall decide whether to proceed to the commercial growing of the crops. As regards other products, whether grown or imported, or incorporated in processed foods, there is a European process, some of which is carried out in the individual member states. That is done on a case-by-case basis. Over the past few years there has been a de facto slowdown on considering each of those products. The Commission is required to consider them on a case-by-case basis.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Labour Party is lucky to have Michael Meacher as keeper of its conscience from time to time? When he said in the article that the Labour Party had changed from being hostile and sceptical about big business, he was reflecting public concern about the lack of legislation on some issues like corporate social responsibility?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, Michael Meacher is a credit to the Government. All Ministers in the Government have a conscience which we try to reflect in the best way we can when making decisions.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, does the Minister agree that GM crops have already been shown to have
1232
serious benefits for third-world countries and that in no way should Her Majesty's Government defer pursuing the benefits of such crops?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I think that some benefits have been demonstrated. The problem is that half the commentators and protagonists believe that GM will save the world and the other half think it threatens life as we know it. I suspect that neither side is right. The Government are trying to establish the common ground on the basis of science between the two. That is the basis on which we shall make our decisions.

MRSA
3 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stokeasked Her Majesty's Government:
How many hospital patients have (a) become seriously ill or (b) died as a result of methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in hospitals in each of the past five years.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the mandatory reporting of MRSA bloodstream infections started in April 2001 and provides the best data on serious infections. From April to December 2001 and January to September 2002 there were 5,471 and 5,380 reports respectively.
Although routine mortality statistics do not provide data on MRSA, a recent research study found that in 1998 MRSA was reported as the underlying cause of 114 deaths and as contributing to a further 284 deaths on death certificates in England and Wales.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, this Government have done far more on MRSA than any previous one. But does my noble friend agree that, despite that, the growth of this so-called superbug is a real threat to our hospital system, especially as we seem to be entering a new phase in the battle between bacteria and antibiotics? Does he agree that the requirements are, first, for a change in hospital management of patients, secondly, for more cash to be provided on top of that which the Government have given already—I appreciate that—and, thirdly, for pressure on the pharmaceutical companies, which are not doing anything like the kind of research on new antibiotics that they should be doing?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend is right to point to the seriousness of the problem, which affects almost every healthcare system throughout the world. Certainly, we are very concerned to make sure that we take effective action. The Chief Medical Officer has produced an infectious disease strategy. We require local action to be taken by the NHS. We are making sure that, with statutory reporting of MRSA, there is a baseline on which to

1233
judge improvements and progress by individual trusts. I agree with my noble friend that it is very important that we should invest in research in this area.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, my honourable friend Paul Burstow has pointed out that a survey of hospital infection control teams showed that they believed that they were severely under-resourced in tackling superbugs such as MRSA. Does the Minister accept that further resource is needed and will he and his colleagues rectify the situation?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we have put specific funding into infection control initiatives. But this is such an important and core part of the provision of services that it is right to look to individual trusts to invest sufficiently of their own resources in both infection control teams and the other actions needed. Principally, that is ensuring that all staff in every hospital are aware of the seriousness of the issue; that they are aware of the need for good cleanliness; that there is audit of the figures for MRSA and other HAI infections when those figures become available; and that there is strict action to try to reduce the number of those infections.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the problem of MRSA goes wider than the hospitals and that the infection is now occurring in the community? I have already tabled a Question on this subject, but the noble Lord's answers today lead me to think that he might be covering it. Is he aware that there is a great need for guidance? My own GP has had two cases in his surgery. He claims there is insufficient guidance as to how to deal with diagnosis and disinfection of the premises, which is important in general practice as it is in hospitals.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that is a fair question. There is no doubt that there is a need for guidance for those working in community and primary care. The matter has been referred to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. We expect it to publish guidelines in the spring of this year.
Lord Chan: My Lords, does the Minister agree that we also need to work on the prevention of such infections? That starts in primary care, with general practitioners being reminded of how to use antibiotics. Is there any guidance on that to remind GPs?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes, my Lords. There is continuous guidance to GPs in that area. I must pay tribute to the House of Lords Select Committee report on antimicrobial resistance, which has informed government action in this important area. It is also worth informing the House that while much can be clone to tackle the infections, the evidence is that not all infections can he prevented. The study that I have seen suggests that perhaps between 10 per cent and 30 per cent of infection could be avoided through strengthened arrangements for prevention and
1234
control. But there is no doubt that this represents a formidable challenge to healthcare systems the world over.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one cannot watch hospital staff, and particularly nursing staff, at work without becoming aware that they are desperately overworked? Therefore, laying on them extra responsibilities, however urgent, must raise a consideration of staffing levels.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I pay tribute to nurses and other staff working in the National Health Service. There is no doubt that they work under considerable pressure. I am glad to report to the noble Earl that we are seeing increases in the numbers of nurses and doctors working in the health service. We have increased the number of training places. Over the next few years, I confidently expect even more members of staff to enter the health service, which I hope will relieve the pressures identified by the noble Earl.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords. is the Minister aware that many people have queried the fact that when MRSA is a contributory factor to death. it has not been written on the death certificate? What consultation are the Government having with coroners regarding that matter?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Baroness will know that more general work is being undertaken by the Home Office in relation to coroners. I shall pass on her comments to that department. There is a problem about the recording of deaths on death certificates. It may well record the illness of very ill patients and not mention the impact or involvement of MRSA. There is no doubt that that is a problem in identifying the number of deaths. The Office for National Statistics is currently undertaking a survey of deaths. I hope that that will provide more accurate information in the future. In addition, the WHO has recently recommended introducing codes for antibiotic resistance from 2006. I hope that will provide better data for the National Health Service and other healthcare systems.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the crucial aspects is prevention of the infection once it has entered a ward? The way to deal with that is through the training and supervision of all the staff working in the wards.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. That is where the infection control teams play such an important role. It is very important that emphasis is placed in staff training and continuous development on the need for good practice in the ward and other clinical areas. It is also important that those messages are repeated.
Earl Howe: My Lords, what assessment has been made regarding the prevalence of MRSA outside

1235
hospitals, particularly in care homes, and what risk does that pose for the importation of this infection into the health service?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am aware of the issues reported in relation to care homes. There are no centrally held statistics on care homes and the admission of patients with MRSA or indeed other hospital-acquired infections. We have not received evidence of refusal to take patients because hospital-acquired infection is a significant problem. I accept that we need to check out that issue. I also believe that as local action plans are taken forward it is important that factors affecting care homes should be taken fully into consideration.

Baroness Amos: Visit to Africa
3.10 p.m.
Lord Aveburyasked Her Majesty's Government:
What matters were discussed between the Baroness Amos and the leaders of Angola, Cameroon and Guinea during her recent visit to those countries.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, during her visit to Africa on 25th to 28th February, my noble friend Lady Amos met President Conte of Guinea, President dos Santos of Angola and President Biya of Cameroon. She discussed the disarmament of Iraq in accordance with UNSCR 1441 and the latest proposal for a second resolution. She also discussed a range of other matters, including regional issues. The noble Baroness returned to the region last night to continue discussions with the three countries concerned in the light of the evolving situation.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, did the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, make it clear to her interlocutors that, when we say that we must reserve our position in the event that a second resolution proves unattainable, in plain English that means that Britain intends to go to war irrespective of what happens in the Security Council? What sort of an example do the Government think that that sets to those countries in terms of the collective maintenance of world order?
Secondly, the noble Baroness said unprompted yesterday that she did not believe that her noble friend Lady Amos would try to induce support for a new resolution through unwarranted pressure. What kind of pressure or inducement does she think we ought to exert? Have any assurances been given to those countries that we would soft-pedal on their performance in relation to transparency, corruption and good governance? In particular, have we said anything to Angola about getting her back into the good books of the IMF without signing up to a full transparency programme?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, on the first part of the noble Lord's question, no, she did
1236
not. The premise of that part of the question is incorrect. The noble Lord, because he has taken part in our discussions on the matter, will know that the Government are pursuing a case for a second resolution in the United Nations. As I explained to noble Lords only yesterday, those negotiations continue.
In response to the second part of the question, my noble friend would never suggest soft-pedalling on parts of human rights issues in return for anything. Nor, if I may say so before I am asked the question, would she dream of saying anything about the withholding or increasing of aid or such inducement. The fact is that my noble friend is pursuing the issue on the force of argument that the Government believe to be wholly correct.
Lord Rea: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the Security Council is equivalent to a jury in the settlement of international disputes? Am I not right in thinking that it is a punishable offence to attempt to influence a jury member?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, again, I do not agree with the premise of the question. The Security Council is not equivalent to a jury. If it were a jury, the situation might well be as the noble Lord says. But we are dealing with partners. We are co-sponsors of a United Nations Security Council resolution. It is entirely right that we argue our case as clearly and coherently as we can without any unwarranted pressures brought to bear, as I said yesterday, but relying on the strength of our argument, which is very strong.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, did the Minister's noble friend find time to raise with President dos Santos of Angola the need for a coherent public health strategy to prevent HIV/AIDS becoming rampant in Angola as it has done in the rest of southern Africa? Does she not agree that it would be a tragedy if effective interventions now were overlooked because of other immediate priorities such as Iraq or demobilisation and demining?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I cannot say whether my noble friend raised that issue. There are a number of humanitarian issues with all the countries concerned. The United Kingdom has aid projects, some directly with Angola and Cameroon, and with Guinea through the UNHCR. All those matters are important. In her work through NePAD, my noble friend engages on the question of HIV/AIDS in Africa.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords. further to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, if, despite the undoubted persuasive powers and assiduity of the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, which all noble Lords admire, a second resolution proves unattainable, can the Minister confirm—this is very important—that any action that unfortunately necessitated force would be within international law,

1237
that it would be authorised under UN Resolution 1441, and that that is the advice that Law Officers have given the Government?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, I shall not comment on what Law Officers may or may not say. I shall confirm what I said yesterday: any military action undertaken by Her Majesty's Government will be legal.
Lord Judd: My Lords, in her discussions with those governments and others has the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, raised the issue of the interpretation given yesterday by the Secretary-General of the United Nations that to take military action without the authority of the Security Council would raise profound issues about the legitimacy of that action?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure that the matters that my noble friend is discussing will touch upon the legality of any action in the event of there not being a second Security Council resolution. I am also sure that my noble friend will discuss the shortcomings of Iraq, a point that some noble Lords have overlooked in putting questions to me. The main point of my noble friend's visit is to pursue the purpose of the second Security Council resolution. We are talking to our partners on the Security Council. I am bound to say to noble Lords that I think that it would be entirely irresponsible were my noble friend not out there pursuing the case at this difficult time.

Licensing Bill [H.L.]
3.16 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Licensing Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Bill read a third time.
Clause 3 [Licensing authorities]:
Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 34, leave out paragraphs (a) to (d) and insert—
"(a) the licensing justices, as defined in section 2 of the Licensing Act 1964 (c. 26),"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Motion is rather like taking the plug out of a bath—one is left hoping that the water will disappear fairly quickly without too many obscene gurgles.
This is not a wrecking amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, seemed to think it was. It is an opportunity for the Government to do a little tailoring in another place. They could easily join up—that is one of their favourite activities—the licensing justices with the other parts of the Bill to which I have limited or no objections.
It is also an opportunity for your Lordships' House to express an opinion for the first time on an important proposal—the change from licensing justices to local authorities. There is considerable opposition to the proposal, which, as I have seen it, the Government have largely ignored or skated over. That a reliable survey showed that over 90 per cent of licensees did not like the proposals has commanded hardly a flicker of concern on the bland expressions of the Government. I hope that it will do so before we are finished today.
I say with respect that my noble friend Lady Buscombe carried out the difficult task of opposition with great skill, endurance and patience. I am sorry that, today, she feels herself to be under such constraints that she may not be able to support the amendment. I am sorry about that, but I hasten to say that such constraints will not weigh with me.
The Government have not yet said in what respect the licensing justices have failed or even disappointed. Nor have they said what prospect there is of the local authorities performing better. Many people believe, with a good deal of evidence on their side, that proceedings under the new arrangements—I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lords on the Government Front Bench who are talking to each other—will be slower and more costly and will generate more appeals because of the lower quality of decision making. Moreover, there will be a transition period that is likely to be a nightmare. At Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said that the transition period would last for about a year or so. It will involve the recruitment and training of new staff; it will involve the preparation of long and complex policy statements, a novel exercise; and it will involve the processing of all applications by existing licensees and for existing premises. The new and the old will work side by side in what I can only believe will be an uneasy and unsteady partnership.
The reward for all that is the prospect of more local accountability and, of course, the right to drink all round the clock. In the event, that increased local responsibility will be seen to be an illusory benefit. No one should suppose that the increased local responsibility will be a free benefit for local authorities. The Secretary of State has already produced, after pressure, more than 100 pages of guidance with which, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, said in Committee, the local authorities will be obliged to comply. The noble Lord's exact words were:
"local authorities will know the parameters within which they must work".—[Official Report, 12/12/02; col. 436.]
I doubt that local authorities have yet appreciated the nature of the treadmill process in which the Government invite them to take part.
Just now, I uttered words of respect and admiration for the way in which my noble friend had conducted the passage of the Bill. However, I am bound to say that one could hardly fail to notice the calm, patience and determination with which the noble Baroness opposite pushed her lugubrious load uphill towards the statute book. She did so with great good temper,

1239
and one must respect that. Having said that, I hope that the noble Baroness will allow me to remind her of one or two things that she said at Second Reading.
First, she said that there had been consultation. I believe that thousands of representations were made and that one of those representations achieved favour with the Government. One can only say, "Thank you" for that. As for the rest, there was nothing. The word "consultation" is a current buzz-word. It is nothing to do with this Bill, but, recently, there was a great project in Trafalgar Square. Taxi drivers, who know what they are talking about, were asked whether it was a good idea. They were told that their opinions would not matter, because the work would be done anyhow—and done it was, to the regret of anybody who tries to go north out of Whitehall.
The noble Baroness went on a flight of fancy to the extent of referring to "modern, light-touch controls". I wonder whether any of your Lordships, going through the heaps of secondary legislation, could detect anything that would deserve the description "modern" or "light-touch". Ninety per cent of it is antiquated and heavy. It is like inviting a hippopotamus to do petit point needlework. The idea of the Government doing lightly anything to do with control is far-fetched and unreal.
I have another quotation from the noble Baroness:
"It will be a major project, and a period of transition will be required".—[Official Report, 26/11/02; col. 646.]
I shall be happy to be persuaded otherwise, but I do not believe for a moment that the Government have even begun to envisage the difficulties that that transition will involve. Some people will have a great amount of learning to do, while we have the galling experience of seeing those who know how to do the job withdraw.
There is one last quotation from the noble Baroness that I cannot forbear to remind your Lordships of. In cheering the measure on and boasting of its doubtful merits, she said:
"It will also remove perverse influences on drinking culture".—[Official Report, 26/11/02: col. 640.]
I am tempted to ask the noble Baroness—to whom I would be willing to listen for a long time—to explain with some clarity what those "perverse influences" are and from whom they come. If she went on to define our "drinking culture", I would be more than grateful.
As things are, I see little prospect of the noble Baroness persuading me at the end of the debate not to seek the opinion of your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, said that he intends to test the opinion of the House. It will not surprise the Government to learn that we would not support Amendment No. I. That is not because, as the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, said, the issue has been swept under the carpet and has not been discussed. In fact, it was discussed at Second Reading when the noble
1240
Baroness, Lady Buscombe, made some interesting points about the role of the magistracy. It is unfortunate that the matter was not raised in Committee. I understand the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, missed his amendment in Committee and we missed the opportunity—
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I repeat the apology that I have already made for my careless mistake. My only excuse was that there was a jump at incredible speed in our proceedings, which took me quite by surprise.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. I was waiting for him to rise at that time. But perhaps proceedings on a Statement gave an indication that we were moving more slowly than we actually were.
I believe that Amendment No. 1 is, if not a wrecking amendment, in the spirit of a wrecking amendment, although the noble Lord has denied that. It would go to the very heart of what the Bill is about. It has been our party policy for some time to remove the ability to deal with licensing issues from the magistracy to the local authority.
The debate that has taken place on the matter in this House is worth repeating, especially if the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, is to take this amendment to a Division. Magistrates have done a wonderful job, but there is a change in the nature of magistrates. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, expressed concern to me that some magistrates dealing with licensing in Soho did not live in Soho. Therefore, he found the argument that magistrates can be local somewhat surprising in that instance. He felt that they did not represent the views of local people.
The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, also said that 90 per cent of publicans are against the proposal.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us how many councillors live in Soho?
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, of course I cannot. I would be incredible if I could tell your Lordships how many councillors live in each borough. In a survey of 1,000 publicans, 90 per cent said that they were unhappy at local authorities taking over as licensing authorities. We have some sympathy with that point of view. The issue of public entertainment licences has been raised many times in this House. It has caused more unhappiness among publicans and the public than almost any other issue. Music is the issue that we have addressed vociferously throughout the stages of the Bill. However, the fact that 90 per cent of publicans would oppose the change was addressed when the Government discussed setting time limits and clear guidelines which would regulate the time that it would take for licensing decisions to be reached. We were happy that the Government put that viewpoint forward.

1241
There is much in the Bill with which we are unhappy. The Government have been on the receiving end of many Divisions. However, if we were to support this amendment, it would be to try to kill the Bill in all but name, and I believe that there is some merit in the Bill.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I want to speak briefly in support of my noble friend Lord Peyton. It has been said by Members on the Government and Opposition Front Benches that this is, indeed, an important Bill. It is the first serious attempt to reform the licensing laws so far as they relate to the sale of alcohol or the provision of entertainment for many years. It provides many new powers.
Equally central, simple but important, is the decision of who is best able to be the licensing authority to implement the powers given by this Bill. Is it to be the magistrates who for years have had that responsibility as regards alcohol licensing? Or is it to be the local authority? For four simple but important reasons, I believe that the magistrates are the right people to remain the licensing authority.
The first reason is the experience of the magistrates. I declare perhaps a past rather than a present interest as someone who appeared from time to time in licensing applications. I have never heard any serious criticism made of the conduct of licensing magistrates. Nor, indeed, do I believe that the Government have advanced, during the course of the Bill, any such arguments against them. They have experience which a local authority does not have.
The second reason is that it is inevitable that the Bill will lead to a great many public hearings. By their knowledge and their experience, magistrates are well versed in conducting public hearings. Local authorities have not had that experience. Public hearings will be necessary when anyone who is a relevant person takes objection to an application that is made. Throughout the years, magistrates have built a consistency in this matter—by knowledge, by experience and by their ability to hear witnesses and evaluate evidence. That knowledge and experience is not open to local authorities.
The third reason is that an application, or the importance of an application, will often go wider than the areas of a single local authority. I believe that the magistrates have a greater knowledge of a wider locality than that which is open to the individual member of a local authority.
Fourthly, and most importantly, is the recognised impartiality of magistrates. I believe that the recognised impartiality of the magistrates is inevitably far greater than that of the local authority. The local authority, which, by its very nature, is subject to election and to votes, is bound to be liable, or accused of being liable, to pressures which cannot be put on an independent judiciary.
For those four reasons, I hope that the House will support the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, today. I do not believe that Amendment No. I is a wrecking amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said. Clearly, it will require consequential amendments.
1242
Those amendments could well be tabled in another place. It might be a good idea for another place to have an opportunity to remember what a Committee stage should be.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, on this matter. I served as a licensing magistrate for 25 years. I also served as a member of a local authority for 25 years. I look at issues no differently when adjudicating as a licensing magistrate or when sitting as a member of the local authority. The same person is looking at the issue with the same set of eyes and listening to the same evidence.
During the 25 years that I served as a magistrate, their role and duties changed greatly. Therefore, magistrates do far more now than when I first sat on various Benches. It is more sensible for local authorities to undertake this responsibility because it would fit well with the rest of their licensing duties. In proposing this, I am sorry to say that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, is completely out of date as regards the current situation.
My friends sitting on magisterial benches and working in local authorities all tell me that this is the way they would like it to go. I support them.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, but alas without his humour and wit. I, too, want what I would regard as a more satisfactory explanation of why this change is being sought. I hear vi hat the previous speaker has to say, but it is certainly not my experience, nor the experience of many of my friends who are magistrates. They are not so overworked that they could not continue in this role as well as taking on any extension of duties required under the Bill.
I must reinforce my apology. I am afraid that I was in hospital when the debate on Second Reading was held. I hope that the House will forgive me for not being present. I read all the speeches and was particularly impressed by the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. She made the point extremely clearly but rather to my surprise was not supported. That allowed the Minister off the hook somewhat when he came to reply.
I turn to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle. It is the merits of independence, objectivity and what magistrates bring to their local communities that are so important. The point made that magistrates are not local people is absolutely not the case. Perhaps they do not live in Soho—they may live just around the corner—but it is certainly my experience that magistrates are local people and much affected by their local communities. I was surprised by the extraordinary comment of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, in his response to the debate that magistrates are accountable to no one but themselves and to the system by which they are appointed. I should have thought that they were very accountable to local communities and, indeed, accountable to the law they administer.

1243
If judicial functions are to be introduced, such as the prevention of local nuisance in a community, I should have thought that this was yet another reason why the judicial role of magistrates would be most effective, working in, as it were, the field situation. I understand that appeals can be made against what is proposed.
I shall listen to the Minister's response before deciding which way to vote if the matter is pressed to a Division. I should like to think that more consideration will be given to this proposal. We hear that consultation has taken place. What was the reaction of the Magistrates' Association to the proposal? Does it welcome the change with open arms? Have the Government made any estimate of the extra cost likely to be incurred as a result of this change? Comments from local magistrates' Benches that I have heard indicate that local authorities are likely to face a considerable increase in costs for premises, new staff and training. I shall repeat a point made by many noble Lords on Second Reading; the exercise may well take a great deal longer than the six months originally proposed.
I shall leave it at that because we are facing a busy day. However, I look forward even more to what may be said to convince me that my points are irrelevant.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, did not take my name in vain. The fact that I am on my feet presumably indicates that. But he did refer to me and therefore I seek to add a footnote to his remarks. In conversation with my noble friend Lord Peyton, I have advised him of the particular circumstances.
I indicated in Committee that residents in the West End, when appearing before magistrates, have been told by those magistrates when coming to their conclusions that anyone who chooses to live in the West End should know what they are going to experience. Such remarks were hurtful to those who appeared at the hearings. They have lived in Soho all their lives and therefore had not in fact lived anywhere else. It was not a decision on their part to come and live in Soho.
I am conscious that, in many of our debates on the Bill, I have concentrated on the Soho experience and the experience between Covent Garden and Bayswater, but I am also conscious that the Select Committee in another place is taking evidence from residents in Soho to find out what their experience has been like on the ground and in their own homes.
My noble friend Lord Onslow asked whether any councillors live in Soho. Some time ago there were two independent councillors in Soho, both of whom lived in the ward. An accusation was levelled that the party I represent in this House was not adequately representing residents in the West End. Latterly, ever since that intervention back in the 1970s, Westminster City councillors for the West End ward have lived in Soho or in Mayfair, the other constituent part of the ward. Although certain boundaries were recently
1244
expanded, so that someone does live outside, there is a strong record of councillors living within the ward and therefore experiencing what goes on.
By contrast, I think I am right in saying that only one magistrate who takes part in the hearings in Westminster actually lives in the City of Westminster. It is clear that he is living outside the inner city experience. That is what makes so deeply wounding the comments aimed at residents of Soho to the effect that they should not come to live in Soho if they do not want the noise; the magistrate himself has not had the experience.
I wish to say to my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow that, when contested, a large number of hearings are held on entertainment licences in Westminster. So it is not the case that the local authority is without experience of carrying out such hearings.
Finally, I have conducted an extremely civilised correspondence with one brewer, but I am not conscious of having received any representations from the Magistrates' Association. Therefore it does not seem to me to have been an issue quite so central to the Bill as perhaps has been suggested.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, introduced his amendment, he said that it was not a wrecking amendment. Of course he is absolutely right, although it would radically alter the Bill. I think that it would probably alter it for the better and therefore I shall support it.
I must apologise to the House that this is the first time that I have intervened on the Bill. I have been active on other Bills and thus have not been able to take as much interest in this legislation as I would have liked.
My reason for speaking today is that I have received a letter from Arkells Brewery, a small, independent brewing firm based in Swindon, a constituency I once had the honour to represent in another place. The brewery was established in 1843 and thus has been operating for 160 years. It has expressed serious concerns about the transfer of licensing powers from magistrates to local authorities. The brewery, along with many others, fears that the local authority will not be as fair and impartial as the magistrates have been. Furthermore, local authorities are subject to electoral pressures as well as pressures from large organisations.
Arkells and other small businesses fear that local councils will be judge, jury and chief witness for the prosecution, and that they will ride roughshod over the interests of the little man. I think that those fears may be justified. They have not been assuaged by debate so far. Arkells and other breweries still feel that the Bill will injure their interests. This last ditch attempt by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton—in this House anyway; another place can, of course, consider the matter—to revert to licensing by local magistrates deserves proper consideration. Indeed, it is receiving it: the debate so far has been enlightening and interesting.

1245
I appreciate that it has been the long-term aim of the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department to phase out the lay magistracy. They deny it; but I 'was so concerned about this being the aim of the previous government that I went to see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, to remonstrate with him on what I believed to be a threat to the local magistracy. He assured me that there was no such policy and that the government at that time believed in the lay magistracy. But he failed to convince me that I was wrong.
Events since then have confirmed what I said to the noble and learned Lord, and what I still believe. There has been the centralising process in regard to magistrates' courts and magistrates' courts committees, the transfer of functions to magistrates' clerks, the discouragement of people from joining the Bench by loading magistrates with training schedules which senior paid judges do not have—
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord's dissertation on magistrates, but in Committee we on these Benches welcomed the fact that the magistrates will act as the court of appeal for any licensing decision. So the idea that magistrates are being removed totally from the loop is perhaps unfortunate. Magistrates will have a central role in the implementation of the Bill's provisions, given the many disputes that will probably arise. They will play a full and active role in adjudicating on disputes.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, has pointed out, one of the problems will be the transitional arrangements. The breweries—I have mentioned Arkells—are not satisfied that they will receive a proper hearing in the first place; and they are concerned that in the last analysis the magistrates will not be able to overturn, or perhaps will not wish to overturn, the decisions arrived at by the local authorities. So, in spite of the discussions that have taken place in this House, businesses—small breweries in particular—are not satisfied that they will get a fair hearing.
A noble Lord: Why?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, did someone say something? If noble Lords want to intervene, please will they do so?
Lord St John of Fawsley: My Lords, I was totally silent, but someone of greater daring than myself called out "Why?". While I would never have dared or presumed to ask the question, I should be interested in the answer.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the answer will have to be given by the small breweries themselves. Indeed, that is the answer that I have received from Arkells brewery: it is not satisfied with the arrangements under the Bill, which it believes will not assist it in its processes in the future. I hope that that helps the House.
1246
I apologise again for not being able to take part in all the previous proceedings on the Bill. I repeat that I shall support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton.
The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, I add my support to that received by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. I very much hope that he may yet persuade my noble friend Lady Buscombe to support us. I know that she is in some difficulty over this matter, but she did speak on it with some feeling at Second Reading so we shall hope for the best. Certainly, my noble friend has support from those on the Benches behind him. I am sorry that the Liberal Democrats do not at this point feel able to support the amendment. They may yet be persuaded.
The Government's only justification for council control of licensing seems to be local accountability. But the draft guidelines now leave councils with very little discretion, and controversial cases will be appealed to the magistrates anyway. They will have the final say.
My noble friend Lord Peyton made a further important point; namely., that 94 per cent of licensees want to keep the control with the magistrates—and with good reason. Magistrates already hold records of every licensee and every pub in the country. They have the knowledge—and they are apolitical, whereas local councils most certainly are not. There is a dangerous journey into the unknown. This provision could cause chaos in the six-months setting up stage. The only certainty is that licensing fees are guaranteed to increase at least tenfold. I believe that "if the system ain't broke, don't fix it". I very much hope that my noble friend will receive support for his amendment.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, the noble Earl has just described this as a "journey into the unknown". He need only go north of the Border to find that what the Bill proposes is very similar to the status quo in Scotland.
The Earl of Onslow: That is nothing to do with us.
A noble Lord: It does not matter. You could look at it.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, it exists as the status quo in Scotland and is not, therefore, a journey into the unknown. Are noble Lords concerned about policy leadership from Scotland?
The Earl of Onslow: M y Lords, this is the wonderful thing about devolution. We can be lectured by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, on how the Scots run their pubs.
Lord Avebury: Why not?
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I accept that. But how we run our pubs has nothing whatever to do with him.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, that is a most interesting constitutional argument.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I am flattered that the noble Earl is interested in what I propose to say.

1247
I completely agree with the Government on their aim; namely to deregulate and make pub licensing easier. How that can be done with a Bill which is 170-plus pages long, I do not know. Surely all they needed to do was to produce a Bill with a one-line clause stating: "Magistrates shall provide 24-hour licensing unless there is a reason not to do so". Then all the problems would have been dealt with simply. The magistrates do the job quite well at the moment.
To take up the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, I intervened on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, about magistrates not living in Soho because I wondered whether he knew the number of councillors. It was a question of seeking information, not of making a political point against one or another. The magistrates have carried out the task well up to now. I know that there is the wonderful story of Captain Bunbury, whose forebears invented the Derby. He slept on the Bench after lunch and said: "Take six months"; and the man was carted down to the cells. The clerk told him that all the man was doing was applying for a half-hour extension to his licence on Sunday afternoon. That was in the 1930s, and things have moved on a little since then.
On the whole, the system has worked well. Of course we want to liberalise, but I do not think liberalisation will have an effect on yob drinking. The Nordic races have been into that for a long time: Garibaldi sent back his English volunteers because they insisted on getting drunk in Campania. I cannot see that the Naples kings ran a licensing system to which people adhered.
Liberalise by all means, but leave licensing with the magistrates because it makes more sense. Having a Bill of 170 pages containing all the stuff about licensing and music licensing is not liberalising but complicated and expensive to administer.
4 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I had not intended to speak but suddenly I remembered my inglorious past. I was involved in pop music and licensing when I had two jobs. I worked for six years as chairman of the Greater London Council and South East Council for Sport and Recreation. I also chaired a body called an arena to which about 12,500 people came in the evening.
I spent a lot of time dealing with licensing, often with special licences for sporting events. As your Lordships will know, the United Kingdom has 85 governing bodies for sport and each sport has to be treated differently. I found to my surprise that often I would be in a private room with the police, including the drugs squad, local authority environmental health officers, sometimes carrying their machine for measuring noise, other local authority representatives, the promoter and the owners—all representing a range of interests. Dealing with so many interests is difficult. Local authorities have a lot to do anyway, such as dealing with the enhancement of people's enjoyment of their dwelling place and health issues, but they do not have the sort of experience that has been gained by magistrates.
1248
My first involvement was with a group called Duran Duran. It was something to do with my friend Sir Edward Heath, because they used to sing something called "Sailing". They arrived at one event; all the licences were in place and the police were trying to stop drug dealing and prevent alcohol from getting to those under age. Suddenly, halfway through, everyone lit candles. I did not know that when that group reached a certain point in their act, everyone in the audience would have a candle in their hand. The group would sway backwards and forward on the stage, which looked like it was threatening to collapse. I was then asked what group was on next. It was called something like Take That, and I said "Who?", and they said -No, not The Who, it's Take That".
I also found that because certain sporting events had water nearby, we had to have lifeguards, which the local sailing club would provide. But the local authority did not know anything. As this broadened out to cover Mecca, with ice-skating rinks around the country, I found that the people who knew about it were the magistrates. As the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn said, it would be wonderful if magistrates and councillors could have that dual schizophrenic knowledge.
I understand what the Government are trying to do, and ultimately it would be sensible for these matters to be covered by local authorities. There is a very steep learning curve and that learning curve is not possible. There will also be, as I found, conflicts of interest between a local authority wishing to promote or stop something and other bodies wishing to advance it.
The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, has raised an important issue. I believe this should he left with the magistrates unless and until the alternative can demonstrate that it has the ability to follow duty of care through. Your Lordships must consider the personal liabilities that often arise when an event takes place and there is an accident. It is a minefield and we do not have enough minesweepers in local authorities.
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil. As I listen to the debate and receive correspondence from outside, I am impressed by the strength of opposition to the change proposed by Her Majesty's Government. I am impressed by the fact that, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, has put it, the experience, independence and objectivity of the magistrates—the licensing justices—would be lost. I have heard no clear explanation of the benefits that would accrue from making this change or whether those benefits would outweigh the evident costs which would be incurred as a result. Although, like my noble friend Lady Howe, I shall listen with interest to the Minister's speech, as at present advised, I am minded to support the amendment.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, as I already indicated to my colleagues last week, I have considerable sympathy for the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. I kept an open mind about the matter until I heard the debate today, and now I am convinced that I should support him.

1249
I have no experience of licensing at the present time, but in my early days at the Bar I did a great deal of licensing work. I always found that magistrates, whatever their individual political complexion, were pretty well versed and trained in taking a judicial approach on the matters before them. It therefore seems to me that if you are to have a major change—changing the tribunal that decides the licensing in the first instance—it should be left with the magistrates rather than the local authorities, particularly given that voters these days do not show any great enthusiasm for voting in elections for local authorities. We should bear that in mind when we consider a major change of this kind.
Overall, the onus must be on the Government and their supporters, including most of my colleagues on these Benches, to make out a positive case for transferring the authority to the local authority rather than leaving it with the licensing bench. I know there will be a right of appeal in most circumstances, but I do not think that the Government have really made their case.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, bemoaned the fact that we have reached this late stage in the Bill before being able to debate this fundamental issue. It certainly is fundamental, as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, indicated. If this is not a wrecking amendment, it is pretty close, because it runs counter to the whole thrust of the Bill.
It is not for the Government to put down amendments to their own Bill to clarify matters. Clarifying the Bill is a matter for the Opposition. We were not able to debate these issues in Committee because noble Lords were not in their place to move the Motion and, on the second occasion, being late in the evening, it was thought the debate was unsatisfactory. I had hoped at that stage to deploy the Government's arguments sufficient to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, that further debate was not necessary, but as he had indicated in his opening speech that, because of the lateness of the hour, we would have a debate on Third Reading, come what may, a certain amount of hot air was wasted on that occasion. But at least we have the chance today to address the Government's case.
Let me make one thing absolutely clear. As I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for saying, the magistrates are not being taken out of the licensing system entirely. If decisions are taken that so affront those affected, they can appeal to the magistrates. They certainly have a role. That is because we all respect the role that they have played in the past in alcohol licensing. I respect all the contributions today that have paid due tribute to their work.
Let me tell the House why the amendment cannot be supported by anybody who is judging the issue intelligently and sensibly. This is not about just one licensing regime—the sale of alcohol, for which magistrates had responsibility in the past; it is about regulating six regimes, five of which are in the purview of local authorities at the moment. Of course magistrates have substantial experience of licensing
1250
and a proud record of having played their part over many decades. However, that applies only to alcohol licensing. The licensing of cinemas, theatres, night cafés, late-night refreshment and public entertainment—all of which are central to the Bill—are the responsibility of local authorities.
The Government are interested in deregulation. Some noble Lords have said that the industry has anxieties about the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said that one or two small breweries had reservations about it. The industry has taken the Bill in its totality. They recognise that it is a chance to produce an integrated system of licensing that will cut down red tape significantly—reducing regulation is the purpose of the Bill—and, in doing so, will concentrate all licensing in one regime. The choice is whether it should be under the magistrates, who currently have responsibility in one area, or under the local authorities, who have responsibility for regulation in five of the areas. There are clear reasons, which I shall hope to deploy in due course, why it should be local authorities. Let us not be under any illusion that this is just a transfer of one licensing regime from magistrates to local authorities. That is not so.
Secondly, the amendments would make a wholesale and unjustifiable change to the Bill. Our proposals are straightforward. We believe that we will introduce better and more effective regulation that relates to the needs of the community by investing in local authorities a further licensing area in addition to the five for which they are already responsible.
There is a common misunderstanding about the status of the licensing justices. They do not sit as a magistrates' court. They were established by statute as an administrative committee, elected by the magistrates in the relevant petty sessions area. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Taylor for pointing out the crucial point that magistrates are not bound by the normal rules of evidence and are technically free to receive and consider hearsay evidence and petitions.
I make those points to stress that the role magistrates play is not judicial, but administrative, although in certain circumstances their role will have a quasi-judicial quality. If Parliament had wanted a judicial process from magistrates, it would have given the job to the magistrates' courts, not to the licensing justices.
In our normal court procedures, an adversarial contest takes place. Two or more competing parties put their cases and, from a neutral position, the tribunal decides the case on the merits of the arguments. The licensing process is entirely different. There are competing parties representing different vested interests, but the deciding body's role is not a neutral one, simply deciding an issue between competing parties. The deciding body has to represent the needs of the wider community in decisions on licensing and decides any matter under the law in the wider interests of the community, balancing the competing interests against that wider interest.

1251
Once it is accepted that licensing is a regulatory and administrative process—not a judicial one—undertaken in the interests of the community, the question arises as to which body should most appropriately represent those interests. As my noble friend Lord Taylor said, licensing justices are accountable only to the magistrates who elect them to the licensing committee and to the higher courts. That cannot be said to provide democratic accountability. I stress democratic accountability, because the administrative processes should be in the hands of democratically elected representatives of the local electorate and regulatory processes should be entrusted to those best placed to undertake the balancing exercise on an informed basis of what is in that wider community interest on licensing decisions.
The Government are not the only ones who have drawn that conclusion about the scope for reducing red tape by consolidating the licensing system and about the principle of accountability. The Better Regulation Task Force, on behalf of the industry, recommended to the Government that the local authorities should have that role in the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, wondered whether the local authorities recognise the treadmill on which they are going to be placed when they take up the role. Magistrates have followed the same treadmill. The guidance that is to be applied to the local authorities in conducting their licensing role has been directed towards magistrates in their administrative role under the existing system. Nothing is changing there.
The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, emphasised the strength of the magistrates' position. I greatly appreciate the work that has been done by many colleagues in this House in that role, but it has been limited to one area. As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, emphasised with the greatest possible clarity, these issues affect the local community. It is entirely right and proper that the local community should have the chance to have the issues decided in their name by a body that is responsible to them.
The basis of the Bill is to reduce red tape and bring six licensing regimes—five of which are currently within the purview of the local authority—into one consolidated licensing procedure. The purpose of the Bill is not to introduce 24-hour drinking; it is to increase flexibility on licensing hours. It is a canard to say that the Bill introduces 24-hour drinking in every pub in the country. The decision on when pubs will be open and how much they use the flexibility afforded by the Bill will be made by the licensees, who will have due regard to the market demand. As we all know, the vast majority of pubs will not stay open into the wee small hours of the morning, because the licensees know that the numbers of people who would visit at those times would make it uneconomic.
The Government's position is clear. This is a regulatory measure aimed at reducing red tape. It is a consolidation measure, vesting the authority with the local authorities on the grounds that I have put forward. That is not in any way to decry the role of the
1252
magistrates in the past. That is why the magistrates will continue to play the role of the court of appeal against decisions taken by the local authority.
I am pleased that we have had this debate. We ought to have had it on Second Reading or in Committee, many days ago. It is a bit late in the day to be doing it now. I hope that I have clarified the issues sufficiently for the noble Lord to think twice about pressing the issue to a vote.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I have no difficulty in assuring the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, that he has not moved me an inch, except in further entrenching my determination to seek the opinion of your Lordships' House. I do not want to mention everybody who has kindly spoken. I naturally applaud more loudly and am much more grateful to those who have supported the amendment. I am very disappointed, although not at all surprised, to hear the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. He is so charming and so nice, but he ends up so disappointingly. I have to tell him that on this occasion I found his noble friend Lord Hooson a light that shone in the darkness. I hope that the darkness will not extinguish him ever.
I understand and sympathise with the position of my noble friend Lady Buscombe. She felt obliged to maintain a silence, but I should be happy if she would be so kind as to communicate that there was an element of disappointment that she should be forced to do so. I do not ask her to acknowledge that now, however.
I had a moment of terrible anxiety when my old friend, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, got to his feet, because I thought that he was going to agree with me. That would have shattered my confidence.
I was particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Carlisle, who got it absolutely clear. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, will also accept my thanks for her support. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong; he spoke from the Cross Benches, but I would refer to him as my noble friend.
I regret deeply that it is unlikely in the circumstances that this Division will be a remarkable victory. Nevertheless, I have no hesitation in asking for the opinion of your Lordships' House.
4.22 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 108; Not-Contents, 173.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Brightman, L.

Ampthill, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Armstrong of Ilminster, L.

Burnham, L.

Arran, E.

Butterworth, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Caithness, E.

Blaker, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Bridges, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L. [Teller]

1253

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Marsh, L.

Carrington, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Chalfont, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Chorley, L.

Monson, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Colwyn, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Moynihan, L.

Crathorne, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Naseby, L.

Croham, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Northbourne, L.

Deedes, L.

Northesk, E.

Dundee, E.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

O'Neill of Bengarve, B.

Elles, B.

Onslow, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Elton, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L. [Teller]

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Pilkmgton of Oxenford, L.

Fookes, B.

Plumb, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L

Fowler, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Rees, L.

Geddes, L.

Renton, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Henley, L.

Selsdon, L.

Hooper, B.

Sharples, B.

Hooson, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Sheppard of Didgemere, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hylton.L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Stewartby, L.

Jopling, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Swinfen, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Trumpington, B.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Vinson, L.

Liverpool, E.

Waddington, L.

Lucas, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Lyell, L.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Maginnis of Drumglass, L.

Walpole, L.

Mar, C.

Warnock, B.

Marlesford, L.

Wright of Richmond, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Acton, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Addington, L.

Carter, L.

Alderdice, L.

Christopher, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Andrews, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Archer of Sand well, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Cobbold, L.

Avebury, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Barker, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Barnett, L.

Crawley, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Berkeley, L.

David, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Billingham, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Blackstone, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B

Borrie, L.

Derby, Bp.

Bradshaw, L.

Desai, L.

Bragg, L.

Dholakia, L.

Brennan, L.

Dixon, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Dubs, L.

Brookman, L.

Elder, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Burlison, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

1254

Ezra, L.

Orme, L.

Falkland, V.

Parekh, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Fitt, L.

Paul, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Peston, L.

Gale, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Gilbert, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Radice, L.

Goodhart, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Goudie, B.

Rea, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Redesdale, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gregson, L.

Rennard, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Richard L

Guildford, Bp.

Richardson of Calow, B.

Hamwee, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Rooker, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Roper, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Russell, E.

Harrison, L.

Sandberg, L.

Haskel, L.

Sawyer, L.

Hayman, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Sheldon, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Simon, V.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Smith of Clifton, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Stallard, L.

Jones, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Jordan, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Judd, L.

Strange, B.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B

Kirkhill, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Levy, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Lockwood, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Tope, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Tordoff, L.

Turnberg, L

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Uddin, B.

McNally, L.

Varley, L.

Maddock, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Walmsley, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Massey of Darwen, B. Merlyn-Rees, L.

Whitaker, B

Methuen, L.

Whitty, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Wigoder, L.

Mitchell, L.

Wilkins, B.

Morgan, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Newby, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Nicol, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.33 p.m.
Clause 14 [Authorised persons, interested parties and responsible authorities]:
Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 8, line 44, after "business" insert "or organisation"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, having got that Second Reading debate out of the way, I hope that we can move on a little faster. I shall do my best to be brief on this amendment, the purpose of which is to allow schools, charities, not-for-profit organisations and the like to make representations in their own right. They are currently able to do so for both liquor licences and public entertainment licences. Removing that right, as the Bill does, cuts out a class of potentially interested parties. It is not practical to suggest, as Ministers have done, that someone such as the employee, the parent or the pupil would make representations on behalf of a school; and similarly for other organisations. There are going to be strict timetables for making representations. Are Ministers seriously suggesting that a hospital, for example, which is concerned about a licence application across the street, should run down the addresses of its employees in the hope that it will be able to find one who lives in the vicinity of the premises and ask that person to make representations on behalf of the whole hospital?
Continuing on the theme of hospitals, at present the Bill would allow a BUPA hospital to make direct representations because it is a business, whereas a National Health Service hospital would have to ask one of its staff members to make representations on its behalf. I can see no logic in that.
There is a further and crucially important reason why organisations should be classed as interested parties. Residents' or tenants' associations frequently act on behalf of their members where individuals are reluctant to come forward because they find it difficult or are unable to follow the procedures, or because they feel intimidated. There have been instances where licence applicants called personally on people in the vicinity and put them in a state of fear even if no actual threat was made. Some applicants are rich and powerful companies. So the private citizen may not want to antagonise them without going into detail about how the company or big group might get nasty if they felt that the resident was opposing them.
In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said that a school could object through a governor, parent, pupil or teacher living in the vicinity. Such a person could make representations, but they would do so as an individual and not in their capacity as representative of governors, parents, pupils or teachers. Their collective voice would never be heard because the governor or parent would appear by authority of the named persons living in the vicinity who would be the interested parties for the purposes of Clause 14.
The rights of residents' associations would also be extinguished. An officer of the residents' association cannot appear in that capacity but merely as an individual nominated for the purpose of a hearing by people living in the vicinity. At one point in Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said that a residents' association could be an interested party but immediately contradicted herself when she added—at col. 32 of the Official Report of
1256
13th January—that they could act only on behalf of those who had requested them to do so in objecting to a particular licence.
As I understand it, if the chair of the residents' association, local conservation society, amenity group or "generic local committee"—let us call it the GLC—does not live in the vicinity of the premises, he or she would have to produce a written authorisation from one or more people who do qualify as interested parties. The status of the chair or other officer in the GLC would be no more than that of representative of the interested parties. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness would confirm what I have just said about the necessity for the person purporting to represent persons living in the vicinity to produce a written authorisation. As I see it, if they did not do that, the applicant could object and say that the person was not entitled to appear before the tribunal purely in his capacity as an officer of the GLC.
The whole point of having such an organisation is that the individual does not have to appear before what may seem to him a strange and incomprehensible tribunal, or even to have his name mentioned in that setting. It is absolutely certain that some residents who are currently happy to brief the officers of their local GLC will go silent if they have to be identified. Therefore, many valid representations will go by the board. The House has already decided that MEPs, MPs and local councillors can appear in their own right. They may be asked to do so far more regularly if people cannot look to their local amenity association. I beg to move.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I spoke to similar amendments both in Committee and on Report and I am delighted to support the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. The Minister set out on previous occasions the Government's rational explanation of why the Bill is as it is. I simply want, in illustration and in support of the noble Lord, to give some idea of what it is like at the coal face in terms of dealing with the Bill as it is currently written.
The Minister explained, most recently on Report, how it would be possible for a person within an organisation that was not a business who was entitled to make representations to do so on behalf of that organisation. I put the matter in a local context within the West End. It may constitute a particular problem in the West End. Some 40,000 people work in the West End. A large number of organisations in the West End are not necessarily commercial or profit-making and are directly affected by the legislation. The West End is the most highly licensed area in the country. As we said in Committee, it constitutes a much larger area than similar areas in other western European cities which have been studied by the University of Westminster.
Under the present legislation an individual within the local community in Westminster picks up 150 licence applications simultaneously in a sheaf from the magistrates' court. It is reasonable to assume that the same level of licence application will be made in future as has been the case in the past, although I agree that

1257
the absence of annuality will cause that to diminish. Those 150 applications then have to be sorted and clarified by the individual who fetched them, perhaps working in collaboration with one or two other people.
When the Government announce through guidance precisely what their policy will be on the advertising of licence applications—Westminster City Council has over a long period developed an extremely good system which is highly visible to local residents and local organisations—the problem may diminish. But at the moment we do not know precisely what the Government will announce in guidance in that regard. Anyone who reads the local press in any inner city will be aware that anyone can satisfy the statute totally to the letter but in a manner which does not reach the people who are directly affected by it. The fact that at the moment the documentation from the magistrates' court is a critical factor in the absence of guidance on the advertisements means that people have limited time in which to object.
The reliance on a person to whom I shall refer as a bystander—because although he is obviously an interested party within the particular organisation, he is a bystander to the process—will further dramatically complicate the process of identifying someone who is prepared to become the person who makes representations on behalf of the organisation. Having identified that person, there will also be considerable difficulty in persuading him to make representations.
I do not want to exaggerate these matters but in Committee I said that when there were 164 sex establishments in Soho they were collectively known, and still are, as the Vice, with a capital v. That nomenclature was not bestowed upon them by accident. There is a habit of communicating to objectors the message, "We know where you live". Given the smallness of Soho as a community, that is a real and genuine threat. As I say, there is not only a problem as regards identifying a relevant person but an even bigger problem as regards finding someone who is willing to make representations.
In the previous debate I alluded to the fact that the Select Committee in another place, which is taking evidence on the night economy, is talking to residents in the West End in order to get from their lips a clear picture of the situation. That involves looking out of people's windows to see what it is that they are complaining about so that it has the ipsissima verba of the people involved.
Despite the Minister saying that there is a perfectly satisfactory remedy for problems created by the Bill, I cannot help feeling that people's human rights are being diminished by the complication which is now being introduced. Those rights will be reduced as a result of the Bill and it is less likely that relevant representations will he made. We all know that many people up and down the country say, "If only I had known that that was going to happen, I would have made objections" but find that by the time they do so it is too late.
4.45 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords. I believe that there is unnecessary concern about this issue. The Bill defines an interested party as a local resident or a body representing residents or local business or a body representing such businesses. An interested party may make representations on applications for premises licences or club premises certificates or may apply for a review of the licence or certificate after it has been granted.
We exercised great care in selecting the terms in the Bill as originally drafted to ensure that there was a balance between deregulatory gains on the one hand and proper and fair representation on the of her. We chose the terms,
"a person living in the vicinity",
and,
"a person involved in a business",
and their representative bodies as they encompass those who would be affected by the use of particular premises as a result of their living or working in the vicinity.
At this point, I should restate my answer to a question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, during debate on this matter at Report stage. Employees of a particular business in the vicinity of particular licensed premises will be able to make representations through their employer, even if they do not live in the vicinity of the premises themselves. The point is to give all those with a legitimate interest a fair hearing while preventing those individuals or groups, some of whom may have ulterior motives, from making trivial or spurious representations which have absolutely nothing to do with the licensing objectives, and undermining the smooth operation of the system. The use of the word "business" rather than "organisation" places this balance as near to the ideal as it could be.
I hope that the House will let me illustrate this argument by way of a couple of examples which were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. The noble Lord referred to schools. Local residents, and bodies that represent them, will be able to make representations. This is likely to include parents, teachers and governors. So schools will have the ability, in one form or another, to get their views heard.
The noble Lord also mentioned hospitals. Hospitals constitute another category of organisation that he and other noble Lords have suggested should be added to the list of interested parties. Here the position under the Bill is even clearer. Most hospitals are operated as trusts which fall within the broad use of the term "business" in Clause 14 of the Bill. Such organisations will therefore be able to make representations on licensing matters. There will be no distinction, as contended by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, on Report and just now by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, between private and public healthcare providers. In addition, where appropriate, patients, doctors, nurses, hospital administrators and members of hospital

1259
boards themselves may make representations where they live in the vicinity of the premises which is the subject of an application.
I turn to charities. Interested parties already include a person involved in a business in the vicinity. We have not restricted the breadth of meaning of "business" for these purposes. A charity with an outlet in the particular vicinity, or having its offices in that vicinity, would come within the broad scope of the term. So there is no reason to extend the views of interested parties in respect of charities.
I turn to residents' associations. Representations from residents associations will clearly be allowable. Indeed, Clause 14(3)(b) refers specifically to a body representing persons who live in a vicinity as an interested party. Residents' associations are explicitly provided for in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said that I in some way contradicted myself earlier. I am not quite sure how I did that, but if I did I apologise. I hope that what I have said on the subject is now absolutely clear. He also asked about written authorisation. A person representing local residents must be authorised by the residents, but that does not necessarily require authorisation in writing. A residents' association has the right to make representations if, as a matter of fact, it represents residents in the vicinity of the premises concerned without any further authorisation. I hope that that adds clarity to the intentions behind the Bill.
Much was made of the human rights implications of the Bill during the debate on similar amendments on Report. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, has raised the matter again. Our amendments on Report resolved any residual questions that the Joint Committee on Human Rights might have had. The Government are absolutely confident that the Bill is entirely compatible.
The amendments are unnecessary. The Bill allows for representations from those affected by decisions on individual premises. The noble Lord mentioned intimidation, so I add that residents can ask the police to make representations on their behalf if they are afraid to raise their heads above the parapet, so I do not think that there is a problem. The police are not restricted in terms of the issues that they may raise with the licensing committee.
The amendment adds nothing to the Bill that helps to expand the definition of interested party. At the same time, it could increase the bureaucracy involved and distort the focus of the regime away from the licensing objectives, as well as providing an opportunity to some people—perhaps very few, admittedly—who might seek to frustrate an application for commercial, political or other reasons. On that basis, and in the light of my further explanation, I hope that the amendment can be withdrawn.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, in what way would the addition of the words "or
1260
organisation" further complicate the bureaucracy involved if, in the Minister's view, the word "business" already embraces them?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it could allow all kinds of individuals or bodies to object to a licensing application for some reason or another, and they might not have justified grounds for doing so by being local residents or local businesses in the vicinity of the particular premises involved. Therefore, local authorities would have to process and deal with far more illegitimate objections than they might have to deal with otherwise.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, for his support for the amendment. He probably has more experience of such matters than anyone else in the House, from the high concentration of licensed premises in the West End and from his knowledge of the processes through which residents have to go at the moment in making objections.
To some extent, I am reassured by what the noble Baroness has said. She has gone further than ever in defining the scope of organisations that can make representations. I am grateful to her for what she said about schools, especially that organisations of parents, governors or teachers could make representations irrespective of whether they could show that particular individuals who belong to those organisations live within the vicinity of the premises.
I am grateful for what the Minister put on the record about the fact that, in the relevant regard, there is no difference between a hospital trust and the private hospital, as we had thought. She said that patients, doctors and nurses could make representations—admittedly, she then added that they had to live in the vicinity—as they obviously could in their own right. I was hoping that she might have said that organisations representing patients, doctors and nurses, in a similar way to the teachers, governors or parents of a school, could make representations if the hospital was located within the vicinity of the premises.
Let us take St Thomas' Hospital as an example. If a licence application was made in its name, I would expect that organisations representing the professional people and the workers in that hospital would be entitled to make representations in their own right, and not by reason of the fact that they could produce particular individuals among their membership who lived in the vicinity of the premises. Perhaps that point needs to be explored in another place.
The Minister said that representations would be allowable from residents' associations irrespective, again, of whether the associations had the authority of persons living in the vicinity. That is an enormous help to us, because of the point that I made about the reluctance of individuals to come forward, even if it is simply a matter of having their names cited at the hearing. At the moment they like to have an association to represent them because of the anonymity it gives them. In future, with the new procedure, it will be equally necessary for

1261
organizations such as the Soho Association to be able to go to licensing hearings and make their representations without having to say that, in doing so, they are representing Mr x or Mrs y who lives in Dean Street or Meard Street.
I am happy that we have gone a long way towards meeting the anxieties expressed at an earlier stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Clause 19 [Determination of application for premises licence]:
Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 12, line 7, leave out from "authority" to "to" in line 8 and insert ", providing the application is consistent with its licensing policy statement, must grant the licence subject"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we believe that there are bound to be instances where an application which is not in conformity with the licensing policy statement may get to the licensing authority without any relevant representations having been made, partly as a result of the limitations that we fear might be imposed on the rights of local residents' associations to object. I realise that we have gone over that point, but we still think that there may be instances where an application gets through all the hoops without being noticed, and reaches the licensing committee without an objection.
I have a list of the applications tabled last Tuesday for consideration by the licensing court in Westminster today. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, referred to that list on the previous amendment. It contains 198 applications on 98 pages. How an individual living in one of the stress areas could be seriously expected to go through that vast dossier, identify an application that may seriously affect his residential amenities and lodge a coherent objection in less than a week is not clear. The noble Lord has already described such difficulties. One has to go through individual applications and analyse them to see of what they consist, which is not always very clear.
The amendment seeks to ensure that when an application gets past the eyes of interested parties without any of them having made relevant representations, because they failed to notice that some feature of the application was not in conformity with the licensing policy statement, the licensing authority would still be entitled to refuse the application. Probably that would happen only very rarely, but it would be extremely rash for Ministers to say that it could never occur.
Another point is at issue. The guidance contains an injunction to the licensing authority not to consider repetitious complaints in paragraph 6.62, but has nothing to say about repetitious applications. I shall give an example. A public house in Bath, The Huntsman, has a public entertainments licence to operate until 2 a.m. six nights a week. It is close to the Abbey Hotel and residential properties. For many years, it has been a source of noise nuisance. There have been several unsuccessful attempts to prevent the renewal of the licence.
Last year, the hotel and the residents got a good joint case prepared, with proof that customers from The Huntsman caused the disturbances. The council's licensing committee decided to reduce its hours, and since then the area has become peaceful. The licensee now says that he will apply repeatedly until he finally wins the case. That puts the objectors at some disadvantage because they have to keep assembling witnesses and evidence as often as the licensee fancies, until he gets his "result". There may come a point when they do not get their act together—for example, if the prime mover among the objectors goes on holiday at a crucial time or the objectors have not got the resources to continue. The objectors will have to be extremely vigilant. There is nothing in the guidance that states that a licensing authority has the power to reject an application for not being in conformity with the licensing policy statement. The amendment will give them that power.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, touched on the point that the ministerial guidance does not as yet make clear the need to provide a readable notice on the premises as well as two advertisements placed in local newspapers and the power of licensing authorities to circulate by post details of the application should they so choose. Also, all advertisements, notices and letters should include a clear summary of what is proposed, including opening hours, to save people having to make representations to safeguard their position while they find out what the application is about. If the people affected by an application do not see the notice, or if they have no idea of the total effects it will have, they could easily miss the boat.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, referred a few moments ago in what resembled a Second Reading debate to the "wider community interest". The amendment would preserve the power of the licensing authority to look after that wider community interest. For all those reasons, we believe it important that the licensing authority should have the fall-back power proposed in the amendment. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I shall do my best to be brief. I apologise for the fact that an amendment has been tabled at Third Reading concerning what might be described as the categorical essence of the problem that the Bill sets. The process in your Lordships' House has been a sort of pre-legislative scrutiny, if that is not an Irish paradox. It has been possible to read on the faces of Ministers their surprise at information provided by those on these Benches during our proceedings.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is only because we are bad poker players.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I should never believe that the noble Lord was a bad poker player; I should say that he was precisely the opposite.

1263
I pay tribute to the Government Front Bench for the flexibility they have shown in responding to arguments. I am conscious that we are producing at a late stage in proceedings in your Lordships' House an amendment that gets at the Bill's categorical essence. The amendment is intended, not as a wrecking amendment, but as a response to the spirit of the Bill at this stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, earlier prayed in aid my observations in terms of the need for the local community to be involved in the process through the local authority rather than through magistrates. The input of the local community occurs with regard to determining what the licensing policy of the local authority is. If the licensing policy is not allowed to influence the categorical statement in the Bill that the licence must be granted, by definition the local authority has a role, but that role is more in the manner—I do not want this Shakespearean context to be misunderstood—of the first and second assassin or the first and second gravedigger rather than the part of Hamlet himself. It is fulfilling arrangements dispensed from on high and at the centre.
The amendment would provide for the local community and the local authority acting on its behalf the right to determine the application in line with whether it met the local licensing policy which had been set by the local licensing authority having regard to—we return to our earlier debates—the ministerial guidance. There is no doubt in my mind that local communities would be greatly reassured if the amendment were agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this has been an instructive little debate. It enables me to contrast the present law, the law as it will be (in the Bill as drafted) and the effect of the amendment. As we know, the current law is that there must be hearings even when there is no dispute. Magistrates, local authorities, the police and responsible authorities generally must turn up to hearings even when there are no objections. That involves a substantial waste of time and money, which clearly increases the cost of licences. Incidentally, the fact that there must be so many hearings is confirmed by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on the number of matters listed by Westminster licensing justices. The huge number of applications shows how bureaucratic the current procedure is. The list to which he referred includes not just original applications for licences but also renewals, variations, extensions and many special orders. None of those would require to be on any list and none of them would require to be inspected or searched for in the way in which he suggested.
In Clause 19, we provide for the determination of applications that are made under Clause 18. Clause 18 states that applications must comply with regulations. That is not in the guidance; the noble Lord should not look for it there. The form, manner and method of advertising applications will be set out in regulations rather than in guidance. That will ensure that each application goes directly to the responsible authority,
1264
so that it does not have to search through other people's documents in order to find them. It will therefore be able to consider representations. The method of advertising to interested parties will also appear in the regulations.
The circumstances in which the amendment would be triggered are those cases in which there have been no relevant representations. In other words, the police, having been notified of the application, would be satisfied on crime and disorder grounds, the fire authority would be satisfied that no fire risk was involved, health and safety authorities would be satisfied that there were no health or safety risks and environmental health authorities would be satisfied that, for example, there was no noise nuisance. The noble Lord's example in Bath fits in with my remarks because environmental health authorities have a responsibility—residents do not have to look out for it—and will be expected to protest if there are applications that involve noise nuisance. Moreover, the planning authority would be satisfied that there was no conflict with planning policy. We have been through the position regarding residents, residents' associations and businesses and I need not do so again. All of those bodies would have an opportunity through well-advertised applications to make their views known. If the Bill remains as amended on Report and survives the Commons, the local authority itself, in terms of any of its responsibilities, would be able to make relevant representations. The amendment will be triggered only when none of those people or organisations has made an objection.
The amendment then says that the licensing authority can second-guess all the experts, professionals, local people and everyone else. Can that really be the intention? Can it be intended that we should trigger hearings of that kind? Quite apart from anything else, there is an appeal system to the magistrates' courts. Do we believe that the magistrates' courts will sustain the turning down of an application when the licensing authority objects to it, having received no relevant representations?
The Bill concerns the simplification of the procedures so that the community, public safety, the prevention of crime and disorder and the protection of children are promoted in the easiest possible way. If there is to be a hearing of the kind that the amendment suggests, who will be invited? Will the police be summoned, even though they have made no objection? What will the content of the hearing be and what will be the cost? Clearly there cannot be a cost to the licensing authority because there is full-cost recovery. Therefore, the cost will go directly to the applicants.
A procedure is in place here. There is a system of responsible authorities and interested parties which, as I hope I made clear, covers all the points that need to be, and can be, made in terms of public protection. The amendment would simply add to the bureaucracy and to the possibility of dragging out the unnecessary procedures. Above all, it would add to the cost.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is seldom wrong, but in this case he is wrong

1265
to say that the amendment would add to the bureaucracy and to the costs. In my introductory remarks, I said that the events which would trigger the process dealt with in the amendment are extremely rare. The noble Lord has, in his comments, simply confirmed that that is so.
Because these "sieves" are in place and because initially there will be a far smaller number of applications, that will make it easier for the objectors to look through them and discover those to which they want to lodge objections. The number that would trigger a hearing would therefore be relatively small. However, it is still a fact that the objectors will have only a week in which to do so. The fact that the objectors will have only, say, 50 applications instead of 198 to look through will make the job easier for them, but that does not mean that they will never make any mistakes. The same applies to all the authorities mentioned by the noble Lord.
I agree that it is extraordinarily unlikely that the police and fire, health and safety, environmental health and planning authorities will miss something important in an application so that it reaches the licensing authority without their having raised any objections, when, if it had been drawn to their attention or if they had noticed the implications of an application, they would certainly have done so.
However, I am trying to take care of the extremely rare instances where that could happen. The noble Lord says that such cases are impossible because of all the safeguards, but I believe that that contradicts human nature. Things can go wrong in every sphere of human activity. Even in this House we can make mistakes. We can spend as much time as we like on a Bill—on this Bill, for example—but provisions will still reach the statute book that will have to be the subject of amending legislation at some point in the future. Even though 650 people in this House and 650 in another place spend perhaps 100 or 200 hours examining proposals, the occasional thing will still get through the net and on to the statute book.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene. The noble Lord said twice that there is only a week in which to make objections. The timescale has not been decided but it is much more likely to he 28 days.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, again, I am extremely relieved to hear that. In the case of the large application list which I have just mentioned, the timescale was a week—from last Tuesday to this Tuesday. The hearing was today. The bundle of 198 applications extending over 98 pages, which I showed your Lordships a few minutes ago, was given to potential objectors last Tuesday and, therefore, the timescale was one week.
However, I am relieved to hear what the noble Lord says. It simply makes the eventuality for which the amendment seeks to cater even less likely. Such instances will be extremely rare, and I have never denied that. But I believe that there will come a day when such an application comes before a licensing
1266
authority and people will say to themselves, "What a pity that the House of Lords did not take the opportunity to put these amendments into the Bill when they had the chance to do so at Third Reading". However, I can see that I shall neither convince the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, nor get enough people to come into the Lobby with me, as I should like. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 55 [Fees]:
5.15 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 33, line 7, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
"(b) prescribe guidance for licensing authorities when setting the amount of the fee and what may be charged for under the fee"
The noble Lord said My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 7, which carries the same words with the exception of the opening one. The first amendment relates to premises licences and the second to those of clubs.
The purpose of the amendments is clear: the setting of the fee level should be via guidance only on what costs to include, and local authorities should be allowed to determine their own costs based on the guidance and not have the amount fixed separately. The current statement in Clause 55 refers to regulations that may,
"prescribe the amount of the fee".
The fact that it will be done centrally is familiar to all those in your Lordships' House who have taken part in these debates.
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has said on numerous occasions that it will ensure that the centrally-set application fee and annual fee will cover all associated costs, and that is of course a welcome assurance. However, it is hard to envisage how the DCMS will come up with a one-size-fits-all fee that does not involve local authorities making either a loss or a profit. I believe that that is self-evident.
The amendment would still impose statutory regulations on fee setting. It would tightly control what may be charged for under the fee and how the fee should be calculated. Within those guidelines, local authorities would be able to set their own fee in consultation with licensees, residents and businesses. The outcome would be a "win, win, win" scenario for licensees, residents and local authorities.
On Report, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, referred to the potential costs that Camden would have and I spoke about the potential costs in Westminster. I do not propose to go over that ground again as those two case histories were recounted and recorded at that stage of the Bill. However, as this is a central and national issue and one in which the Local Government Association has an interest, I want to make some remarks about the principle.
If councils are not properly funded by fee income and restrict non-essential activity due to cost, it will not be effective to rely upon the right of residents to call for a review of a licence where and when problems arise. If a council is already making a loss on its licensing service, there will be a commercial pressure to resist setting up review hearings, which will be a relatively expensive process for the council.
The regulatory impact assessment currently estimates the industry costs and costs to local authorities for administering the new regime levels based on CIPFA information regarding current levels of court action. It has estimated that 1.5 per cent of alcohol licences and 0.5 per cent of public entertainment licences result in court action or warnings. Those figures have been used to estimate the costs under the new regime. But these low percentages are the consequence of rigorous enforcement procedures, proactive enforcement and checking, and locally agreed conditions and requirements under the established regime, backed up by local licensing policies and current powers. They are not indicative of the likely actual ratio of legal activity and costs under the new system. If those ratios are maintained it will simply be as a result of the financial constraints preventing local authorities enforcing to a standard that they currently deliver and wish to maintain.
Incidentally, I am reminded of the first debate in the previous Parliament on the Hunting Bill when Mr Michael Foster, the Member for Worcester, who brought forward the Bill quoted a MAFF pamphlet which said that farmers were now satisfied that lambs were not in danger, which produced a cheer from his side of the House. When I spoke in that debate I added that Mr Foster had omitted the second half of the sentence in the MAFF pamphlet which said that that is a consequence of strict pest control by hunts, which transformed the original statement that he had uttered.
Reliance on the statutory minimum requirements for monitoring and enforcement may well prove to be insufficient and wholly inappropriate for all but the most responsible of licensees and operators. Councils may have little choice in order for the regime to be cost neutral.
I shall not go into the legal issues, but my impression from the regulatory impact assessment is that they believe that the saving to the industry will be around £1.7 billion over 10 years. At least £400 million of that is said to be legal fees. My understanding from lawyers who have looked at the legislation is that there is not likely to be a saving on legal fees because of the complications that the Bill produces. Clearly, a number of such legal actions will be against licensing authorities which will add to the licensing authorities' costs.
The Licensing Act 1964—at this late stage I should declare an interest in that my late noble kinsman was Home Secretary at the time that that legislation was brought in—has many weaknesses, bureaucracy and faults that the legal profession has so ably been able to
1268
navigate, to resolve or to exploit to their clients' benefit. I agree with the Government Front Bench that reform was needed. I shall not go into the detail of that at this stage, but I dare say that it will be raised in another place.
I shall not refer to initial start up costs because we tabled a probing amendment in relation to that on Report. However, I want to mention the redistribution of savings and resources, which perhaps will be a harbinger for another place as well.
The police are being given significant new responsibilities as part of the Bill, but seemingly no new ring-fenced resources. There will be significant savings to the Lord Chancellor's Department in winding up the justices' licensing committees. There seems to be no reference to the balancing figures in the regulatory impact assessment. Has any estimate been made of the value of those savings? That is really a matter for another place, so I do not seek an answer to that tonight. We can assume that local authorities are not to receive additional support, so are there plans for the Home Office to benefit in a reciprocal way from those savings in order to ensure that the police can meet their new responsibilities? I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, we have had useful debates on the central setting of fees at all stages of the Bill. At each one I have emphasised that fees will be set at a level that will allow all licensing authorities to recover the costs of administration, enforcement and inspection, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, has conceded. There will be no potential for under-funding or for a deficit to be picked up by council tax payers. The amendments seek to allow licensing authorities to set fee levels, but the drafting is flawed in achieving that aim. The amendments fail to give licensing authorities the power to set fees.
That aside, I understand the concerns of local authorities about this matter. They are perfectly understandable. It is right that any guardian of public funds should seek to protect its resources. That is why, to ensure that fees are set at levels to meet fully the costs of the new system, they will be decided following extensive consultation with local authorities. Relevant factors will be taken into account, such as those areas with significantly higher overheads and the size of premises, because the costs associated with licensing relating to a large night-club could differ from those of a small pub or bar.
The intention behind that policy is to ensure that the level of fees across the country is proportionate and consistent with the enforcement aim of public protection. As one may expect, currently we have a wide range of enforcement effort which is reflected in the wide variation of fees charged. The Government believe that it is possible to cut out the extremes and to promote the right level of enforcement. In some cases that may result in a licensing authority reviewing the effort that it puts into enforcement, inspection and administration and the efficiency with which it carries out those tasks. That revision may just as easily be upwards as downwards.

1269
The fact is that fees for public entertainment licensing—we should not forget that that is the only licensing fee that local authorities set themselves— vary significantly across the country, as does the way in which fees are calculated.
As I made clear on Report, there are precedents for the central setting of fees. The 155,000 holders of alcohol licences pay fees to the licensing justices that are set centrally by the Lord Chancellor's Department. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, asked about the savings from removing that responsibility from the licensing justices. Currently the cost of licensing justices is fully recovered from the licensing fee. Therefore, it follows that there are no savings to transfer when licensing justices cease those activities.
The fees for cinema licences are set centrally by statutory instrument. The businesses paying local authority set fees for public entertainment, theatre and late night refreshment are very much the minority under the existing regimes, of which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, is fully aware.
I must stress that while fees will be structured to ensure that licensing authorities recover their costs, it is imperative that the large variation in the fees and the way in which they are calculated are not replicated under the new system. Those inconsistencies lead to uncertainty and to confusion for businesses as well as for others who apply for public entertainment licences under the current regime. There is no rationale for them either.
Given my repeated assurances that fees will be set at a level that will allow all licensing authorities to recover the costs of administration, of inspection and of enforcement in the new regime and that they will be set in full consultation with the industry, with local authorities and with other interested parties, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. The words that I hear her utter are clearly intended to reassure me. I have a warm glow within me that perhaps means she is reassuring me. But the question that I postulated as to how centrally prescribed fees will prevent any local authority from making a profit or a loss, but meet its costs exactly, is quite difficult to envisage under the terms of what the Minister has so far been able to vouchsafe to us during the proceedings in your Lordships' House. At least we have had a good run on the subject of fees. I am certain that another place will return to the issue because at the moment I do not understand how the Government will work the magic that they constantly describe whenever they respond to amendments on this subject. As that excitement is for another place, and not for tonight, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville moved moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 33, line 13, leave out subsection (4) and insert—

"(4) If the annual fee is not paid by the prescribed time. the relevant premises licence will lapse on that date.

(5) If a licence lapses under the provisions of subsection (4). the former holder of that licence may for a period of three months, commencing on the date the licence lapsed, seek re-instatement of the licence.

(6) The applicant for re-instatement shall pay to the relevant licensing authority the annual fee together with such reasonable re-instatement fee fixed in advance by that licensing authority.

(7) The premises licence shall be deemed to have been re-instated as soon as the requisite fees have been received by the licensing authority."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I can speak more briefly on this amendment. In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 8 in Clause 90 as it seeks to achieve the same objective in the context of clubs as the first amendment seeks to achieve in the context of premises' licences.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, for her letter of today's date. It explained the Government's attitude to the amendments moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, on this subject on Report, on which I spoke. Clause 55(4) states:
"Any fee which is owed to a licensing authority under subsection (2) may be recovered as a debt due to the authority".
Local authorities—I am conscious that this is a continuing matter of concern to the Local Government Association at large and is not simply a local central London problem—are extremely concerned at the huge cost and time implications of this aspect of the proposed legislation.
Currently, the law states that if one does not pay the public entertainment licensing fee before the expiry date of the licence, which is usually one year, then one's entertainment licence lapses until the operator pays the fee. The Government's proposal is that the local authority will in effect be able only to "chase up" the fee, which will now he for all licensable activities not just entertainment licences. That will cause significant problems, which is why new subsections (4), (5) and (6) have been tabled.
Under the new legislation—I am conscious that I am going over the same ground as on Report—the majority of premises licenses will run continually unless surrendered or revoked. I must repeat: what possible incentives are there for operators to pay their ongoing annual fee? Local authorities will be unable to take any redress or punitive action.
The proposal that local authorities will have the time and resources to chase up the fee is of concern to local authorities across England and Wales. The potential impact of reduced cash flow, which is needed to keep the licensing service running, should not be underestimated. Local authority budgets cannot sustain year-on-year under-achievement of income because licensees have no incentive to pay. The result will be an under-funded, inefficient service which is of no benefit to anyone, particularly those responsible licensees who do pay up on time.
In her letter the Minister sought to explain why I am wrong. She said that most of those involved are businesses and that there is provision for normal commercial logic and discipline to be followed. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, in correspondence after Report indicated the acute problems which local authorities already have with street traders. I realise that it was the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, who wrote to the Minister and not me, but in her reply to me there is no reference to the street trader problem. It is the street trader problem that prompts the Local Government Association to be so concerned about this aspect of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, these amendments were brought forward both in Committee and on Report. The only difference is that instead of my noble friend Lady Thornton championing this issue, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, has taken up the baton and is running for home on the back straight.
The amendments seek to make the penalty for late or non-payment of the annual fee the lapse of the premises licence or club premises certificate. The Government believe that that is disproportionate. It raises the prospect of entirely innocent people being put out of work because of what might be an administrative oversight by their boss. Debt recovery is part of a local authority's everyday business. We should also not forget that the licensing fee will be set at a level, as I said when dealing with the previous group of amendments, that will allow the licensing authority to recover its costs, including any that might be associated with debt recovery. However, we have no evidence to suggest that non-payment of annual fees is likely to be widespread in the future.
My noble friend Lady Thornton said on Report that there would be no incentive for licensees to pay the annual fee. I am afraid that that argument simply does not wash. Local authorities make charges of many different kinds on both individuals and organisations. I am not aware of any local council cancelling the rubbish collection service for individual council tax defaulters or refusing to educate their children. The unpaid council tax may still be recovered by the authority's debt recovery operation.
Finally, I should clarify a further point raised on Report; namely, that under the current regime a public entertainment licence lapses if the fee is not paid. That is not the case. Public entertainment licences lapse, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, made absolutely clear, after one year whether or not the fee is paid. The notion that the licence lapses if the fee is not paid is, I am afraid, misconceived.
I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment unless we want to damage the livelihoods of people through no fault of their own.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I am grateful, as ever, to the Minister for the courtesy of her reply. I like the concept of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, handing over a baton to me. It is implicit in
1272
the noble Baroness's image that neither of us drop it. I give back an image to the Minister if I am right and she is wrong. Debt enforcement by local authorities is frequently done by bailiffs, as all Members of another place know, because they are the ones on whom the complaints are visited, from the people who are called on to recover council tax which they have already paid, or whatever. Given the description of the pattern of behaviour by some bailiffs, I like the idea of bailiffs and licensees clashing in the middle of the West End.
However, if that becomes as normal as the Minister suggests, I can foresee it. I am certain that not only I, but also local authorities in central London and the Local Government Association will read carefully what the Minister has now said twice. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, knows how important it would be to have the opportunity to say it three times. For the time being, in the certainty that the issue will be returned to in another place, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 90 [Fees]:
[Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 not moved.]
Clause 105 [Counter notice where permitted limits exceeded]
Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 59, line 40, at end insert—
"( ) are not in respect of a village hall, church hall, parish hall, community centre or similar community building."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 9 seeks to allow certain categories of premises to be exempt from restrictions on the number of temporary events it holds during one year. On Report I tabled a similar amendment. I wanted to see village halls exempt from being restricted to five temporary events a year. The thrust of that previous amendment was to make sure that the thriving community life centred around the village hall was not constrained or, perhaps, strangled by limiting temporary events. I commented that village halls,
"will have neither the time nor, necessarily, the expertise to apply for a premises licence. Village hall funds are already modest. The cost of preparing the application for a premises licence and the fees would consume a significant part of their income. As the Bill is currently drafted, village halls will have to stick to five events a year and that would be an absolute disaster".—[Official Report, 27/2/03; co1.493.]
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, responded with a particular point: how can we distinguish between village halls and other community centres? On reflection, the noble Lord has a valid point. Today, therefore, I speak to an amendment which seeks to allow community halls, parish halls and such like the freedom to hold as many temporary events as they wish. The noble Lord claimed that that would in effect,
"allow widespread circumvention of the licensing laws".—[Official Report, 27/2/03; col. 494.]
I firmly believe that is not the case. If community halls want to hold regular events involving entertainment and the sale of alcohol they will not want to have to apply for an application every single time.
The Minister has already promised—and we are extremely grateful—that premises falling into this category may be granted a "nil fee" requirement. That is a step in the right direction. But if they are to hold regular entertainment they will have to take the time to fill out an application for a premises licence since their requirement to pay a fee may be waived.
The Government make much of the "flexibility" in the new system. Why not allow village halls, which may hold a variety of events on behalf of different local groups, from time to time to have no restrictions on the number of events they may hold. They may not know at the beginning of the year how many events they will hold, and, therefore, will not want to apply for a full premises licence. If later they receive requests to use the premises—for example, eight in a year—they can use temporary event notices instead of obtaining a lull licence. That will allow them to respond to ad hoc requests as and when they crop up.
This amendment is not about circumventing the system. The police will still have the power to object. It is unlikely that the amendment will lead to undue public nuisance or distress to local people. It will encourage and promote community events and community life. I beg to move.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I support the amendment and its objectives. I have one question, which I hope the Minister can answer. It has been raised with me in writing at this late stage. If a small village hall knows that it will hold a number of events, which might be regular, must it apply for each individual temporary event, or, under the regulations as set out, could it make a block application? It would save the village hall much time and expense if it could make one application with one fee covering all five events. It would also save the council the expense of separate paperwork for each application, which would eat into much of the money provided by the fee. Both sides would win in that situation. I hope that the Minister can help me.
Lord Cobbold: My Lords, I support the amendment. It is definitely in the interests of the wider community and seems to be in the spirit of deregulation and reduction of bureaucracy. I, therefore, commend the amendment to the House.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in this House and in another place, Members have constantly drawn attention to the plight of villages and the death of social life there through the disappearance of post offices, shops and even pubs. In my local village there has been a reduction from two pubs to one. I was delighted when the Government accepted that village halls, community halls, church halls and so on would be unlikely to have to pay a temporary licence fee. I support my noble friend on the Front Bench for that very reason. We should do anything possible to stop he village dying. This is an example of something that we can do.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, took
1274
account of some of the problems that I had with her previous amendment, which referred only to village halls. I sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and others who say that village halls are an important part of village life and everything should be done to preserve them. But, in practice, it would be impossible to draw a distinction between village halls and church halls, parish halls, community centres or community buildings; otherwise we would be discriminating in favour of villages and against towns and cities. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, properly reflected that. She reflected, not only the cosy, delightful image of village halls, but the rather more gruesome description that I had to give of' one community centre in my former constituency. To that extent, one defect of the amendment has been removed.
But the fundamental objection to the amendment is now even stronger than before. The amendment would permit an unlimited number of temporary events in any such hall, including the sale of alcohol, on the basis of the temporary event notice procedure. That procedure requires that a notice is served at least 10 days before organisers intend to hold the event. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, you can serve up to the full five notices at once, provided that the earliest event is still 10 days away. You could still apply for later dates at the same time if that were a serious problem. But the point is that, to reduce bureaucracy for relatively simple, rare occasions, the temporary event notice procedure has been restricted to a notice. The only possible objection can be by the police.
Where is the protection if you can have an unlimited number of temporary events in a village hall or community centre? As regards objections, the obvious exception besides the police would be the fire authority. If a hall is to be used frequently and regularly for events, the fire authority might demand something more than it would for premises used occasionally. Much more importantly, where is the protection for residents and children? Residents who tolerate the use of premises up to five times a year will certainly not be tolerant if the premises are to be available for many occasions a year.
The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, suggested that if an event were to happen often, the organisers would apply for a premises licence. But let us suppose that, because of problems, they did not think that they would get a licence. They could get a temporary event notice, and only the police could express concern on their limited grounds. If it were possible to make an unlimited number of applications for temporary events in such halls, it would be a way around the licensing system. It would be very much against the interests of local residents, and I am sure they would be the first to scream in complaint if such events were to happen frequently, even if not regularly.
We have the balance right. I am glad that it has been recognised that there should not be fees for village halls or community centres. But surely it cannot be

1275
right to have no protection for residents, children and everyone else who needs to be protected by the licensing regime.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I shall not keep your Lordships' House on this point. We have tried hard to persuade the Government that there is a special circumstance with regard to our local communities, particularly given that all those involved in the kind of events we envisage are volunteers battling against the demise of community life as we all know and love it. I hope that honourable Members in another place will take up the point and press it hard. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 179 [Guidance]:
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 99. line 1, after "issue" insert "or revise"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as will be apparent to the Minister, this is a probing amendment arising out of the amendment that the Government moved on Report. It is probably self-indulgent to table a probing amendment at this stage. If the Minister would be kind enough to agree to reply to a letter in which I would carry out the probing that I would otherwise do in the House, preferably before Second Reading in the Commons, I would be happy to withdraw the amendment. So far, her record of meeting deadlines has been impeccable.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I would be extremely happy to respond to any letter that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, wanted to write to me on the amendment. I shall do so as speedily as possible.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, it is correspondence to which I look forward already. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [Provision of regulated entertainment]:
Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 110, line 14. leave out sub-paragraph (7).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Government agreed to consider the concern expressed on Report by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, that there was scope for misinterpretation of the provisions of the Bill in respect of the provision of regulated entertainment at a private event held by a charity. The concern was that the Bill would catch all relevant charitable events, even if they were intended not to make a profit but only to cover costs and, in the event, made a loss.
One of the conditions that must be fulfilled for entertainment to fall within the scope of the Bill is that, where it is not provided to any extent for members of
1276
the public or a section of the public or by a club for its members—that is, it is a part of a private event—it must be provided,
"for consideration and with a view to profit".
As I said on Report, it is certainly not the intention of the Bill to define entertainment provided by a charity as provided,
"for consideration and with a view to profit",
even where the charity concerned is trying only to cover its costs and not to make a surplus on the event.
The Government tabled the amendment to remove any scope for misinterpretation by removing paragraph 1(7) of Schedule 1. The amendment will make sure that the condition in respect of the entertainment or entertainment facilities being provided,
"for consideration and with a view to profit"
can properly be construed as not fulfilled, if the charity is simply covering its costs. I beg to move.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for the amendment. It fits the bill well. As she said, the point of the amendment is to ensure that nobody could be under any misunderstanding with regard to, for example, the provision of tea and biscuits during the interval in some event that is never going to cover its costs but might make a couple of quid on the tea and biscuits. The amendment will make it clear that such micro-profit in the context of an event that is not intended to do more than cover its costs will not fall foul of this part of the schedule. I am grateful for the amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I also thank the Minister for the amendment. We have all felt strongly about the matter throughout the Bill's passage, so we are grateful that the Government have tabled the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 112, line 7, at end insert—
"Garden fetes, etc
(1) The provision of any entertainment or entertainment facilities at a garden fete, or at a function or event of a similar character, is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act.
(2) But sub-paragraph (1) does not apply if the fete, function or event is promoted with a view to applying the whole or part of its proceeds for purposes of private gain.
(3) In sub-paragraph (2) "private gain", in relation to the proceeds of a fete, function or event, is to be construed in accordance with section 22 of the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 (c. 32)."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, when we discussed the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, on Report, I said that we would consider tabling a government amendment. We have tabled an amendment that will exempt garden fetes and functions or events of a similar character that

1277
are not held for private gain from the entertainment aspects of the new licensing regime. I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising the matter.
The amendment will come as a boon to the organisers of the thousands of garden fetes held throughout the country. I beg to move.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am again grateful to the noble Baroness. Church bells will ring from one end of England to the other, as they did at the news of the assassination of the Duke of Buckingham.
The amendment fits the bill perfectly. My amendment—Amendment No. 14—perishes in the shadow of Amendment No. 12.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as a horticulturalist, I am delighted at the Government's reaction to the amendment relating to garden fetes tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. However, I ask the Minister to tell us what the difference is between a garden fete making a profit and a village hall or community centre making a profit.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale for the point that he just raised. It occurs to me that that image of the village hall is to be rejected. It is not just an image; it is real.
I am sure, however, that all noble Lords are grateful for the amendment and grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, for raising the matter. The amendment will exempt those who want to hold something as simple and community-based as a garden fête. It is a step in the right direction, and we are grateful to the Government for responding to the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, and to the debates on the issue.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I declare an interest as the husband of someone who runs a local fair in the summer to raise money to enrich and extend the amenities at Myatt's Fields in the London Borough of Lambeth.
The London Borough of Lambeth has greatly reduced the size of its parks department and depends extensively on contributions made by private individuals throughout the borough who raise money by various means to enhance the amenities in its parks. It will he a great reassurance to all those engaged in such enterprises—not just the one run by my wife—in Lambeth and other parts of the metropolis to know that they will be able to raise a few hundred pounds every year by holding a fete without incurring any disadvantage under the Bill and that all the money will go to the public purposes for which it is intended. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury for raising the matter and to the Minister for making the concession.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I appreciate the thanks expressed by noble Lords for the amendment. As I said, we should thank the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, for raising the matter in the first place.
1278
To the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, I say that, in the debate on the previous group of amendments, my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey explained clearly that a huge range of events could take place in village halls, many of which should be licensed. to make sure that the local community is properly protected from events that might get out of hand. A garden fete is a rather different matter.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 112, line 25, at end insert—
"Small premises
(1) The provision of entertainment is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act, where

(a) the number of persons attending the entertainment at any one time does not exceed 250, and

the entertainment terminates no later than 11.30 p.m. on the same day.

(2) The provision of entertainment facilities solely for the purposes of the entertainment in sub-paragraph (1) above is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 13, I immediately thank the Minister for a letter that, notwithstanding the fact that it is dated 10th March, I received just before I came into your Lordships' House this evening. The letter makes particular reference to incidental live music. It says that the Minister has decided to accept the principle that all incidental live music should be exempt. We are grateful for that important concession. Enormous progress has been made in that regard, and we are grateful to the Minister for that.
That said, we still believe that Amendment No. 13 is worthwhile and sensible. It would complement the Government's intention regarding incidental music. The amendments that we have achieved thus far are, to some extent, limited. The problem related to unamplified music, where instruments would require some form of amplification to make any noise. Given the fact that the Government have decided to accept the principle that all incidental live music should be exempt, that problem is somewhat diminished. That said, we suggest that it is diminished only with regard to incidental music, and we need to know what we mean by "incidental".
Our amendment could lead to a renaissance of live music and other small-scale entertainments. It sits with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport's goal of increasing participation in and access to the performing arts and using the performing arts to tackle social exclusion. It would include events that are, for example, advertised and, therefore, not necessarily just incidental to whatever else is going on. There is a concern that "incidental" could mean background music—for example, a pianist in a hotel, a string quartet or, with the Government's concession, amplified music—but it must be in some form incidental.
Amendment No. 13 is self-explanatory. It seeks to allow the provision of entertainment in licensed premises where the premises do not exceed 250 people and where the entertainment terminates no later than 11.30 p.m. on the same day. I repeat that it is right to strike a sensible balance between the amenity of people in the neighbourhood of the licensed premises and the enjoyment of people inside the premises.
The Government have said that, as drafted, the Licensing Bill strikes the correct balance between the right to a good night out and the right to a quiet night's sleep. Our question is: does it? A quiet night's sleep is considered to apply generally between 11.30 p.m. and 7.30 a.m. The exemption for broadcast entertainment covers transmissions on big screens set up in any place, with unlimited amplification and any number of people attending up to 24 hours per day. Not only sport but all kinds of pre-recorded and live music could be available.
The Government have decided that existing health and safety and noise nuisance legislation is sufficient to regulate any risks arising from such broadcast entertainment. However, we believe that the law as it stands would extend to any form of entertainment, including entertainment that would he provided within the limits of our amendment. This small premises exemption requires entertainment to cease by 11.30 p.m. with no more than 250 people attending at any time.
Public safety is covered by separate legislation. Both employer and self-employed performers have statutory duties to make risk assessments of the impact of their activities on members of the public. The example given by the Government of cables being trailed through an audience could lead to criminal prosecution under health and safety legislation, irrespective of any licensing controls. The same applies to the blocking of fire exits.
We know that noise within premises can be controlled. The Environmental Protection Act allows local authorities to seize noisy equipment immediately or to serve anticipatory noise abatement notices. The police can close noisy pubs immediately for up to 24 hours. I could go on. The reality is that this is a sensible, balanced amendment that would complement the Government's important concession in relation to live music being exempt where incidental. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I support the amendment, which also stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Falkland. This is a proportional amendment. I say that with regard to the House of Lords Committee on Human Rights discussing proportionality. There has been discussion on these Benches as to whether 11.30 p.m. is appropriate. Some of my noble friends say that nine o'clock is the average time at which people go to bed. As someone with very young children, I was awake between one and three o'clock this morning. I would happily have dealt with live music at that time.
1280
However, this amendment is being tabled not for any reason other than that it fulfils some objectives that the Government have set out in a letter. I have not received the letter but I had a cursory glance at that sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. I believe that a letter is now on my desk. This amendment will allow small-scale events in places such as a restaurant seating 80 people with music playing in the background.
If the amendment is not agreed to, music will not be considered "incidental" if a band advertises that it will be playing. The main attraction will be determined by whether people turn up to listen to the band or to eat. Live music on a small scale is not the great draw that people talk about. We must take a realistic and commonsense approach.
The Minister will now say—as I know his honourable friend in another place said—"What about Kyoto drummers?". I was tempted to table an amendment specifically banning Kyoto drummers playing anywhere in the United Kingdom, so that this issue would not be able to raise the hackles of Mr Howells. Amendment No. 13 is not intended purely and simply to pander to the mischief-making of the Musicians Union. We support the amendment because it will lead to the renaissance (Alive music and the ability to go out and listen to live music. We should all support that.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. Minor changes have been made to the Bill in an attempt to encourage live music and to provide places for musicians to perform. I, too, am grateful for the concession that the Government have made. As the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said, it is important that the difference between incidental music and featured performances is clarified. I shall not remind the Minister again of the wealth of talent in this country and the need to encourage live music.
Although the Minister assured us that the proposed legislation will encourage the use of live music, it is not seen that way by musicians. I have with me letters from various Ministers dating back to the early 1980s—all of them agreeing that the "two-in-the-bar" rule must go and that it should be changed as soon as it is legislatively possible. The Government may consider that they have done this, but musicians are now referring to the "none-in-a-bar" rule. The theory of a reasonable entertainment licence with an alcohol licence seems fine, but musicians do not believe that it would work. There is no evidence that more control is needed. The licensee is governed by so many regulations that it should be up to him how many musicians he feels should be admitted. He or she would risk the main licence if there were problems with the entertainment licence.

1281
When the new Bill is enacted, 78,000 pubs and bars, 25,000 restaurants and 4,000 clubs will lose their automatic right to host one or two performers. No one knows how many will take up the option to have live music under the Bill. The right honourable Member, Kim Howells, has been quoted as saying:
"Maybe it won't work, but no one has come up with a better way of doing it".
Perhaps he should take a look at the situation in Scotland, Ireland, Denmark, Germany and France. Even if 50 per cent of licensed premises opt to host live music, that will leave 50 per cent where organising a featured solo, acoustic gig would be a criminal offence.
If the entertainment licence is not applied for with the alcohol licence, an application for live music will become a "variation" of the premises licence. That entails starting the whole process over again—notification of an approval by the police, fire service, environmental health, local residents and the licensing committee of the local authority.
Despite the Government concession, I implore the Minister to have a further look at this issue. The All-Party Parliamentary Jazz Group, of which I have the honour to be a joint chairman with Michael Connarty, has been active for many years trying to enable licensees to make their own decisions on how many musicians are ideal in different premises. I am wearing the all-party group tie. I had hoped to be able to say that there is a phalanx of Members sitting behind the Minister with similar views to mine, but I do not see a single tie over there. I am hoping that we shall be supported in the Lobby and perhaps in another place. Perhaps the Minister will allow us to present one of these ties to him when this Bill has been through both Houses. He will be much appreciated.
In my discussion with musicians over many years, I have found most to be supporters of the Labour Party. The Musicians Union supports the Labour Party. This is an opportunity for the Minister to show support for his supporters.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for that attempted bribe, but I do not wear ties which mean anything.
I am very happy to hold a debate on the matters that have been raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and others. We could discuss the relationship between incidental music and music which is the main purpose of an entertainment; the difference between recorded and live music; and the difference between amplified and unamplified music. I am also pleased that the concession made by the Government has been received in good spirit. But I do not think that we could have that debate on this amendment. I am afraid that it is so wide-ranging and drastic that, were it to be introduced again either here or in another place, things would have to be said about it which are not at all helpful to live music, whether it be jazz or any other kind.
The amendment would exempt huge swathes of entertainment from all licensing. I repeat: huge swathes of entertainment; indeed probably nearly all
1282
forms of entertainment. It would exempt it from premises licensing, from club premises licensing, and from temporary events notices—with the result that no one would even know when anything was going to take place. The amendment would do so on the two criteria set out: that audiences would have to comprise fewer than 250 people and that the entertainment would cease by 11.30 at night.
The amendment refers to "small premises", but it does not concern only small premises. It would affect any size of premises, whether outdoor or indoor, provided that the audience was smaller than the 250-person limit. We must take account of the fact that it would apply to outdoor events as well as those held indoors. The exemption from entertainment licensing would mean that, unless alcohol licensing with appropriate conditions were attached, there would be no protection, in particular, for children from harm.
Entertainment licensing applies to cinemas. Under the amendment, if a cinema seats fewer than 250 people, no licensing will be required. There would he no way to prevent young children from going to watch 18-rated or X-rated films. It could not be done. There would be no way to exclude children from, for example, a stag night. Again, it could not be done because the exemption from all forms of licensing means that no conditions could be applied.
The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, rightly remarked that in previous debates I have said that licensing should be confined to licensing matters and that some matters of public safety arid concern can properly be left to non-licensing legislation. However, if all licensing considerations were to be taken away, as would be the case under the amendment, then no licensing controls would apply, no conditions could be set and it would lead to the year-round provision of entertainment. All that would be left, except in a very small number of cases, would be the 11.30 p.m. cut-off point.
This is the archetypal sledgehammer to crack a nut. By all means let us have a debate on proper amendments in another place on the issues that were raised most reasonably in our debates, but please do not let us do so on this amendment.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that full response. I hear what he has had to say, but we believe that this is a fair arid reasonable amendment. We believe that we have set a sensible time constraint and an equally sensible constraint in terms of the size of premises.
Concerns were expressed in earlier debates that if we were to exempt, for example, all live performances, then we could be talking about rave situations and other circumstances that could lead to crime and disorder, and of course the Minister has referred to the need to protect children from harm. However, we believe that the amendment does not and would not envisage events that could cause such problems. Numerous elements of legislation are already in place, to which I have already referred, which would take

1283
care of any problems that might arise. Indeed, the legislation is already able to deal with matters surrounding broadcast entertainment, which is not caught by similar provisions in the Bill.
The Minister may say that this is a drastic amendment, but we call it sensible and one that we believe is important in order to show honourable Members in another place that the matter is of deep concern not only to the music industry and musicians, as well as to many others involved in the entertainment business, but also to those of us who enjoy being on the receiving end of entertainment. We feel that entertainment should not be constrained in the way sought in the Bill.
Notwithstanding the fact that we are grateful to the Government for deciding to accept the principle that all incidental live music should be exempt, we do not believe that that would take it far enough. I am grateful for the Minister's words, but perhaps I may say that, as regards cinemas, surely the Government exemption for big screen broadcasts could easily equate to that. Therefore, while it is a good argument in some senses, it is not one that we would accept.
This is an important amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think that it is possible to show 18-rated films in a pub, for example, to audiences including under 18 year-olds. In small cinemas—there are many of them, especially in villages—we are saying that the amendment would allow children to watch films that they should not be watching.
Were I to ask for a press release to be issued on the amendment, if it were to be pursued and carried, I would say that the Opposition were voting for children to watch sex films.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, we would deny that. I do not accept that that is the case. I think that it is unfair, given that the noble Lord knows that one of my most critical concerns about the Bill has been with regard to the need to protect children. I do not believe that the amendment does anything that might cause harm to children—unless there was a potential harm. At that point, the police still have powers to become involved.
We could argue further, but it is important, in a sense, to push the boundaries as far as possible in order to send a message to honourable Members in another place stating that we believe that issues concerning music and entertainment are so important that they should consider with care all the hard work that we have carried out in this House. I should like to test the opinion of the House.
6.18 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 13) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 150; Not-Contents, 120.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Lindsay, E.

Addington, L.

Liverpool, E.

Alderdice, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Lucas, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Luke, L.

Avebury, L.

Lyell, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

McNally, L.

Barker, B.

Maddock, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Blaker,L.

Marlesford, L.

Bowness,L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Bradshaw, L.

Methuen, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Monson, L.

Burnham, L.

Montrose, D.

Buscombe, B.

Moynihan, L.

Byford, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Newby, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Noakes, B.

Chadlington, L.

Northbrook, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Northesk, E.

Clement-Jones, L.

Northover, B.

Cobbold, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Colwyn, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

O'Cathain, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Onslow, E.

Craigavon, V.

Palmer, L.

Crathorne, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Dholakia, L.

Plumb, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Powell of Bayswater, L.

Dundee, E.

Reay, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Redesdale, L. [Teller]

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rennard, L.

Elton, L.

Renton, L.

Erroll, E.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Falkland, V.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Ferrers, E.

Roper, L.

Flather, B.

Russell, E.

Fookes, B.

Saatchi, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Seccombe, B.

Geddes, L.

Selborne, E.

Glentoran, L.

Selsdon, L.

Goodhart, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Sharples, B.

Hamwee, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Shrewsbury, E.

Hayhoe, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Henley, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Higgins, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Hogg, B.

Strange, B.

Hooper, B.

Swinfen, L.

Hooson, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Howe, E.

Thatcher, B.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Howe of Idlicote,B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Tope, L.

Hylton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Jopling, L.

Trumpington, B.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Vinson, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Vivian, L.

Laird, L.

Waddington, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Walmsley, B.

1285

Walpole, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Wilcox, B.

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Ahmed, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Andrews, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Bach, L.

Barnett, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Berkeley, L.

Jones, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Judd, L.

Bhatia, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Billingham, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Blackstone, B.

Layard, L.

Borrie, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Bragg, L.

Lockwood, B.

Brennan, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Brookman, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Burlison, L.

Campbell-Savours, L

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Carter, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

Christopher, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Morgan, L.

Crawley, B.

Nicol, B.

David, B.

Orme, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Ouseley, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Parekh, L.

Dean ofThornton-le-Fylde, B.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Derby, Bp.

Paul, L.

Desai, L.

Peston, L.

Dixon, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Puttnam, L.

Dubs, L.

Radice, L.

Elder, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Richard, L.

Filkin, L.

Rooker, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Gale, B.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Gilbert, L.

Sawyer, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Simon, V.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Goudie, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Thornton, B.

Guildford, Bp.

Tomlinson, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Turnberg, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Varley, L.

Harrison, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Warner, L.

Haskel, L.

Weatherill, L.

Hayman, B.

Whitaker, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Wilkins, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.27 p.m.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Schedule 7 [Repeals]:
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Schedule 8[Transitional provision etc.]:
Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 160, line 22, after "conditions" insert "or undertakings"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we return to the subject of undertakings. I realise that we have already covered it in some detail, but not to the satisfaction of my noble friends and myself and, I think, others on this side of the House. We see undertakings as an integral part of the old system. We are very disappointed that they are not being carried over into the new regime.
Undertakings offered to the court by applicants contain many of the matters which reassure members of the public about environmental and nuisance concerns. Sometimes, those have to be fought for at great length. It is a backward step not to incorporate them into the new regime. I refer to situations where, in deciding whether to grant or renew a licence, a court has found that a material matter is at stake.
When we dicussed this matter on 4th March, the Minister said that the way to deal with undertakings was for an interested party to apply for a review of the premises licence,
"if a licensee does something, or fails to do something. which was previously the subject of an undertaking, provided of course that the act or omission relates to the licensing objectives".—[Official Report, 4/3/03; col. 781.]
I can see two objections to that procedure. First, the licensee could surely argue that, if Parliament itself did not see fit to carry forward the undertakings, then he was under no obligation to honour them. The undertakings had no legal force previously, as we have been reminded, and now Parliament has deprived them of any moral force that they might have had.
Secondly, the failure to observe an individual undertaking might not have a significant impact on the licensing objectives as it might be very difficult to show that it had. The burden of proof is being shifted on to those who want the undertakings to be maintained and they are asked to undergo all the trouble and expense of invoking the Clause 51 procedure when they are not asking for the licence to be revoked but merely for the undertakings to be restored. If the objectors are successful in persuading the licensing authority that the grounds for a review—that is, that the licensee is no longer complying with undertakings given under the previous regime—are not frivolous or vexatious, and that each of the grounds is relevant to one or more of the licensing objectives, there has to be a full hearing at which the objectors would be obliged to present all the evidence that led to the undertaking being given in the first place. The licensing authority would then have the power, under Clause 52(4)(a), to modify the conditions of the licence as it saw fit. Presumably one way in which it could do so would be by re-attaching the undertakings in the form of conditions. Would it not save an awful lot of unnecessary work if your Lordships did that for them?
We have talked about this as though the undertakings would normally cover only one or two relatively minor issues, such as a pub ensuring that the

1287
customers do not leave the premises with a glass after 10 o'clock at night—an example cited by the Minister— presumably in order to prevent the disorder that would arise from using the glass or a broken part of it as a weapon.
The problem is that although each undertaking might be comparatively small, cumulatively they might be of great importance, certainly to residents in the vicinity and arguably to the achievement of the licensing objectives. I was given an example this morning: in this application, the justices attached seven conditions to a licence and no fewer than 13 undertakings, some of them of no minor significance. For example, each morning, not before 8 a.m., cleaning contractors were to clean the frontage of the premises so as to remove any bottles, glasses, spillage from rubbish bins and evidence of urination, vomiting, and so on, by hot washing. If I were a resident of the neighbourhood, I would regard that as particularly important.
Are we now saying that the licensee can omit to perform the obligations he has just taken on? This application was heard in November; it is of very recent origin. If so, we are in effect telling the licensee that he does not need to bother with that any more. He can omit to carry out the washing and the cleansing of the front of the premises, no matter how much of a nuisance that will be for people living in the neighbourhood.
The undertakings have been a flexible and effective tool of the licensing system. They have helped to ensure that licensed premises operate in a manner so as to prevent unreasonable diminution of amenity and the environment in accordance with what is now the third of the licensing objectives. It would be the height of folly to throw all that work away and start again from scratch. I beg to move.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, in six years of specialist study of the classical languages, in writing Latin and Greek prose and verses, only one single line of mine in Latin verse received the commendation of Katharine Whitehorn's father, who had the challenge of teaching me. I shall not be so immodest as to read the Latin pentameter into the record but the English line I was translating was to the effect that, "The raucous voices of the long path resound". The long path has a certain relevance to the four years of the Bill's gestation and the point we have now reached in its progress in this House.
The raucous voices are also apposite to the amendment because the undertakings to which it refers, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has so ably described, are often the fruits of not just a single argument but arguments that have gone on for years and years. In a recent case in the west end, it took seven years of persistent and persevering protest to secure a particular undertaking on the part of the licensee.
The Minister seemed, perhaps unintentionally, to undervalue the amount of time and perspiration that has gone into securing, in dozens of cases, what are
1288
known as undertakings. In the long path of licensing history, these undertakings, as seen by residents—who, prior to the undertakings, had to pay the price of raucous sounds—are milestones. The Bill will level them at a stroke and their re-erection will seem like a labour of Sisyphus to the residents or vicinity dwellers—to bring in those who are not residents—who have to take on the licensees, whom the Minister described today, in the context of licence fee payments, as being largely businesses, with all the greater resources that businesses have over residents. It really will be a very sad day if, when the Bill becomes an Act, those undertakings eventually turn out to be as nought. I support the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this is a particularly difficult part of the Bill. All transitional parts of Bills are difficult. Schedule 8 is about the transition from a justices' licence to a premises licence. Paragraph 2 of Schedule 8 is about the conversion of an existing justices' licence to a premises licence. Paragraph 6(6) preserves the conditions, in effect, at the time of the transfer. The amendment would add any undertakings in force.
We introduced these provisions in Schedule 8 because the industry was concerned about the damage that would be caused if we went back to zero budgeting, so to speak, threw all the cards in the air and got rid of the automatic transfer of licences subject to conditions. But the amendment seems to ignore the fact that there can and will be, at the time of the conversion to a premises licence from a justices' licence, applications to vary the licence. Under the more liberal regime which is being proposed, there will be changes. Since noble Lords have just voted virtually to abolish entertainment licensing, I shall not refer to that, but there will certainly be applications to vary the time of opening. In the far-off days of entertainment licensing, there would have been applications for live music licensing, and so on. All those changes would he within the protection of the licensing regime, and representations would be possible on all those variations. It is in the applicant's interest to give as much detail as he can to convince the responsible authorities and interested parties not to make representations. The very nature of the transition process means that there will be proper consideration of the licence in many cases. The kind of automatic transfer described by the noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Brooke, is not the only scenario we are considering.
What are undertakings? They are matters which have been volunteered by a licensee or an applicant for a licence when the licence would otherwise be in doubt. I have no reason to quarrel with any of the examples which have been given. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, did not seem to like our example of not taking glasses outside after 10 o'clock, although it is important for those living in the area that there should not be noise and broken glass. A lot of undertakings are temporary. For example, a licensee might agree not to have more than a certain number of people in the

1289
premises pending the construction of a new fire exit. There could be temporary undertakings on all sorts of grounds relating to the physical conditions of the premises. Although the undertakings are there to reassure residents, I think the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, recognised that they have no legal force and there can be no criminal prosecutions if they are broken.
The Bill offers protection whenever there is an application to vary a licence that is being converted into a premises licence. Secondly, a review can be requested, which would trigger the need to seek the opinions of responsible authorities and interested parties, including residents. With that protection, to carry over all undertakings, including temporary ones, goes beyond the needs of the case. The Bill as drafted meets the points that were raised in the reasonable speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Brooke. I do not believe that their amendment is necessary or desirable.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am disappointed by that reply, as I have been with answers that we have had at earlier stages on the carrying-over of undertakings. I cannot see the logic in the Government's distinction between conditions, which are carried over, and undertakings, which are not. The list that has been supplied to me of conditions and undertakings that are agreed as part of the award of a licence shows no fundamental distinction in the nature of the two processes. A restriction on the permitted hours of the premises on a Sunday is listed as a condition, but the question of noise limitation is an undertaking.
It would he much simpler for licensees and for those in the vicinity who are affected to incorporate conditions and undertakings in a temporary licence and to start from that point with the process of review that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, mentioned. There would be the presumption that both sets of conditions—using the word in the general sense to apply to conditions and undertakings—would continue in force unless they were the subject of a variation that had been agreed by the parties concerned. That would be the logical way to deal with the matter.
I hope that the Commons will continue to pursue the argument and will try to extract from the Government some more logical explanation of the reason for the distinction. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
An amendment (privilege) made.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I shall be brief. I thank noble Lords for their participation in this important and complex Bill. We are pleased and
1290
grateful that the Government have made a considerable number of important concessions as a result of our debates. In the words of my noble friend Lord Brooke, we pay tribute to the flexibility that the Government Front Bench have shown.
In addition, the Government have been defeated nine times on important issues. Together with government concessions, these achievements have resonated to an extraordinary degree in the country at large. People connected with our churches, our schools and our village, parish and community halls, together with our musicians—in relation to performance and copyright—publicans and local councillors and many others have supported our amendments, as well as, perhaps most critically, parents concerned with the well-being of their children, who have urged us to effect changes to the Bill.
In turn, I urge honourable Members in another place to consider with care the changes that have been made to the Bill in your Lordships' House. They should note the overwhelming support that we have received and continue to receive in the country. I ask the Government to think hard before taking any steps that would compromise the hard work of noble Lords on all sides of your Lordships' House.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I, too, commend the work done by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for dealing in such a kindly manner with all issues in the Bill, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, who has done sterling work, often alone on the Front Bench, in helping to improve the Bill. I also thank my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury, who has been successful in the most surprising of ways, and my noble friend Lord Avebury, who has also put in such sterling work.
We believe that the Bill has been improved by some of the amendments that have been made. We are not certain that the Government will accept every amendment in its entirety in another place. However, we take heart from the letter today, which shows that the Government have taken on board our concerns, especially about music, but also in other areas. We also hope that the Government will take on board the spirit in which those amendments were moved and will bring the Bill hack to this House at a later stage without too many drastic modifications so that we can pass it, because we support the Bill.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am enormously grateful to my noble friends Lord Davies of Oldham and Lord McIntosh of Haringey for their huge support on the Bill. On their behalf, I thank the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen—the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale—and everybody who has taken part in our deliberations on the Bill. We have been given a very good run for our money. I can guarantee that honourable Members on the government side in another place will read very carefully the debates in this House. I can say with absolute certainty that they will not accept all the

1291
amendments that have been made here. However, when they reject them, they will do so having given considerable thought to what has been said in this House.
We look forward to further debates on the Bill later in the Session, when it comes back from another place.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Local Government Bill
6.48 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (Continuance in force of sections 21 to 23) Order 2003
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Filkin)rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd January be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move. Before September 11th, the UK had already built up 30 years' experience of dealing with terrorism and terrorists. This meant that there were proven counter-terrorism measures and legislation in place. However, the September 11th attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania were on an unprecedented scale and of a different nature to what we had so far faced. We needed to address that difference swiftly and effectively. We introduced the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, including the Part 4 immigration and asylum powers.
The 2001 Act built on and updated as necessary the tough counter-terrorism provisions already in place. It was designed to ensure that the Government had the necessary powers to counter all forms of terrorist threat while ensuring the protection of individual rights and consistency with our international commitments.
The detention powers in Sections 21 to 23 of Part 4 of the Act were considered essential in the light of the particular public emergency facing the life of the nation, and proportionate to that threat. They address the very specific threat from suspected international terrorists present in the UK who are further suspected of involvement in terrorism of the sort which led to the events of September 11th. In short, it involves individuals who would not normally be permitted to remain in this country but who cannot be deported for legal or practical reasons.
Those measures required a derogation from Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This was not something that was undertaken lightly, but we believed—and continue to believe— that, based on the mass of evidence available to the Government, there is a public emergency threatening
1292
the life of the nation within the meaning of Article 15 of ECHR and that the measures we have taken are strictly required by the exigencies of the situation and are proportionate.
Having reviewed the open and the closed evidence, in its judgment in July 2002, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) agreed that there was a public emergency facing the life of the nation and that the measures were strictly required by the exigencies of the situation. However, the SIAC found that the powers were discriminatory, as they applied only to foreign nationals. The subsequent Court of Appeal judgment in October 2002 held, unanimously, that the derogation was lawful.
I can confirm that in my view the provisions of the order are compatible with the convention rights.
The detention powers that we took under Part 4 of the ATCS Act, in response to the public emergency, closed a very specific loophole. There are present in the UK a number of foreign nationals who are suspected of being concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of international terrorism of the kind which resulted in events of 11th September 2001; being members of organisations or groups so concerned, or having links with members of such organisations or groups; and who are a threat to our national security.
Where it is possible to remove or deport from the UK a foreign national suspected of terrorism, we make every effort to do so. But removal is precluded for some of these foreign national suspected terrorists because of the important safeguard in Article 3 of the ECHR to prevent removal if they might face torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Of course if it is possible to prosecute we will do so, and that would always be the preferred course of action. But it is not always possible to prosecute.
The Government have to achieve a difficult balance between our international commitments and our duty to safeguard the security of this country. The Government have reviewed closely and regularly the need for the detention powers and ECHR Article 5(1) derogation, as well as the feasibility of other possible options. We concluded that there was no responsible or indeed effective alternative but to maintain powers to detain, and the ECHR derogation. That view was upheld in the Court of Appeal in October.
The Government have also reviewed closely the application of detention powers to foreign and not UK nationals. We believe they are entirely justified, for the following reasons. The threat comes predominantly, though not exclusively, from foreign nationals present in the UK who we are not able to remove. The preferred course of prosecution may not be possible because the evidence needed for successful prosecution may be unavailable or not usable. It would be deeply damaging if the UK was seen to be unable to take action and consequently as providing safe haven, weakening the international fight against terrorism.

1293
Finally. unlike UK nationals, who have the right to be in the UK, foreign nationals are ordinarily subject to removal if they represent a threat to national security.
The Court of Appeal upheld our position on the need for these powers in its judgment in October last year, and agreed that they were not discriminatory and comply with ECHR.
To date, 15 foreign nationals have been detained under Sections 21 to 23 of the Act. Of those, two have voluntarily left the UK. The other 13 remain in detention. The decisions to certify and detain these individuals were based on detailed and compelling intelligence and other material. That material will be examined by the SIAC, as provided under ATCS Act.
All those detained have had access to legal ad vice throughout the detention period and there is no limit on the number of legal visits that detainees may receive. Those detained have immediate right of appeal to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission against the certificate. All but one of the detainees have already exercised that right. The ATCS Act provides for the SIAC regularly to review certificates, and it may overturn them. Detainees also have the right to apply for bail to the commission at any time and several have done so. This is not internment. It is open to the detainees to leave the United Kingdom, and two have done so.
Individual detainee appeals will be heard by the SIAC, starting in May. We believe these would have been heard much sooner had it not been for the legal challenge mounted by defendants to the detention powers—powers which the Court of Appeal upheld in October. We are clear that they must proceed as early as possible without any necessity to await the final outcome of the derogation challenge to the House of Lords, if leave is granted.
The Home Secretary stated in the House of Commons:
"I do not think that there has ever been an Act or part of an Act that has been subject to as much review, scrutiny, renewal and cancellation as this—and rightly so".—[Official Report, Commons. 3/3/03; col. 586.]
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, is the independent reviewer of the Part 4 powers. His report on the workings of Sections 21 to 23 of the ATCS Act was laid before the House on 12th February. We are most grateful to the noble Lord for his detailed, thorough and challenging work. We are pleased to note that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is satisfied that the Home Secretary has certified persons under the Act only in appropriate cases and that he has exercised his independent judgment in each case, having given due regard to advice from officials.
We welcome the noble Lord's recommendations. We are considering his points in detail and will reply to him shortly. The Home Secretary has already agreed in principle to the noble Lord's recommendation for detainees to be held in a separate facility within the Prison Service and scoping work is proceeding on this. I should emphasise that the decision to go to a separate unit, when it exists, on the part of the detainees will be voluntary; there will not be, and must not be, any sense of compulsion over this.
1294
The order extends for a further 12-month period the powers in Sections 21 to 23 of the Act. Those powers will then lapse, unless we propose renewal for a further period of up to 12 months, and if that proposal is then approved by both Houses of Parliament. In summary, the effect of the order is to continue in force, until 13th March 2004, the powers under Sections 21 to 23.
In the light of the events of the last 18 months, including recent weeks, we are absolutely convinced that the public emergency continues. For so long as it does so, when a foreign national suspected of terrorism of the kind which resulted in the events of September 11th and of being a threat to national security, and when we want to remove or deport them but removal is not possible, we believe it is necessary and proportionate to continue to provide for extended detention under immigration powers pending eventual removal. That is why I am seeking this House's approval to extend the powers in sections 21 to 23. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd January be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Filkin.)
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, as the Home Secretary said in another place, Part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 is surrounded by a great raft of reviews and sunset clauses. My right honourable friend Mr Oliver Letwin pointed out that they are largely in place thanks to the persistence of the opposition parties in both Houses, who insisted on them during the passage of the Bill.
Having made that point, we are here to give general support to the order. I join the Minister in paying tribute to the excellent report produced by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, whom I am pleased to see in his place. The main points flagged by the noble Lord on Part 4 were the removal of the word "links" from Section 21; the implementation of the SIAC procedural rules and substantive hearings by SIAC before the final determination of the challenge to derogation from the ECHR; the question of special advocates; the provision of facilities more suitable to persons who after all have not been charged with any terrorist offence; and, finally, the particular sensitivities of the Muslim community to the fact that, as it happens, all those detained so far have been Muslims. I shall briefly speak to each of those.
On the question of "links", we are pleased to note that Ms Beverley Hughes stated that the Government are prepared to reconsider the clause. I would draw the Minister's attention to the excellent wording in an amendment suggested to Section 23(2). My right honourable friend Oliver Letwin said that he was surprised that he had not thought of it during the passage of the Bill. However, he also pointed out that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, was employed by the Home Secretary, and my right honourable friend would not have been able to afford his fees.

1295
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, referred to the equivocal position posed by the question of special advocates. We note that he gives it as his opinion that there is,
"a reasonable balance between fair proceedings and the reality of life-threatening risks to the public and to the law enforcement agencies".
I should like the Minister's assurance that the noble Lord's recommendation that these statutory inhibitions be kept under review will at all times be fully before them.
We are grateful for the Government's confirmation that the SIAC may proceed as at present pending the derogation hearing and also for the Home Secretary's decision that the special status of these detainees should be recognised in the conditions in which they are detained.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, also made reference to the fact that, as I stated, it so happens that all the detainees so far have been Muslim. I draw noble Lords' attention to the noble Lord's comments in his report, which states:
"There is a sense that it causes real resentment among parts of the Muslim community who are both residents and nationals of the United Kingdom and possibly makes some aspects of policing more difficult".
With commendable frankness and honesty, he goes on to say:
"One could not sensibly claim that the balance is easy or the solution is clear".
That is a challenge ever before us. I would suggest to noble Lords that the quality of Muslim Peers in this House makes this place a particular forum for continually addressing that very sensitive issue.
Finally, I should like briefly to refer to the application of this order to Northern Ireland. Let us be thankful that the main provisions of the Act have not to date had to be applied there. However, while my party has demonstrably supported the Prime Minister in the immensely difficult decisions he is required to make with regard to Iraq, I would suggest that he and his Government should be aware that in the matter of delaying tactics, Saddam Hussein has picked up a trick or two from the IRA.
We support the Government in their reasonable endeavour to give effect to the effective operation of the 2001 Act.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, before I get on to the subject of this order, I should like very briefly to say how pleased we are to see the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, back in his place on the Conservative Front Bench.
I cannot go quite as far as the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, in saying that we welcome this order. I think that the best I can do is to say that we do not oppose it. However, we do have a number of comments and questions. The issues with which we are here concerned were covered in detail both by my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew in his review made under Section 28 of the Act and also by the very
1296
thorough report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. There was also a brief from the Law Society, which is welcome though it relied largely on the two documents already mentioned.
In the debates on Part 4 of the Act, when it was a Bill going through your Lordships' House and through another place, we on these Benches opposed the concept of detention without trial. However, we did achieve some important improvements to the Bill in conjunction with the Conservatives, such as the sunset clause and the provision for the review of the whole Act by a committee of Privy Counsellors. So I do not think that it is appropriate, and I certainly do not propose, to reopen the main issues at this stage. I should, however, like to draw attention to the criticisms by the Joint Committee on Human Rights of the procedure adopted by the Government in November 2001 of derogating first before the Bill that introduced the procedure which was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights was passed. Like the Joint Committee, I hope that that will not be repeated. It is surely clear that it would have been much better if the order for derogation had been introduced at the end of the debates on the Bill so that we already knew what the derogation would give effect to.
There are a number of reasons why we accept a continuation of Part 4 for another year. First, there is no reason to believe that the terrorist threat is any less serious than it was 14 months ago when the Bill was passed. Secondly, the Court of Appeal has decided that derogation from Article 5 to enable people to be detained without trial was valid—in that case having overruled the original decision of SIAC, subject to leave to appeal to your Lordships' House being given, and then, perhaps, to a further appeal to Strasbourg. The presumption now is that the derogation was valid. However, if there are contrary decisions either in the House of Lords or Strasbourg, the outlook may of course be very different in the future. Thirdly, we have noted with interest that the Joint Committee on Human Rights believes that there is no serious objection on human rights grounds to the continuance of Sections 21 to 23 for a further year.
We do, however, have a number of criticisms, three of which stand out in particular. First, both my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew and the Joint Committee have pointed out the profoundly unsatisfactory nature of the special advocate procedure. It is most unsatisfactory, for example, that an advocate cannot question the person on whose behalf he or she is acting. We realise that there may be exceptional cases where that is justified because of the importance of the protection of sources and not disclosing too much about what we know. However, the closed procedure, as it is called, should be adopted only where it is absolutely necessary, and evidence should wherever possible be open. Furthermore, where the special advocate procedure is used, it is absolutely essential, as the Joint Committee and my noble friend have pointed out, that the special advocate should be allowed to appear not only before

1297
SIAC but also in the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords, if necessary sitting in camera in order to hear the closed evidence.
Our second particular concern was the criticisms made by my noble friend about the conditions in which the detainees were being held, particularly at Belmarsh. He said that detainees should be held in remand conditions; should be held together as a group, if that was their wish; and should be allowed to associate with each other. We welcome the fact that the Government are now undertaking to consider giving effect to that recommendation.
The third main problem thrown up by the report was the refusal of SIAC to hold substantive hearings while the question of the validity of the derogation was being litigated. That led to extended delays and we believe was unjustifiable, particularly after the Court of Appeal overruled SIAC's own earlier decision. It was perhaps understandable when SIAC itself had held that the derogation was invalid, but not after the Court of Appeal had come to a different conclusion. That is a matter for the courts and not for the Government. However, we welcome what. I understand is now the decision of SIAC to proceed to hear the substance of the cases even though proceedings are still pending. If leave to appeal is given or if the matter is taken to Strasbourg, those proceedings may be pending for a very considerable time to come.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights also raised doubts about the adequacy of the legal advice given to the detainees. Are the Government satisfied that that criticism is being given proper attention?
The circumstances suggest that the Government should look again at the ban on the use of intercepts in prosecutions. That might well have made it possible in many cases to bring detainees to trial. I understand the reasons why intercepts are not at the moment used as evidence in trials but other countries use them without seeming to run into intolerable difficulties. I have seen suggested in the press that the Government are thinking again about that issue. I should be interested to know whether that is true.
Both my noble friend and the Joint Committee criticised the drafting of the Act. Although those perhaps are not the most important points in either report, I understand that the Government—as I have already indicated—will consider the possibility of correcting the drafting. If that is the case, the Criminal Justice Bill could be the appropriate vehicle to carry those amendments which would be quite short.
On the credit side, I am glad that my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew had no criticism of any case in which a detention order had been made. It is welcome that the number of detention orders is small and totals only 15. It is also welcome that the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights have shown through the recognised derogation procedures a flexibility which has made it possible to meet the Government's objective of detaining people who
1298
cannot be deported but are a threat to the security of the United Kingdom without committing a breach of the convention.
As I said, we do not oppose the order today but I warn that the position may be different next year. We shall certainly need to be satisfied that the threat from terrorism then is still serious enough to justify a further continuance of the detention powers under Part 4 We shall also need to be satisfied that the criticisms made in the two admirable reports have been fully recognised and dealt with.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I believe that the passing of the Act by the Government was both necessary and right as the Government's fundamental task must be to provide for the safety of the people of this country who are under threat of terrorist attack.
Having said that, the sections we are discussing give enormous powers to the Secretary of State through his own certificate to provide for the detention of those whom he suspects of being a risk to the nation's security and of being involved in terrorist acts. That detention may be without limit of time. I believe that we would therefore be failing in our duty as a House to scrutinise the acts of the Government if we did not—as this order enables us to do—examine how those powers are being used.
I accept entirely what my noble friend Lord Bridgeman and other speakers have said. I, too, am sure that the Government will take good heart from the report of my near namesake, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, who accepted that the procedures followed by the Government and the Home Secretary in this area are wholly in accord with the principles of the Act.
I have two questions for the Government. One concerns the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. I refer to the odd concept of the special advocate who is entitled to receive evidence and papers which cannot be shown to the defendant or, in this case, the detainee. That evidence or those papers cannot be disclosed to the detainee in any way by the person who is appointed special advocate to act on his behalf. As I believe that the overwhelming duty is to protect the sources of information of those from whom we get our information, I see no other way in which such an appeal can be dealt with. I think I am right in saying that the position is in some ways similar to that which applied in Northern Ireland at the time of detention without trial, but it is an odd situation.
I understand that for some reason the power to appoint a special advocate apparently does not apply should there be an appeal against the tribunal's decision to the Court of Appeal on a point of law. The Minister shakes his head. I must therefore be wrongly advised on the matter and I happily withdraw the comment. However, I was going to say that if that were the case, I should very much hope that the Minister would reconsider the matter.

1299
As my noble friend Lord Bridgeman said, we would be failing in our duty if we did not pass the order tonight and extend the powers for at least another 12 months as they are essential to the general security of this country at this time.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. The House recognises the sensitivity of the issues we are discussing. We are essentially balancing the liberties of an individual whom we believe to be a terrorist against the rights and the need for peace and security of our own citizens. That is a difficult judgment to get right in that one is balancing one set of rights against others.
We appreciated the support expressed by Her Majesty's Opposition and, in more guarded terms, by the Liberal Democrats, for the proportionate necessity of the powers. As regards the point of the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, about the scale of reviews, the review will also be undertaken by the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, who is present. As the House knows, that review will be carried out by nine Privy Counsellors. They will examine anything that they think is of relevance to the legislation. They are requested to report by December 2003. I appreciate the calls on the time of the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree. The House is grateful that he has agreed to undertake the review.
The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, referred to the links mentioned in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. We believe that that issue is dealt with in Section 21(4) which defines links as meaning supporting or assisting international terrorism. We do not believe that there is a problem there but we shall reconsider the issue with an open mind, as was signalled in another place during the debate on the order.
I refer to the matter that so far all detainees have claimed to be Muslims. I am particularly alive to the sensitivities of that matter as in my other role as Minister responsible for race and faith I am in regular contact with many members of the Muslim community and discuss their particular sensitivities as British Muslims at this time. We are aware of that matter. The fact that someone claims to be a Muslim is no reason whatever for not detaining that person. One cannot discriminate on that basis. On the other hand, we have made it absolutely clear that generally to equate Muslims with terrorism is wrong and is a denial of the central tenets of the Islamic faith which is a peaceable religion.
We believe that the procedure as regards special advocates is fair and necessary. We will keep the issue under review. A point was raised as to whether the special advocate can be heard in the Court of Appeal. We believe that it is clear that they can do so if they proceed from SIAC to the Court of Appeal, and one can well see why there are good grounds for them wishing to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, made some points about the sunset clause. I would not deny that there are occasions when the House improves legislation, and
1300
perhaps those are some of the measures that have done so. I mentioned the review of the whole Act. The sunset clause will be a particular challenge, and we will have to look at it in a few years time but not immediately. I very much hope that he is right that it will be more difficult persuading the House in a year's time that there is not a continuing threat to the security of the nation. However, I cannot say I am optimistic about that, but we will come to it when we come to it.
It has already been noted that we have moved on Belmarsh. As the noble Lord said, the judgments were not those of the Government but of SIAC. We are glad that it is not delaying hearing such appeals now. There was something on the radio this morning that may have led to some confusion—it certainly did in my mind—as to whether the subject of intercepts was relevant. An announcement was made about consideration of the intercept evidence in court. In fact, there was confusion, and it was not in any way related to the order. I will clarify that with a note to the noble Lord.
The noble Lord also noted that there had been a small number of cases. Also, the flexibility of the ECHR made it possible to derogate while still standing firm to its other elements.
I am grateful to the House for the way in which it has supported the continuation of the order. It will be good when we are no longer in a position to feel that it is necessary to continue it, but we are not there yet. It may be some time before we are.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Codes B to E) (No. 2) Order 2003
7.22 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton)rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 27th February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the order, a copy of which was laid before the House on 27th February, be approved. The order has been seen by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
Noble Lords will be aware that a near identical order was considered by the House on 24th February. Obviously, they cannot be sure that it was completely identical because two or three pages were missed out, as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, pointed out. That order was revoked on 4th March in consequence of that defect in one of the codes of practice laid before the House. An administrative error meant that one of the codes, Code D, was incomplete. That has since been rectified, and fresh codes were laid before the House on 26th February.
The new order will, subject to the approval of the House and of another place, bring into effect, from 1st April 2003, revised codes of practice in connection

1301
with the exercise of police powers in relation to searches of premises and the seizure of property found on persons or premises, as in Code B; the detention, treatment and questioning of persons, as in Code C; the identification of persons, as in Code D; and tape recording interviews with suspects, as in Code E. The order has been made under Section 67 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. It cannot have effect until it is approved by resolution of each House.
Since we debated the codes on 24th February, I have provided the noble Lords, Lord Hodgson and Lord Dholakia, with an explanatory paper for each code detailing the main changes, which I hope they found helpful. That was pursuant again to a sensible suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. 'The amended codes were welcomed by the House last month, and I hope they will be welcomed by the House today. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 27th February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his further explanation and update of the position on the codes. I would like to take the opportunity to thank him for having responded to my request for explanatory notes to lay out the changes made, and for sending me a copy. which I have read carefully. They are extremely useful. I hope that the issuing of such notes will become practice in future.
I have read the two missing pages of Code D with care. Page 7, which was one of them, concerns identification parades, video identification and identification by group. It also refers to annexes A, B and C. I ask the Minister to turn to annex A. Paragraphs 15 and 16 on page 23 are concerned with image security and destruction. Paragraph 16 states:
"As appropriate, paragraph 33 or 31 applies to the destruction or retention of relevant sets of images".
I may be missing something, but I cannot find paragraphs 33 or 31 anywhere in Code D. The code ends at paragraph 6.12, annex A at paragraph 18 and annex B at paragraph 28. Admittedly, annex C goes to paragraph 44, but paragraphs 33 and 31, which are on page 29, seem to have no relevance to image security or destruction in relation to group identification. Annex D ends at paragraph 7, annex E at paragraph 12 and annex F at paragraph 5.
If one reads the code again carefully, one realises that the relevant paragraphs appear not to be paragraphs 33 or 31, but paragraphs 3.30 and 3.31, which appear on page 10 and are concerned with:
"Destruction and retention of photographs and images taken or used in identification procedures".
The Minister may have some simple explanation for that, in which case I have obviously been going up a blind alley, but I think that the error ought to be put right. I understand that we cannot amend statutory instruments, so the Government presumably need to withdraw. correct and represent the order.
1302
While the Minister is pondering on that, I want to make two further observations, both of which I raised in the earlier debate. The first concerns paragraph 4.3 of Code E. I am sorry that the Minister, for all his many kindnesses and courtesies to me, has not seen fit to make use of the hiatus that has occurred to clarify beyond peradventure the issue of clean and new tapes. Paragraph 4.3, which is on page 5 of Code E, reads:
"When the suspect is brought into the interview room the interviewer shall, without delay but in the suspect's sight, load the recorder with clean tapes and set it to record''.
"Clean" is not the same as "new", nor the same as "unused". Indeed, use of the word "clean" could indicate tapes that had been used before and cleaned. In the earlier debate, I drew attention to the dangers of fragmentary retention on tapes that had been cleaned and reused. If we are to have another hiatus, could we not substitute "new" or "unused" in paragraph 4.3 for "clean", for the avoidance of doubt?
Secondly, I want to return to paragraph 6.1 of Code B, which concerns timing, stating:
"Searches made under warrant must be made within thin one calendar month of the date of the warrant's issue".
During our earlier debate, I raised the question of whether the date of issue was the same as the date on which the warrant was signed. I recalled debates on the Animal Health Bill during which it appeared that some magistrates at least had begun to sign but not date warrants, so that they could be used later. The title of Code B begins:
"Code of Practice for searches of premises by police officers and the seizure of property".
Those are very serious offences. The Minister was not able to respond to my point during the earlier debate, but I would welcome his reassurance that the dating and signing of warrants for such use and in such circumstances must be contemporaneous, and therefore the one-month clock allowed for in paragraph 6.1 must start ticking.
I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to those two points, but more importantly on whether he and his officials believe that Code D can properly be approved in its present somewhat imperfect form.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am delighted that the eagle eye of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, has once again discovered some discrepancies. If he is right that we cannot amend the order at this stage, the obvious alternative is to start the exercise again. I should be grateful if the Minister would explain what will now happen.
I was rather puzzled by the relevant article in the House Magazine in which one always learns something new. There was considerable emphasis on how we "vacated" the order. Will we face the same situation today? Could we approve the order in its present defective form? If not, what is the alternative?
I do not want to repeat the two points I made last time. I thank the noble and learned Lord for having the courtesy to reply to me; I received his reply today. I am

1303
grateful for the information. I have nothing to add other than to say "Well done" to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. Let us see how the Minister responds.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I express my profound gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. I wish that he was employed in the Home Office to deal with this sort of matter with—I say this quite genuinely—the alacrity and efficiency he displayed today. He raises a very important point. As one would expect, he is absolutely right to identify that in paragraph 16 on page 23 of the relevant code, the reference to paragraphs 33 and 31 is intended to be a reference to paragraphs 3.30 and 3.31. Does that
1304
require the further revocation of the order? Happily, it does not. It can be dealt with by placing an erratum slip in the printed copies that will be supplied by the Stationery Office. Happily, that approach coincides with common sense.
I turn to the other two points that were raised. The date of the warrant would be the date at the time of signature; that is the date at which the time would start running. "Clean" means clean; it will almost invariably mean "new". It is hard to imagine that it could mean anything other than new because if it was not new it would not be clean.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes before eight o'clock.

  Courts: Funding
  Courts: Funding
  Tribunals: Reform
  Tribunals: Reform
  Northern Ireland Block Grant
  Northern Ireland Block Grant
  Data Protection: TfL and Congestion Charge
  Data Protection: TfL and Congestion Charge
  Judicial Officers: Training in Childcare Issues
  Judicial Officers: Training in Childcare Issues
  Iraq: Displaced Persons
  Iraq: Displaced Persons
  EU: Justice and Home Affairs Council, 27–28 February
  EU: Justice and Home Affairs Council, 27–28 February
  Asylum Applicants Claiming Iraqi Nationality: Language Testing
  Asylum Applicants Claiming Iraqi Nationality: Language Testing
  Drivers: Eyesight Tests
  Drivers: Eyesight Tests
  Elections: Guidance to Civil Servants
  Elections: Guidance to Civil Servants
  Employment on Ships: Race Relations Act
  Employment on Ships: Race Relations Act
  Advisory Panel on Standards for the Planniing Inspectorate Executive Agency
  Advisory Panel on Standards for the Planniing Inspectorate Executive Agency
  Constitution Committee Report on Devolution: Government Response
  Constitution Committee Report on Devolution: Government Response
  Water Sports: Safety Measures
  Water Sports: Safety Measures
  Broadband
  Broadband
  NHS Trusts: Financial Arrangements
  NHS Trusts: Financial Arrangements
  CITB and ECITB: Quinquennial Review
  CITB and ECITB: Quinquennial Review
  Coal-fired Generation Plants
  Coal-fired Generation Plants
  Non-producing Milk Quota Holders: ECJ Ruling
  Non-producing Milk Quota Holders: ECJ Ruling