Sitting of 21 May 2003

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  TRANSAS GROUP BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Wednesday 4 June.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Peace Process
    Dr. Nick Palmer: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the peace process. [113801]
    Mr. Alistair Carmichael: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the peace process. [113806]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy): We shall continue to work for the restoration of trust necessary for the effective functioning of the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland, on the basis of the Good Friday agreement and the proposals published by the two Governments earlier this month, with the aim of holding elections to the Assembly in the autumn. Progress depends on absolute clarity on both the future of paramilitarism, and the stability of the institutions.
    Dr. Palmer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, on the one hand, we need absolute clarity about the end of paramilitary operations and, on the other hand, we need to make it clear that if the IRA co-operates in that way, we will not allow further hurdles to be put in place to stop it playing its full part in the democratic process?
    Mr. Murphy: I agree that trust is absolutely necessary for the process to succeed. There is no question but that the breakdown of trust was the reason for the Assembly's suspension last October, which was a direct consequence of paramilitary activity. My hon. Friend knows that during the past few weeks various efforts
    996
    have been made to try to ensure that we get greater clarity from the IRA. We have made some progress, but not enough.
    It is interesting that this week's Belfast News Letter contained the results of an opinion poll. It clearly showed:
    "If IRA made a statement that they would never again use weapons under any circumstances",
    support in Northern Ireland for the restoration of the institutions would greatly increase. Indeed, the poll also showed:
    "If IRA decommissioned all weapons and disbanded",
    that support would increase even more.
    Mr. Carmichael: Does the Secretary of State agree that the postponement of elections to the Assembly brings the danger of a period of drift for the peace process, which is certainly to be avoided? Will he consider, as a matter of urgency, convening a paragraph 8 comprehensive review of the agreement that would involve dialogue among all the parties in the Province? That will have to be done by December at the latest, in any case.
    Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman is right: we cannot allow a vacuum to exist in the months ahead. As he will know, representatives of the Government met representatives of the Irish Government in London yesterday and had more than three and a half hours of discussions and negotiations about where we should go. Both Governments agreed that we should ensure that the momentum continues and that we maintain progress. To that end, I shall hold a series of meetings in Belfast over the next two or three weeks with parties in Northern Ireland to find out how we can best make progress. The hon. Gentleman is also right that the paragraph 8 review needs to be held before the year is out. I shall take soundings among the political parties to find out their opinions on the best time for the holding of the review.
    Mr. Eddie McGrady: The Secretary of State has often stated that clarity and trust must be established to process the re-establishment of the institutions of Northern Ireland. He says that he will negotiate with the parties. Will he state clearly that all parties will negotiate together so that the atmosphere of secret deals being done may be permanently eradicated? In the aftermath of the Stakeknife revelations, will he accept that trust in the Government as an impartial participant has been seriously eroded and that action needs to be taken? Will he state that an appropriate and urgent inquiry on Government participation in the Stakeknife process will be undertaken?
    Mr. Murphy: I cannot comment on intelligence issues. I do not agree with my hon. Friend that trust in the Government has broken down due to recent newspaper reports. I think that he would agree that after three decades of conflict and division in Northern Ireland, it is almost inevitable that issues such as those to which he refers will come out over time. It is important for everyone to realise that the process is sufficiently robust to withstand such circumstances.

    997
    On the round-table talks, I shall listen to what the parties say during the coming weeks. I rule out no specific format or process. We are all concerned with whatever is best for movement forward so that we can restore the institutions and hold elections.
    David Burnside: I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that, if and when we have a successful peace process, one of the great benefits for Northern Ireland will be the opening up of the Province's tremendous tourist potential. Does he realise that other countries throughout the world put a lot of money behind their constitutional celebrations, such as the United States, which promotes Independence day on 4 July, and France, which promotes Bastille day on 14 July? When will the Northern Ireland Office give some support to our great constitutional celebrations, which are coming up on 12 July and 12 August, to promote the colour, the pageantry and the music, and to bring tourists into Northern Ireland to celebrate the great constitutional events in our history?
    Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman is right: tourism has increased tremendously over the past number of years. One of the great advantages of the Good Friday agreement is the fact that tourism has been able to increase. I know that the hon. Gentleman would agree with that. People now come to the island of Ireland in numbers that they never did before, as a consequence of the great progress that has been made, economically and socially, over the past five years.
    I shall have to consult on the other matter that the hon. Gentleman raised. I know that the different traditions in Northern Ireland enrich Northern Ireland, and as a consequence people want to go there.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: May I give the Secretary of State the opportunity to complete the answer that the Under-Secretary attempted to give in a recent debate that was cut off because of a shortage of time? Will he tell the House, in clear and precise language and without using terms that can be conveniently interpreted at a later time, what the IRA—an illegal terrorist organisation—must say and do before ordinary, decent people in Northern Ireland can exercise their democratic right to vote?
    Mr. Murphy: It is encapsulated in paragraph 13 of the joint declaration, on which the two Governments agreed. That is as clear as crystal. There should be a full, immediate and permanent end to paramilitary activity, by which we mean targeting, training, the procurement of weapons and surveillance. There must also be an end to paramilitary beatings and so-called punishment beatings, to the incitement of rioting and to exiling.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: Will the Secretary of State tell the House, frankly and clearly, which aspects of the joint declaration he proposes to go ahead with and implement in any event, and specific ally which are contingent on acts of completion by paramilitaries?
    Mr. Murphy: The issues that are contingent on acts of completion include the legislation and details of on-the-runs. They include what has been termed the so-called
    998
    Sinn Fein clauses in the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2003, which have to return to this place for agreement by both Houses after restoration, and the full normalisation package, which is in the annexe to the joint declaration. The issues that will be implemented are those that should be implemented because they are part of the Good Friday agreement. They include human rights, equality, the Irish language, Ulster-Scots, criminal justice and other matters.
    Mr. Davies: I appreciate that clear answer. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what he has got in return for agreeing to dismantle the two observation towers in South Armagh?
    Mr. Murphy: I hope that we have got progress in the process. The dismantling of the two towers was part of the normal process of returning to a normal society in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman knows that the normalisation package—the annexe to the joint declaration—referred to normalisation at a much greater pace and at a much greater intensity. That does not mean that we will not go further with what is necessary to ensure that Northern Ireland returns to being a normal place.

    Stevens Inquiry
    Kevin Brennan: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the Stevens inquiry. [113802]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): Sir John Stevens's report is to the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland.
    Sir John has indicated that specific criminal investigations continue and that files will continue to be sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland. It is important that the criminal justice process takes its course.
    Kevin Brennan: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. What will the Government do to get to the bottom of allegations of collusion and murder by members of the security forces? What assurances can my hon. Friend give the House that the Government are pressing for total co-operation in the supply of information by members of the security forces? Will she confirm that it will never be this Government's policy that murder can be justified, even to protect valuable intelligence sources?
    Jane Kennedy: The Government take allegations of collusion very seriously. We will study the recommendations that Sir John Stevens makes in his report. The recommendations are a matter for the Chief Constable to take forward, but it is precisely because we take allegations of collusion so seriously that the British and Irish Governments appointed the Canadian judge, Peter Cory, in May 2002 to examine allegations in relation to six high profile cases, with a view to advising what further action, if any, is needed.
    We have always required public authorities to act within established guidelines when using covert human intelligence sources. The Regulation of Investigatory

    999
    Powers Act 2000 has improved structures for the management of informants and ensured greater accountability.
    Patrick Mercer: I am sure that the Minister will join me in admiring the work of the policemen, policewomen, soldiers and women soldiers who have worked in the various intelligence agencies in Northern Ireland. Will she confirm that the allegations about the identity of the so-called agent Stakeknife will not imperil continuing intelligence operations in the Province?
    Jane Kennedy: In their fight against terrorism, the security forces use a variety of techniques, including covert human intelligence sources. It is difficult and dangerous work, and we owe a great debt to those who engage in it. However, it is important that wrongdoers be brought to justice. As I said in my earlier answer, the Government are open to scrutiny. It is important that we take seriously allegations such as those investigated by Sir John Stevens.
    Lembit Öpik: Have the Government yet identified where, and at what level, the obstructions encountered by Sir John Stevens during his inquiries originate?
    Jane Kennedy: We will study the findings of Sir John's report carefully. His recommendations, particularly those to which the hon. Gentleman refers, are for the Chief Constable, and there are issues for us to study closely and take forward. It is important that Sir John Stevens receives the fullest co-operation that it is possible to give, and that is our aim.
    Lady Hermon: Given that the credibility of the Stevens inquiry continues to be seriously undermined by the non-co-operation of the family of the late Pat Finucane, what steps have been taken to encourage the family to co-operate with the ongoing Stevens inquiry?
    Jane Kennedy: That is a police investigation, and the investigations continue. It is important that the criminal justice process is upheld. It is, however, a matter for the Finucane family. In the normal course of events, I would encourage the fullest possible co-operation with the police.
    Mr. John Taylor: Does the Minister agree that it would be repugnant to prosecute members of the police and armed forces when more than 440 convicted terrorists have been released early from prison?
    Jane Kennedy: No. There is no moral equivalence with terrorists. Wrongdoers in any of the security forces—the armed forces or the police—ought to be brought to justice. That is the Government's objective.

    International Year for People with Disabilities
    Mrs. Betty Williams: To ask the Secretary
    1000
    of State for Northern Ireland what provision he is making in Northern Ireland to mark the international year for people with disabilities. [113803]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Desmond Browne): The Government are committed to supporting the European year for people with disabilities in Northern Ireland, and committed to bringing forward a programme of initiatives, events and activities, in line with the commitments given by the previous Northern Ireland Executive. I have launched a Northern Ireland grants scheme to augment the UK-wide scheme. Thirty-four disability organisations in Northern Ireland have received more than £300,000 in grants for specific projects.
    Mrs. Williams: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that children are involved in all events marking the international year for people with disabilities? What steps are likely to be taken to involve children in this year's world Special Olympics?
    Mr. Browne: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her work on behalf of children, especially those with special needs. She recently had cause to be even more interested in children—I understand that she became a grandmother for the first time last week. I congratulate her on that.
    I am pleased to advise hon. Members that there is a strong focus on children in the arrangements for the international year. For example, some of the successful Northern Ireland grant applications were from groups with projects that are specifically geared towards children with disabilities. The world Special Olympic games are being held in the island of Ireland for the first time in their 25-year history. The events are targeted mainly, but not exclusively, at children.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Under-Secretary accept that Mencap's campaign for more respite care, especially for those in the older age group, must be considered and enforced? Does he also agree that it would greatly benefit Northern Ireland and the people of Iraq if the Iraqi Special Olympic team could come to Lame? Will he facilitate that, unless there is adequate reason to prevent it?
    Mr. Browne: I agree that there needs to be a continuing focus on respite care. I am taking that forward in my current capacity as Minister for Health, Social Services and Public Safety.
    I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland and for Culture, Media and Sport have been working together to try to resolve the problem of the Iraqi team for the Special Olympics, whose members were due to be hosted in Lame. I am also pleased to say that the necessary resources to secure the Iraqi Special Olympians' attendance have been identified through the games organising committee and the Foreign and

    1001
    Commonwealth Office. We are trying to establish contact with the team to confirm that it still wishes to participate in the games.
    Mr. Nigel Dodds: I thank the Under-Secretary for what he has said so far, but in recognising the valuable contribution that people with disabilities can make to life and society in general, may I press him to outline the progress in implementing the recommendations of the Disability Rights Taskforce, which reported in 1999 in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Browne: The hon. Gentleman is right to identify the need to take forward the recommendations of the Disability Rights Taskforce and I pay tribute to him for his contribution to that. The relevant departments in the Northern Ireland Office intend to implement all the recommendations as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: In addition to the excellent initiatives that my hon. Friend outlined, does he agree that, in recognition of the tremendous work of the reverend and hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), we should implement fully the Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1989, which he pioneered, especially its advocacy and representation provisions?
    Mr. Browne: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for his consistent advocacy of such issues. He has an enviable reputation. One cannot underestimate the importance of advocacy in relation to matters that people with disabilities have to tackle. My right hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that.

    Commercial/Industrial Development (Banbridge)
    Mr. David Trimble: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on commercial and industrial development in the Banbridge area. [113804]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ian Pearson): There is a significant amount of positive economic activity in the Banbridge area, including a major new development at Gilford Mill and one proposed at Bridgewater Park, which together could create around 3,600 jobs. At 1.6 per cent., the claimant unemployment rate is the joint lowest of all the 26 district council areas.
    Mr. Trimble: May I refer the Under-Secretary to the problems that are being experienced not only in Banbridge but in Northern Ireland generally as a result of slowness in decision making in the planning service? He rightly referred to two major developments in the area. I am especially worried about the business park at Cascum road, Banbridge. It is in competition to attract major developments with sites in the Republic of Ireland, which has a much more effective and quick decision-making process. Will the Under-Secretary consider that and ensure that the recent application for
    1002
    the extension of the business park is decided quickly so that a development that could be significant not only for Banbridge but a wider area goes ahead?
    Mr. Pearson: I acknowledge the work that the right hon. Gentleman has done in successfully promoting the development of the site at Cascum road, Bridgewater Park in his constituency. The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela Smith), who has responsibility for planning, will have heard what he said about the urgency of processing the planning application. She is committed to modernising the planning system, and we want to ensure that there is no undue delay in this case.
    Mr. Gregory Campbell: The Minister will be aware that in recent months several thousand job losses have been announced in the manufacturing sector across rural towns in Northern Ireland. What plans does he have to meet representatives of Invest Northern Ireland to address that ongoing crisis in the manufacturing sector?
    Mr. Pearson: The hon. Gentleman is probably aware that I have regular meetings with staff at Invest Northern Ireland, which is totally committed to supporting manufacturing in the region. A range of programmes are available to support manufacturing companies, and they will continue to be made available over the coming years. As a Government, we are committed to ensuring that we have a growing manufacturing sector and a growing service sector in Northern Ireland. As the process of Northern Ireland's returning to be a normal region continues apace, I am sure that the manufacturing sector will continue to survive and thrive. It has already grown by 15 per cent. over the past five years. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber.

    Security Forces
    Mr. Iain Luke: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the political controls over undercover operations mounted by the security forces in the Province. [113805]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy): Operational control rests with the responsible agency, but all operations are properly authorised within a statutory regulatory framework. We have always required public authorities to act within established guidelines when using covert human intelligence sources.
    Mr. Luke: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There is noise from both sides of the Chamber. It is discourteous to hon. Members who are asking questions that so much conversation is going on.
    Mr. Luke: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

    1003
    My right hon. Friend said earlier that trust is a vital element in the rebuilding of the stalled peace process. I am sure that he agrees that the disclosures of the Stevens inquiry and the revelations of the activities of Stakeknife will do nothing to aid that process. Will he give a guarantee that, in the wake of the Stevens inquiry, any steps that he takes will be based on increasing the accountability and transparency of the security forces? Will he assure us that he will take all possible steps to stamp out subversive murderous activity by paramilitaries sponsored by security forces?
    Mr. Murphy: I said earlier that I do not believe that the peace process has been adversely affected in any way by what has occurred over the past few weeks. We have put procedures in place through the Stevens report and the Cory inquiry to deal with those matters. My hon. Friend will be aware that this Government enacted the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which provides a legislative framework governing the use and authorisation of covert investigation techniques. In addition, we set up the Intelligence and Security Committee of both Houses.
    Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson: Although building trust in Northern Ireland is important, saving lives is even more important. Will the Secretary of State join me in giving support to the intelligence services in Northern Ireland? Let us not forget that they were fighting what was called a war against one of the most sophisticated terrorist organisations in the world, which was extremely tight and difficult to infiltrate. As a result of that infiltration, hundreds of innocent people are alive today in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Murphy: Yes, I agree with that. I also agree that there have been three decades of conflict and division in Northern Ireland and that, inevitably, awful things have happened during that time. I agree with the main thrust of the hon. Gentleman's point, and I know that he agrees with me, too, that the intelligence services have to operate within guidelines laid down by this House of Commons and by the Government.
    Mrs. Iris Robinson: Is the Secretary of State concerned that intelligence sources appear to have been prejudiced by leaks from official sources?
    Mr. Murphy: I deprecate leaks of any type that might endanger the process. I have said in earlier answers, however, that I believe that the process in Northern Ireland is sufficiently robust to withstand such allegations.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Q 1. [114590] Jim Sheridan: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 21 May.
    The prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.
    Jim Sheridan: The Government's decision to bid for the 2012 Olympics is to be warmly welcomed. Will my right hon. Friend identify some of the tangible benefits that could flow from the bid, if it is successful, to cities and communities outside London? Furthermore, as chair of the all-party Scottish football group, may I ask him to join me in sending best wishes to Glasgow Celtic for tonight's UEFA cup final? It is the only British team left—with the exception of this Government—that has an interest in Europe.
    The Prime Minister: I believe that if we can secure the Olympics for this country there will be enormous benefits not only for London but for the whole of the United Kingdom, in terms of industry, tourism, jobs and, of course, sport. I am sure that the whole House will join my hon. Friend in wishing Glasgow Celtic the best of luck tonight.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: The right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) says that the Prime Minister has been "outmanoeuvred" on the euro by a politically obsessed Chancellor. How would the Prime Minister put it?
    The Prime Minister: I am never short of advice on this particular issue. I have to say that everyone will have to wait for the announcement by the Chancellor on 9 June.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: So the Prime Minister is not denying that the Chancellor is politically obsessed and outmanoeuvring him. [Laughter.] Those words from his close personal friend show how vicious and personal this feud has become. The reality is that Labour is divided from top to bottom on the euro. Meanwhile, 30 of the Prime Minister's own Back-Bench MPs have signed up to a referendum on the constitution. Are they right?
    The Prime Minister: No, I believe that they are wrong. We do not need a referendum on whatever constitution comes out of the intergovernmental conference. I note that when the Conservatives were in office, the now shadow Foreign Secretary and the now shadow Chancellor—
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: And the leader?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, that is true. They voted against a referendum, and the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) and the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) voted in favour of a referendum. That is why I do not think that I need lessons from him on splits over Europe.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Well, if the Prime Minister wants to get into the past, let us just dwell there for a second. Perhaps he will recall saying of the European Union:
    "We'll negotiate a withdrawal from the EEC"
    because it
    "has drained our natural resources and destroyed jobs".
    Those are the words of the Prime Minister. I warn him, therefore, that if he wants to get into the past, he should remind himself that, when it comes to Europe, he has done more U-turns than a dodgy plumber.

    1005
    [Interruption.] Oh yes. The truth is that his party is now divided on the Convention on the constitution, as well as being divided on the euro. As Labour MPs know, the constitution was not mentioned in their manifesto, so the Prime Minister has no mandate. Why will he not have a referendum on the constitution and let the British people decide?
    The Prime Minister: The reasons I am against a referendum are the reasons we have often given. The stories being told about what may be proposed in the Convention or at the intergovernmental conference are wrong. This is an important step, however—making sure that when Europe enlarges to 25 countries, Europe can work.
    If the right hon. Gentleman wants to debate about the European Union and our membership of it, let me remind him that he is still a member of Conservatives Against a Federal Europe. It has said that if we cannot attain our ends by negotiation,
    "we must withdraw from the European Union."
    The true agenda of the right hon. Gentleman and many other Conservative Members is to get this country out of the European Union. That would be a disaster for Britain, British jobs, British industry and British influence.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The truth is that whenever the Prime Minister comes to the Dispatch Box to answer a question, he just makes it up as he goes along. Last week, for example, he stood there and said that this constitution was necessary for enlargement. The House of Commons Library, however, says
    "the Convention and its outcome are not prerequisites for accession, the sole basis for which is the Accession Treaty".
    The Prime Minister should get his facts straight.
    While we are dealing with the constitution, let me say that it is a reality that up to 10 European countries plan to have referendums, a growing number of the Prime Minister's own Back Benchers demand a referendum, and the vast majority of the British people want to have their say. So why is the Prime Minister frightened of giving the British people their say?
    The Prime Minister: As a matter of fact, a majority of the 25 countries in the European Union are not granting referendums. Their reasons are exactly the same as those set out by the last Government on the Single European Act and the Maastricht treaty.
    The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the real issue he wants to raise is Britain's withdrawal or non-withdrawal from the European Union. Changing the way in which Europe works is vital if a Europe of 25 is to function effectively. It is essential that we make these changes. The right hon. Gentleman wants to vote no to them even before they have been agreed—and the reason for that is that he and many other Conservative Members remain opposed to Britain's membership of the European Union.
    The truth of the matter is that the Conservative party has not changed on this issue since before the election, and it would be a disaster were Britain to follow that course and leave Europe.
    Mr. Chris Mole: Will my right hon. Friend welcome the Home Office's award of £85,000 to Suffolk police for the recruitment of 15 community support officers? Will he join me in encouraging the chief constable to allocate a fair proportion of those officers to the borough of Ipswich, where they may be able to support all the agencies that are trying to tackle serious antisocial behaviour in the south-east corner of the town?
    The Prime Minister: We will obviously have more community safety officers. I hope that all police forces take advantage of the possibility of providing them, as they are a good and helpful support to the police; but we are also going to have record numbers of police, in my hon. Friend's area and elsewhere. We have two major pieces of legislation, the Criminal Justice Bill and the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill, and the combination of record police numbers and additional powers will help us to keep crime falling.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: May I ask the Prime Minister a question of which his right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool
    (Mr. Mandelson) helpfully gave me notice? If he does not agree with his right hon. Friend's description of the Chancellor, will he take this opportunity to disavow it?
    The Prime Minister: As I have said, I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman and everyone else will have to wait until 9 June for the assessment. But I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that, as the Chancellor said last night, what we require in Europe is not half-hearted acquiescence but whole-hearted engagement. I think that when the 9 June statement is made, the right hon. Gentleman will find that it corresponds with that vision.
    Mr. Kennedy: Is not the Prime Minister's real problem not the economic circumstances, but the political conditions of the Chancellor? The more he allows himself to be boxed in by the Chancellor's conditions, the more his policy will be characterised as dither and delay, just like John Major's.
    The Prime Minister: I profoundly disagree with the right hon. Gentleman that the economics are irrelevant. There are three positions on this European debate. What he has effectively said, and the Liberal Democrats have said for six years is that Britain should join the single currency immediately, irrespective—
    Mr. Kennedy indicated dissent.
    The Prime Minister: Yes it is—[Interruption.] Throughout the entirety of the previous Parliament, never mind this one, the Liberal Democrats' position was that we should join the single currency immediately, so they would say yes, irrespective of the economics. The Conservative party says no, irrespective of the economics. We say yes, if the economic conditions are right. That is why the sensible position is that the debate is about the economics, jobs, industry and investment, and that is what 9 June will make clear.
    Mr. Gwyn Prosser: The number of asylum seekers crossing the channel and coming into the port of

    1007
    Dover has reduced so dramatically in recent months that asylum seekers from other parts of the country are now being bussed into Dover to fill empty spaces in our accommodation centre. Does my right hon. Friend expect tomorrow's asylum statistics to reflect the dramatic downward trends in Dover, and can he assure me that this bussing business is just a temporary arrangement?
    The Prime Minister: I can assure my hon. Friend that, as the numbers come down and as other induction centres are opened, the problems in areas such as his will diminish. I cannot say exactly how quickly that will happen but I can assure him that we are very alive to his points. We need to get the number of asylum applications down precisely in order to relieve pressure on areas such as Dover.
    Andrew Selous: Does the Prime Minister share the concern of a number of my constituents, who are well qualified IT professionals with the relevant skills, that 21,000 IT work permits are granted every year while 56,000 British IT professionals are looking for work? Will he agree to investigate whether the granting of 200,000 work permits a year—that is a fivefold increase on last year—is in any way detrimental to the economically inactive in the UK?
    The Prime Minister: There has not been a fivefold increase in work permits. The number has been rising for a considerable time, however, which is, of course, partly because greatly increased activity in the economy means there is rising employment and falling unemployment. Those who gel work permits are specifically audited for their ability to get work in this country—people want them to work for them—and I do not think that it is right to set those people against those who are looking for work. I simply point out to the hon. Gentleman that in his constituency, as in others, unemployment has fallen dramatically over the past few years and there are increasing employment opportunities for people in IT and other sectors as well.
    Jean Corston: Does my right hon. Friend welcome the outbreak of shareholder power at GlaxoSmithKline, where a £22 million payout to the chief executive in the event of his failing to do his job properly was rejected? Does my right hon. Friend agree that such rewards for failure are repugnant?
    The Prime Minister: It is a matter for the shareholders, and what we have done is given them the ability to influence such decisions; I do not think that ultimately they should be taken by Government. It is important that the shareholders in those institutions are able to make their voice heard, and what we have seen this week is evidence of their ability to do that. The changes in corporate governance are in stark contrast to the total refusal of the Conservative party when it was in power to take any of those measures.
    Mr. Andrew Mackay: Leaving aside for now the issue of the telephone tapping of conversations between Mo Mowlam and Martin McGuinness, is the Prime Minister really comfortable
    1008
    with armed police coming in the middle of the night to the house of distinguished and responsible journalists in Belfast, arresting them in front of their young child, breaking into their study and taking papers? Is that what should be happening in our country today?
    The Prime Minister: I will not comment on the individual circumstances that the right hon. Gentleman has just mentioned because I do not know about them. However, it is extremely important that we enforce the law in every respect, and I simply say this to him and to others: it is particularly important when we are dealing with highly sensitive security information that we make sure that the law is properly upheld and that the ability to keep those issues secret is also upheld. I understand why newspapers and others will take a different view, but I happen to think it extremely important that the work that our security services and police services do, when it is supposed to be kept secret, is indeed kept secret.
    Mr. Mark Todd: Yesterday, Toyota announced an additional shift at its Burnaston plant in my constituency, bringing 1,000 extra jobs to it. Would the Prime Minister care to comment on the implications of a decision such as that for the assessment of working skills in my area, and for the attractiveness of the UK to inward investment?
    The Prime Minister: I am pleased to say that we are still attracting inward investment. The 1,000 extra jobs in my hon. Friend's area are excellent news both for it and for the whole of the country. These jobs indicate not just a high level of industrial activity but increased levels of skills as well. That is one of the reasons why we have, I think, the best rate of unemployment anywhere in the industrialised world at the moment.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: At Edenham high school in Croydon, children are being sent home early and teachers face the sack. Who does the Prime Minister think that the parents should blame—the Labour Education Secretary or Labour-controlled Croydon council?
    The Prime Minister: First, in relation to the individual school, I understand that the local education authority is visiting it today to discuss its budget. I am not in a position, and nor is the right hon. Gentleman, to comment in detail on that budget. I would point out, however, that the schools budget for Croydon has increased by more than double the rate of inflation. That, again, if I may say so, is as a result of additional investment being put into schools. Whatever the problems schools have at the moment, they would be infinitely worse if we were not supporting that investment but cutting it—as the right hon. Gentleman wants to do—by 20 per cent. across the board.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: I will tell the Prime Minister what the Conservatives will end up cutting: tuition fees, crime, asylum, bureaucracy—and the Government at the next election. But instead of arrogantly trying to say what we will do, why does he not offer an explanation to the parents of the 700 children who will be on the streets this afternoon? The problem is not just happening in

    1009
    Croydon. Up and down the country, schools have run out of money and teachers face the sack. [Interruption.] Oh yes. In Cornwall, Torpoint school is getting rid of two teachers and two support staff, and its head told the Education Secretary yesterday that he had failed. So it is now clear that the Education Secretary has utterly botched the new funding system—that is the reality. So will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to get to the Dispatch Box and apologise to all the parents, teachers and governors?
    The Prime Minister: We have in fact had, as I said, an almost 12 per cent. increase in the schools budget. That is a massive increase on any basis. In addition, over the past few years we have had rises in the number of teachers, rises in the number of classroom assistants and support staff, and the biggest ever investment programme in schools. I have accepted that there are real problems with some schools this year, and we are looking into those, but it cannot be the right answer to the schools funding issue to refuse to support the increases that we are putting in, and instead actually to cut the investment going into schools. So whatever criticisms we get from teachers or local education authorities, a party that wants to cut 20 per cent. off the education budget—
    Mr. Duncan Smith indicated dissent.
    The Prime Minister: Oh yes—that is the right hon. Gentleman's policy. A party that refuses to support the investment and would cut the schools budget is not a party that can criticise us.
    Ms Julia Drown: Mass killing of civilians is going on in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. What action is the Prime Minister taking to ensure that adequate UN forces get into the region urgently to prevent further massacres?
    The Prime Minister: I spoke to Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General, about this the day before yesterday. A UN force is being put together now to go into the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and I understand that France will make a considerable contribution to that. Given all our other engagements, we are seeing what support we can give, but it will be very important to try to make sure that that force is properly led and properly supportive; otherwise, we will revisit the terrors of the Congo of a decade or so ago. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are doing everything that we can to avoid that.
    Mr. James Clappison: The Prime Minister is no doubt aware that the first anniversary of the Potters Bar crash has just passed, but is he aware of the plight of the bereaved and injured? They are still waiting for a full explanation of how the accident happened, and for someone to accept responsibility, as has been the case with similar incidents previously. Will the Prime Minister and his colleagues give serious consideration to the call from the families for a public inquiry?
    The Prime Minister: I understand the concern of the hon. Gentleman's constituents, and I understand too why it is a particularly difficult situation for them, when so long a time has passed. However, the Health and Safety Executive has said that it wants to conduct the most thorough investigation. It has not completed that yet, and it is not for us to tell it when to complete it. Obviously, as soon as that investigation is completed we will analyse the outcome, and announce any further proposals at that time.
    Mr. Parmjit Dhanda: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Gloucester city council on its endeavours to regenerate acres of brownfield land in my constituency? However, he may be aware that one scheme, at St. Oswald's park and valued at more than £100 million, received the green light for local planning in August 2001 and is waiting for approval from Government. Will my right hon. Friend use his good offices to ensure that projects with very real regeneration credentials are speeded up through the planning process?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a very valid point. I do not know about the particular development to which he refers, but we do want to ensure that development on brownfield sites is speeded up. It is precisely for that reason that we are putting forward proposals to make the planning process work faster. I hope that we will have a result on that in the near future.
    Annabelle Ewing: The Prime Minister will be aware that the Scottish Parliament agreed at the beginning of this year to pay compensation to hepatitis C sufferers in Scotland who contracted the disease through contaminated NHS blood products. However, not a penny piece has yet been paid, as a result of dithering by Westminster over jurisdiction. Can I inject a sense of urgency into the debate and ask the Prime Minister to confirm today that Westminster will not frustrate the will of the Scottish Parliament to pay compensation under exemption from the benefits clawback regulations? Surely the Prime Minister would agree that the people involved have already waited far too long for justice.
    The Prime Minister: I am aware of the Scottish Executive's decision to pay compensation to hepatitis C sufferers. I am not aware of the other particular problem to which the hon. Lady has just drawn attention. I shall look into it, and write to her about it.
    Mr. Bill Tynan: Will my right hon. Friend inform the House of the measures that we can take to alleviate the suffering of the people of Zimbabwe under Mugabe? He will be aware that inflation there is at 228 per cent. and unemployment at 80 per cent., that 75 per cent. of the industrial base is not being used at present and that people are starving. Does he accept that there is a need to speak urgently to President Mbeki to make sure that, sooner rather than later, he exerts his influence and prevails on Mugabe to resign?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had a meeting with the President of South Africa just last week. We continue to press at every possible level for action against Zimbabwe. The situation there is obviously deteriorating rapidly—it is appalling, in humanitarian and political terms, and in terms of the economic situation for people. That is why it is important, particularly in relation to the Commonwealth, that we continue to make it clear that the actions of Zimbabwe under the Mugabe Government are utterly unacceptable.
    Sir Michael Spicer: What is the right rate of exchange for entry into the euro?
    The Prime Minister: The issues to do with the rate of exchange will, of course, be discussed at the time when the assessment is made.[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asked about the right rate of exchange. Fixing the rate of exchange would happen when we decided to enter the euro.
    Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Does my right hon. Friend consider it possible that further amending the UN draft resolution to mandate the early return to Iraq of both organisations of UN weapons inspectors could help to reunify the international community, to reassert the authority of the UN, and to provide credibility in the face of scepticism that the extent and immediacy of the threat from Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, which precipitated the rush to war, now seem possibly to have been exaggerated?
    The Prime Minister: In respect of the UN resolution, discussions in the UN Security Council are proceeding extremely well and I hope very much that we can reach agreement this week on a new UN Security Council resolution. That will also deal specifically with the return of UNMOVIC and the International Atomic Energy Agency.
    In relation to weapons of mass destruction, as I have said before, we are conducting a thorough search of all potential sites. We are also interviewing scientists and experts under the former Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein, and I can assure the House that when all that evidence has been accumulated—I think people will find that it is very telling indeed—we shall present it and there can be a proper debate about weapons of mass destruction and the Iraqi regime.
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating my constituent, Velma Paterson, on her successful hip operation under the NHS? May I tell him that she was delighted with the clean, modern hospital, the excellent medical staff and the tremendous post-operative care, but can he explain to me and to her why she had to have her operation in France?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I can explain that. It is also the case that hon. Members on both sides of the House will know of constituents who have had superb care in the NHS in this country. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman's constituent recognises that it is only because we are prepared to pay for operations, should
    1012
    people have to wait too long on the NHS, that she was able to get that treatment. The vast majority of people get their operations on time, in the NHS, in this country, but, for the first time, if they are unable to get that treatment within a specified time, we are prepared to pay here, abroad or wherever to reduce their suffering. However, all that, including that constituent's operation, could not take place without the investment in the health service—[Interruption.] The Leader of the Opposition may be tired of hearing that, but he is going to hear it from now until the next general election. The truth is that without the extra investment, that constituent's operation would not have been done, and I hope that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) tells her that.
    Dr. Nick Palmer: As someone who supported the operation to overthrow Saddam Hussein before, during and after the war, I welcome the progress at the United Nations, but does the Prime Minister agree that we need to make further progress in controlling civil unrest and in training forces in non-lethal methods of crowd control so that we can establish a stable environment for the new Iraqi interim regime?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right, and, if we are able to secure the UN resolution in the next few days, I hope that it will also allow us to access greater support from other countries. The situation in Baghdad is improving and the situation in Basra, in the south, has rapidly improved, but there is still a long way to go. If we can get the help of other countries, we can make even faster progress.
    Mr. Robert Walter: The Secretary of State for Wales, the Government's representative on the Future of Europe Convention, described the outcome as merely tidying up. I think that the Prime Minister and I share the conviction that it is in Britain's national interest to be a member of the European Union, and to be a leading member. Would this not be an opportunity to explain again to the British people, 30 years after we joined, what the benefits are, and would it not also be an opportunity for the Prime Minister to assuage the fears of those who feel that this is something more than tidying up?
    The Prime Minister: There is a very good opportunity to explain to people the benefits of the European Union. What the hon. Gentleman says is right; he represents a strand of the Conservative party that is, I am afraid, all too little represented on the Conservative Benches. People ask what has come out of Europe to Britain's benefit. What has come out for the past few decades is peace, prosperity, rising living standards and the chance to play a part in the world's biggest strategic alliance and single economic market. I think, therefore, that there will be an opportunity both when the assessment is announced on 9 June and in respect of the Convention to hold a proper public debate in this country about Europe. I look forward to that debate, during the course of which it will be seen increasingly that those who really

    1013
    want to wrench Britain out of Europe—as do Conservative Front-Bench Members—are in a minority.
    Mr. Colin Challen: The European Court of Justice has decreed that Governments should no longer hold golden shares in companies, the European Commission does not believe that Governments should dictate the shape or form of public interest companies that can take on services, and the European Central Bank is touting the idea that Governments should no longer run health services. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the
    1014
    European Union's privatisation agenda is running a bit ahead of itself and could even reach the stage where it threatens some of our flagship policies?
    The Prime Minister: Obviously, we shall study the judgment about the golden shares carefully. In relation to the national health service, I simply point out to my hon. Friend that one of the reasons why we want to raise health service and health care public spending in this country is precisely that we recognise that we are not spending enough on the national health service. It is thus rather an odd charge that if we were part of the European Union we could not spend the money that we wanted on health.

Points of Order
12.31 pm
Mr. Julian Brazier: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would be grateful if you could inform me how best to set the record straight, because the House appears to have been inadvertently misled. The Prime Minister said that the new applicants for work orders were all being individually vetted for their specialist skills, but that does not accord with the answers given to me by the Department over the past few weeks. Many are completely unskilled.
Mr. Speaker: We do not need to prolong Prime Minister's Question Time.
Mr. Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As recorded in column 58 of Hansard on 28 January, the then Minister for Pensions, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), assured the House that there would be a full debate on the pensions Green Paper, but we have not had it. Ahead of tomorrow's business statement, could you, Mr. Speaker, make inquiries as to whether the reason for the hold-up is the fact that there has been no Pensions Minister since 4 April, seven weeks ago? If so, is not that a bad reason for holding up an important debate on pensions in this place?
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might try to catch my eye at business questions. That would be the right occasion.

BP Grangemouth
12.32 pm
Mr. Michael Connarty: Under Standing Order No. 24, I ask that you, Mr. Speaker, grant an emergency debate on the health and safety impact of BP's demand for 240 new redundancies at Grangemouth in my constituency. Those are additional to the 700 redundancies agreed in 2001–02, which are still being implemented. I am deeply concerned about the employment impact and the impact on the local and Scottish economy. I am also concerned about the diminishing local and Scottish spend by BP in Grangemouth.
The impact on health and safety is the most urgent, important and specific reason for calling for a debate. I am sure that you will recall, Mr. Speaker, the seven major health and safety incidents at Grangemouth between 1998 and June 2002—including a major fire and an explosion. BP management were heavily fined on several occasions for safety breaches and a major health and safety taskforce imposed a Health and Safety Executive improvement notice on the plant, which ran until May 2002 and led to a major upgrade of safety and maintenance. An important aspect of the problem is that the A904 Bo'ness road from Grangemouth runs through the middle of the BP complex and an explosion took place only 10 minutes after a woman and her dog had passed the pipe that exploded on the main road.
The 700 redundancies are not yet fully implemented. Some people are still to leave the plant; some are still in training to run the plant with 700 fewer staff; and the health and safety control of major accident hazards certificates have not yet been granted for running the plant at the operating levels that will result from having 700 fewer workers. The manager of the plant, Colin Maclean, is basically a BP hit man. He has been around the world—particularly in Brisbane and America—taking people out of plants. He now wants 66 per cent. of the health and safety department out; a further 70 to 80 plant operators out; the engineering maintenance section out—the engineering fabrication section out, even though the ink is still to dry on the agreement that he signed. He also wants management supervision levels out, thereby placing dangerous work loads on front-line plant operators.
The BP plant in Grangemouth made a $71 million operating profit in the first quarter of this year. There was a 94.1 per cent. availability of plant—and every 1 per cent. increase in availability is worth £10 million to the company. The manager seems determined to turn back the clock to a time when the plant was not properly maintained, there were not enough staff and lives were endangered in the plant and in my community. We must not let Colin Maclean, who is the man responsible, risk health and safety and endanger lives in the community of Grangemouth in my constituency, for the sake of corporate greed. I ask that we debate the issue now as a matter of urgency.
Mr. Speaker: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) has said, and I have to give my decision without stating any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 24, and I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.

BILL PRESENTED
  DRAFT CONSTITUTIONAL TREATY ON THE FUTURE OF EUROPE (REFERENDUM) BILL
  Mr. Frank Field, supported by Mr. Graham Allen, Tony Wright, Mr. Geoffrey Robinson, Kate Hoey, Alan Howarth, Mr. Graham Stringer, John Cryer, Mr. David Drew, Mr. Ian Davidson, Denzil Davies and Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, presented a Bill to make provision for a referendum on the draft Constitutional Treaty on the Future of Europe: 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 114].

European Communities (Regulations)
12.36 pm
Mr. Mark Field: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision in respect of the effects on persons and businesses of regulations made under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972.
I am glad to see that the Field mafia are in town today. British business, like the British people, has a propensity to be fairly long-suffering and will accept most regulations as part of the burden of living in a democratic society. However, what arouses the fury of business most is the perception that under the cloak of European requirements, the British Government—and the British Government alone—legislate in a way that is significantly more anti-business than is the case in other member states. This Bill is designed to help British business become more competitive.
The irritation of business is encapsulated in the phrase "a level playing field". Whether it is the much publicised prosecution of a food producer or regulations that drive road hauliers out of business, it is the inequity of the British approach that so often generates the headlines. Although it is necessary to scrutinise all existing regulations to see if they can be sensibly simplified, a deregulatory approach on its own will not reduce the total net amount of regulation because new regulations are continually being promulgated in great detail.
The EU treaty sets out the legitimate extent of business regulation in article 36 and implementation nearly always increases business costs. The UK procedure sets out clear and well rehearsed reasons why different EU nations may have different approaches to the development of national legislation. Here in the UK, the impact of national legislation is normally much more rigorous than in several other European countries.
The body of domestic regulation that currently exists is a result of the consensus of all of the pressures that apply within our constitutional framework. In a democracy, the people who would stand to lose as a result of any proposed change in the law tend to shout a lot louder than those who stand to gain, and the former will often appear on the broadcast media and in the newspapers to set out their case. Those who should benefit from such changes are normally much more reticent and consequently the case for maintaining, or extending, existing regulations is invariably broadcast more forcefully.
Accordingly there is little chance of rolling back legislation through parliamentary means unless, unusually, there has been a massive shift in popular sentiment as a result of technological or similar change. Even apparently simple deregulation changes take much time and effort and, as someone who has recently devoted dozens of hours of time to the scrutiny of the Licensing Bill, I can confirm that to be the case. Likewise, Sunday trading was only finally approved in the mid-1990s, having initially come before the House as long ago as 1986.
Our political system has a much greater tradition of wider consultation, with draft proposals being sent to the broadest range of bodies for comment. That leads special interest groups to lobby hard for their particular concerns in using the proposed legislation to maximise

1019
their individual requirements. In contrast, British business organisations, such as chambers of commerce, are often significantly less important and well organised than the equivalent organisations in continental Europe. Commercial and trade bodies in other member states often have a far stronger tradition of business involvement at the senior levels of government and the civil service.
The tradition of UK parliamentary democracy also ensures that Ministers can be easily called to account, although perhaps less easily than many of my hon. Friends would like to believe. However, such lobbying is much more likely to be by an MP on behalf of a disgruntled constituent and rarely on account of a complaint from business. Even in my constituency—which is unusual, as some 950,000 people a day come to work in the Cities of London and Westminster and I have a slightly pastoral role for the vast number of businesses based there—I am very conscious that relatively few businesses seek to take up their concerns with Ministers. Officials in Departments are acutely conscious of that imbalance and, as a result, regulations tend to be couched in such a way as to protect the public, rather than the interests of business.
All Members know that parliamentary time is scarce and, as a result, it is difficult for Departments to claim more than a handful of legislative slots each year. The main opportunity for departmental initiatives is therefore through statutory instruments. The policing of British regulations is well established and comprehensive, with a culture that is both local and non-corrupt, but inevitably, each local inspector is appraised on the number of prosecutions that he achieves, rather than on the overall competitive success of the sector for which he may be responsible. As I have mentioned, much of that contrasts with a more lax enforcement regime on mainland Europe.
Many Members will have expressed concerns about gold-plating—where the UK goes beyond the minimum required by a European directive—and although there have been umpteen initiatives in the past decade or so to try to stem the tide of regulation, the burden on British business continues and the prospect of a level playing field with the rest of the EU seems, I am afraid, as elusive as ever.
The legislation that I am proposing, whereby a provision of UK domestic law made by statutory instrument under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 in purported implementation of an EC legal obligation could be attacked in the courts if it were shown that the UK legislation involved burdensome regulations not required by Community law; or, where member states had a choice about how they implemented the relevant EC law, the UK had not chosen the least burdensome method of
1020
implementation; or if one or more of the other member states did not have in their law provisions equivalent to those imposed by the UK regulations—or, indeed, if they did not effectively enforce their laws.
In short, I seek to ensure that the lowest rather than the highest burden would be placed on UK businesses and that the courts would have the power to grant a declaration to that effect, so the relevant UK regulation would cease to have effect to the extent that its provisions went beyond the basic minimum required by Community law. Businesses, affected individuals and bodies, such as trade associations, could go to court to apply for such a declaration. I should emphasise that such a defence would not apply where the EC law obligation had been implemented subsequently by Act of Parliament, but only to the gold-plating that I earlier described.
The consequences of the Bill would be completely to turn the tables for legislative priorities. Civil servants and officials, rather than being motivated to increase regulatory requirements, would in fact be keen to ensure that their proposals could not be overturned in court because they went further than those in other EU states. I hope that, similarly, UK embassies abroad in each EU member state would be obliged to discover more about the status of legislation in that country and feed back that information for the purposes of our good governance. Rather than Ministers having to defend European-derived legislation, any business that was prosecuted could argue its case for fair treatment in the courts.
May I take this opportunity to thank Sir Paul Judge, the businessman and philanthropist, for his work in promoting this initiative? I am also delighted to have received the endorsement of Ruth Lea of the Institute of Directors and John Blundell of the Institute of Economic Affairs, both of whom support the ideas in the Bill. Ideally, this small piece of legislation would have the effect of diffusing all the issues relating to that ever-elusive level playing field, which I understand to be the main regulatory complaint of British business.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Mark Field, Mr. Richard Bacon, Gregory Barker, Mr. John Baron, Mr. Adrian Flook, Mr. Boris Johnson, Mr. George Osborne, Mr. Mark Simmonds, Mr. Nigel Waterson and Mr. Bill Wiggin.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (REGULATIONS)
Mr. Mark Field accordingly presented a Bill to make provision in respect of the effects on persons and businesses of regulations made under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972: 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 115].
Orders of the Day

  European Union (Accessions) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  12.45 pm
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Although the Bill is slim, it is significant and important. It will do two things. First, clause I will enable the implementation under United Kingdom law of the accession treaty, which was signed in Athens on 16 April and extends the European Union to the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia from 1 May 2004. Secondly, from the same date, clause 2 will allow nationals of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia the same rights to work in the United Kingdom as those enjoyed by nationals of current member states and those that will be automatically enjoyed by nationals of Malta and Cyprus. However, that will be subject to a clear regulation-making power to withdraw such a concession if the need arises, as I shall discuss later in my speech.
  Let me begin with clause 1. The accession treaty is one of the most important agreements in the European Union's history. Enlargement sets the seal on the end of the cold-war division of Europe. Many hon. Members, including myself, represent Britain's immediate postwar generation. We hardly need reminding that security among European nations has been nothing less than a continental and American obsession for almost 60 years. That was the stimulus behind the infusion of Marshall aid and the inspiration for the foundation of the European Union. It led to the establishment of the most successful military alliance in our history—NATO.
  European security was a central preoccupation of one of my most distinguished predecessors. Ernest Bevin. If he were alive today he would, I am sure, be immensely proud of the progress that Europe has made from being the
  "breeding ground of pestilence and hate"
  that was so vividly described by Churchill in 1945 to becoming the prosperous and peaceful Union that we have today. Those of us who take an interest in European history need to recognise that the norm in Europe has been conflict and bloodshed and that the exception has been relative peace and harmony. That exception, which we have created in the past 60 years, has not been accidental but was created as a result of conscious decisions by peoples in Europe and throughout the continent.
  When the Berlin wall fell in 1989 and tens of millions of Europeans decided to take destiny into their own hands, they were not unwitting actors in a historical drama driven by political and economic forces beyond their control. Indeed, they wanted to exert control over economic and political forces that had previously denied them such control. They acted because they recognised that their system had failed them. They looked not further east or south but west for a better future,
  1022
  freedom, representative government and the opportunity better to reward their talents. They recognised the European Union as an institution that, alongside NATO, had delivered security and prosperity to its members for decades.
  As a result of that, almost immediately after the fall of the Soviet bloc Governments and the establishment of substitute Governments that became representative and democratic in time, Governments in central Europe pursued the goal of EU membership with relentless determination. It has been a remarkable effort. Political and economic reforms have laid the foundation for a prosperous future. Given the rich talents of each of those countries, I have no doubt that they will, over time, enjoy an economic transformation every bit as striking as that in Spain and Portugal since the 1980s.
  Angus Robertson (Moray): Bearing in mind the overwhelming votes in referendums so far among accession countries, will the Secretary of State deprecate those who make the case that people in accession countries who have voted to enlarge the Union are substituting their hard-won independence for some form of tyrannical government? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the building block of the European Union remains independent member states, and that enlargement should be supported by all Members of this place?
  Mr. Straw: It is a matter of free will whether enlargement is supported. However, I sign up to both of the propositions that the hon. Gentleman makes. In all my dealings with my Italian, French and German colleagues, I have had no sense from them that they feel that their nationhood has been diminished or undermined by membership of the European Union. More importantly, countries such as Slovakia, Slovenia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland and Hungary see their membership of the EU as an expression of their new nationhood, and not in any sense a detraction from it.
  Sir Michael Spicer:: The Secretary of State is making the point about the future prosperity of the applicant countries that will follow, as he says, from their entry. He must take into account the fact that the current average level of prosperity of the applicant countries in terms of per capita income is about one seventh of that of the present members. Unemployment is about twice as high. In Poland, for example, it is 20 per cent. Who will pay for the great new prosperity that the applicant countries will enjoy?
  Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Enlargement will lead to a greater range of gross domestic product per head than has existed hitherto. There are some significant figures. The new 10 will add 23 per cent. to the land mass of Europe, 20 per cent. to the population, but only 4 per cent. to the GDP of the EU. Those disparities are there.
  The hon. Gentleman asked who will pay, and I will give the exact figures later. The key way in which we have the process paid for is by increasing the output of the new member states. In a sense, they pay for it themselves. That has been historically the practice, after some initial subsidisation of new entrants, and I think

  1023
  that that will be the practice in future. Already, the GDPs of the candidate countries—former communist bloc countries—have grown by 40 per cent. As they are drawn into the EU, they will have wider access to our markets, especially our agricultural markets, or some of them. They will also be able to change and adapt their labour practices. We shall then see them really motoring, in the same way as the economies of southern European countries that have come within the EU. There will be some subsidy, and I shall deal with that.
  Mr. John Bercow: Those of us in this country who hail from central European Jewish backgrounds, as I do, have no reason to feel any antipathy towards our fellow Europeans, but we are legitimately concerned about the right of this country to retain the power of self-government. Given that it is now five years since the inclusion of the protocol on subsidiarity and proportionality in the treaty of Amsterdam, will the Secretary of State identify one directive or regulation flowing from the EU that has been repealed under the terms of the protocol?
  Mr. Straw: No, and the practice has been unsatisfactory. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asked for an answer and I have given him the answer. I am then asked what we are going to do about the situation. One of the major issues that is being discussed within the Convention is to ensure that there is a two way street in terms of subsidiarity. There is an important proposal, which I hope will be supported by the whole House, that where the Commission puts forward draft proposals for legislation and that is objected to by a third of national Governments, those proposals must go back to the Commission for reconsideration [Interruption.] I am asked what reconsideration means We want to see that strengthened. I believe that that is a dynamic mechanism and far better than the mechanisms that were put in place by the previous Government.
  Mr. Chris Bryant: I return to the point made earlier by the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir Michael Spicer) about the economics of the new entrants. Is it not true that when Spain, France and Greece all joined the EU, exactly the same phenomenon was true? Britain increased its trade with countries such as Spain by about 40 per cent. over only four or five years.
  Mr. Straw: Indeed, that is the case.
  Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: The Secretary of State has made an important point about the failure of the principle of subsidiarity up to now. He has said that there is a new power in the draft constitution. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that at best member state parliaments will be able only to request that the Commission review a proposal, and that there is no obligation on the EU or the Commission to take any notice of such a proposal? The point was made by the Scrutiny Committee. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore undertake to veto a draft constitution that does not give practical effect and powers to member state parliaments to enforce the subsidiarity principle in the way that he thinks is desirable?
  Mr. Straw: I do not undertake to do the latter, but I shall come on to our approach to the recommendations,
  1024
  of the Convention when we get to the intergovernmental conference. However, we want to see the present proposals strengthened. The matter was discussed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and Valéry Giscard d'Estaing at the dinner that I attended on Monday. We wish to push it.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: No. I have taken many interventions, and I may take some more later.
  I say to the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) that even this proposal represents a significant advance on the proposals for subsidiarity which were included in earlier treaties. In the previous Government, the right hon. Gentleman, when he had responsibilities for Europe, voted in favour of the Maastricht treaty. He was an adornment of that Government. The proposal allows some dynamism in the process, and the right hon. Gentleman needs to see that in the context of the majority that is required, even under qualified majority voting, to get something through.
  If I may, I will make some progress. I pay tribute to the efforts of previous Governments, including the right hon. Members for Wells and for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), to secure Europe's unification. It was a distinguished predecessor of mine, Lord Hurd of Westwell, who said eight years ago:
  "Enlargement is not a luxury. It is a necessity if we are to build a safe and successful Europe for the 21st century."
  It was good that the previous Administration, under John Major, not only made those statements but backed them with actions such as the establishment of the know-how fund and the sponsorship of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. Also, that Administration pushed and prompted the EU to enter into association agreements with each of the applicant member states so that they had a route through from where they were in 1989–90, which was flat on their backs in economic and political terms, to where they are today, which is just about to become fully fledged members of the EU.
  In paying that straightforward tribute to the previous Administration, I say also that we are proud of this Government's record in pursuing this cause. In a speech in Warsaw three years ago, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was the first EU leader to call for enlargement before the European parliamentary elections next year. At the time, some believed that that was overly ambitious, not to say an unrealistic ambition. However, it is about to be realised on schedule.
  To take up the point raised by the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir Michael Spicer), integrating the accession countries into the Union will entail costs. The financial package agreed by Heads of Government at last year's Copenhagen Council amounted to £26 billion between 2004 and 2006. By any standard, that is a large amount of money, but it is well within the overall budgetary ceilings for enlargement that were agreed in Berlin in 1999. In comparative terms, it amounts to a total cost to the EU 15 of just 0.1 per cent. of EU GNP in any one year.

  1025
  We must make a calculation—and both the previous Government and we have done so—about whether the benefits of accession outweigh the costs. That has been our judgement collectively in the House over many years. Studies estimate that enlargement could increase our own gross domestic product by £1.75 billion in the medium term, and help to create more than 300,000 jobs across the Union. Our workers will enjoy freedom of movement across the world's largest trading bloc. Our companies will enjoy unfettered access to a market of more than 500 million consumers.
  The opportunities for the United Kingdom are greater than for almost any other country in Europe, if only we take them. We have the opportunities arising from our more dynamic, more liberal market economy, and from the way in which our service sector excels, and we have the opportunities presented by the fact that we speak—if the phrase will be pardoned—the lingua franca of the whole of eastern Europe: English. The further east those countries are, the more they look towards us, rather than towards some of our continental neighbours. Those are opportunities that we should seize.
  Enlargement will not only help us to realise Europe's full economic potential; it will give us the capacity to reach across national borders to confront the new threats to Britain's security. We all know that, acting alone, we will never be able to protect our citizens from the threats of global terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or the chaos and misery spread by failed and failing states. We need more partners in Europe to confront those threats, and we need to build on the tried and trusted EU methods—co-operation across borders, intelligence sharing and joint law enforcement operations. That has been a central lesson over the past 20 months in the campaign against terrorism.
  If the European Union is mutually to benefit from the accession of the additional 10 countries, the institutions that were originally designed for the six founding members will have to be reformed to cope with the demands of 25 member states. It is a tautology, and a pretty useless one, to claim that what is in the Convention, and the changes that the Convention may in time lead to, are not a condition for accession. That is obvious, because we are dealing with accession separately. It tells us nothing, except that if we tried to operate the EU at 25 with the existing institutions, we would find that the institutions became less and less efficient.
  There are many examples of how that would happen. For example, when the revolving presidency was first agreed, each member state had a presidency for six months in every three years. When we first became members, it was once every four and a half years—almost within the perspective of a single Government term. Currently, it is once every seven and a half years, and from 1 May 2004 it will be once every 12 and a half years. In addition, alongside the wider disparity in economic performance in those countries, there is a much bigger range in population and capacity. With the best will in the world, it would be extremely difficult for some of those very small countries—in private they know it, even if they are less willing to admit it in public
  1026
  for the time being—to run an effective presidency across all the Councils for six months in every 12 and a half years. There will be no collective memory in those systems.
  That is why we proposed that there should be a fulltime president of the Council. We also proposed that there should be a full-time representative on foreign affairs, and within that there should be arrangements for team presidencies. I say to those Opposition Members who share my vision and view of a European Union of sovereign nation states that it is in their interest as much as ours that we strengthen the institutions of the Council, which represents those nation states, rather than that they should be weakened, as they have been in recent years.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: It has always been understood by those of us in the Opposition who are keen on enlargement that in order to make a European Union of 25 work, there would have to be concessions. We would give up something in order that the new entrants could come in, and the EU would be no less effective. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that in treating the outcome of the Convention, he will safeguard certain interests that we have, such as foreign policy being subject to a veto, but otherwise will seek the best solution of the division of powers between the European Union and the British nation, so that we can make progress within the EU, rather than trying to make progress impossible?
  Mr. Straw: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Of course we have our clear red lines, and we will stick to them. We will not have foreign policy communitised. We simply will not have it. There are many other red lines for us, but what we have learned since the mid1980s is that this country benefits, for example, from qualified majority voting in a wide range of areas. When Maastricht was under discussion, it was striking that Lord Hurd, debating whether there should be a referendum, pointed out that the most significant and major changes that were made in the way in which the EU operated in order to make it more effective, not least for our benefit, were ones made in the Single European Act. Lord Hurd said:
  "There was no referendum on that and precious little call for one."—[Official Report, 21 April 1993; Vol. 223, c. 453.]
  Mr. Michael Ancram: The Foreign Secretary assured my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) that there would be no communitised foreign policy if he had his way. Can he explain the differences between a communitised foreign policy and a unified foreign policy in Europe, which the Prime Minister promoted in Cardiff some months ago?
  Mr. Straw: Of course I can. There is a huge difference. I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman is in such a muddle over the issue that he does not understand the difference between a communitised foreign policy and a unified foreign policy, so I shall explain.
  A communitised foreign policy is one where all the Community institutions operate in respect of that foreign policy. The right of initiative is left solely, as it is at present in respect of trade or fishing, to the European

  1027
  Commission. As Foreign Ministers, we would become subordinate to the European Commission, and whether or not we went to war would be subject to qualified majority voting in the Council. We would be bound by the decisions reached by qualified majority vote inside the Council. Even if we objected to the decision, we would still have to put our troops in, and any legal issues would be subject to arbitration by the European Court of Justice. That is the communitisation of foreign policy.
  A unified foreign policy is what we all seek, regardless of whether we are in the European Union. It is one under which we have a view, others have a view, and we try to come together in unity. That is what we seek. The phrase that we use is "a common foreign policy". Sometimes we are able to achieve that, as we have on the middle east, rather successfully, and as we have on the Balkans and many African conflicts. Sometimes we cannot achieve it, as in the case of Iraq, in which case we have to agree to disagree.
  Keith Vaz: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Straw: I will in a moment, but I have something that I feel the House ought to listen to, if I may say so, with respect—
  Mr. Bercow: As opposed to the rest.
  Mr. Straw: As well as the rest.
  The right hon. Member for Devizes, the shadow Foreign Secretary, he who voted for Maastricht and against a referendum on Maastricht, said when he was making an impassioned speech in favour of Maastricht and against a referendum—I ask the House to weigh these words with great care—
  "I said at the beginning that I did not want to be part of a European superstate."
  He went on to say:
  "Equally, I do not want to find myself in a country that is outside a European superstate, with our industries unable to penetrate it"—[Official Report, 4 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 343],
  which seems to imply that he was content, if necessary, to be a member of a superstate, because he regarded that as preferable to being outside it. If he has a better explanation of that, I am happy to give way to him. I see that he remains silent.
  Keith Vaz: My right hon. Friend will recall the letter that the Prime Minister and Gerhard Schroder sent to Prime Minister Aznar on 25 February 2002. It set out our stall on the reform agenda. Is he confident that we have made progress on achieving the points in the letter?
  Mr. Straw: Yes, we have indeed made progress and we shall achieve more.
  The Convention on the Future of Europe has been examining how to make European institutions work better for the past 15 months. Representatives of this House, the other place and the Government have participated in that. It is increasingly clear that the accession countries broadly share the United Kingdom's vision of the Union's future: a Europe of
  1028
  sovereign nations, proud of their distinct identities but co-operating for mutual good, and a partner, not a rival, of the United States.
  We have always been clear about our objectives for the Convention. We want delegates to agree a constitutional text for the Union, which enables it to work efficiently at 25 members, sets out what it is, what it does and how it does it, defines the role and powers of its institutions and their relationship with member states, and improves its ability to deliver practical benefits to Europe's citizens. Some contend that the Convention is about none of that but signals the demise of the United Kingdom as a sovereign independent state. It does not. If it did, none of us—except the right hon. Member for Devizes, who appears to be dallying with the idea of a superstate—would have anything to do with it.
  Given all the recent comments, it is worth recalling that of Giscard d'Estaing, that the outcome will not be a European superstate but a "union of states". Some—not me, but Opposition Members—may say, "Oh well, he's a former President of France and we should take less notice of him." The idea that France, with its separate seat in the United Nations Security Council, and a history and foreign policy that are as distinctive as ours, would be willing to give up its national identity for a European superstate, in which it would be overwhelmed by countries non-sympathetic to it, is nonsense.
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The Foreign Secretary said that one of the Convention's aims is to make running the EU more efficient. I apologise for taking him from the higher echelons of the ether that he is currently inhabiting to the practical consequences of running an organisation of 25 member states. Like me, he will have sat through Council of Ministers meetings that worry about minutiae. Unlike me, he will not have had to do that in an organisation of 12 member states. That was difficult enough, but I suggest that doing it in an organisation of 15 is almost impossible, given the detail to be considered in, for example, the Agriculture Council. What sort of arrangements can be devised to pare down the detail, involvement and the sheer number of hours that a body of 25 member states would require?
  Mr. Straw: The right hon. Lady raises important practical issues. When we considered justice, home affairs and foreign policy, we were dealing with second and third pillar arrangements whereas she had to deal with first pillar arrangements. I recall one occasion on which I was almost driven completely mad when we were arguing about the mutual recognition of driving disqualifications. The minimum for which the directive allowed was 31 days. That was also the case in every member state except Austria, where the period allowed under its domestic law for driving disqualification was 28 days. It was a wonderful, Rubik's cube of a challenge without a solution. We found one in the end.
  Mr. Bercow: Give us all the details.
  Mr. Straw: In time-honoured fashion, we settled on a month, which could be 28 or 31 days. It was 6 o'clock on a Friday, I was chairing the session and I claim some credit for the outcome.

  1029
  The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) made an important point. We should all consider the Convention carefully, and the need to make Europe work more effectively. Let us consider the operation of a Union of 25 member states, some of which have skilful Ministers to take the chairs of the Councils, but only for six months. To be frank, there are less skilled Ministers, from countries with no collective memories in their systems or from tiny countries, who tell us that they do not have the capacity for such an extraordinary undertaking. Unless we do something practical about that, power will shift to a centralised Brussels Commission. That will happen if we do nothing.
  Some people claim that we should have voted against the Nice treaty and that we should now hold a referendum on the Convention. For them, the point of a referendum is to say no to it.[Interruption.] Of course that does not apply to everyone. However, those who suggest that the Convention is a terrible nightmare need to examine the proposals and the requirements of a future Union. Those requirements mean that we must ensure that member states, through their Ministers in the Council of Ministers and the Council's secretariat, can rebalance the Union's institutions in the interests of our citizens.
  That can be achieved through several prosaic methods. First, we could appoint a full-time president of the Council, who would be answerable to the Council and sovereign nation states, just as the President of the Commission is answerable to the Commission. Secondly, there could he team presidencies. Instead of every country having all the presidencies once every 12 and a half years, member states would be placed in blocks of four, and each country could share two presidencies for two years. I am happy to provide the grid for hon. Members. Many other, mostly prosaic, things can be done to make the Union operate better. That will enable rebalancing.
  I accept the point made by the right hon. Member for Wells that the proposed mechanism is not as satisfactory as it should be to ensure a block on Commission proposals that national Parliaments regard as unacceptable. That is important. I do not agree with the proposal for a single legislative council that is emanating from part of the Convention, but although the idea is overblown, more effective scrutiny of the drafting of directives and regulations and a check on too many regulations is in the interests of member states.
  Mr. Boris Johnson: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the advantage of the rotating presidency is that it puts the reins of the Community in the hands of directly elected national politicians every six months? Which country does he find deficient? Luxembourg, which has a population roughly the size of for Wolverhampton, has been able to run a professional presidency for the past 30 or 40 years. Which country does the Foreign Secretary believe to be incapable of performing that function?
  Mr. Straw: Seductive though the hon. Gentleman's invitation is, I shall not be drawn into naming names.
  1030
  Luxembourg is the exception among very small countries. It was significantly supported and, as a founder member of the European Union, it has a specific expertise and skill that are not available to others. It is not only tiny countries that are sometimes unable to provide effective presidencies. Like any other Minister, I am happy to chair the bodies, but from my experience, which is shared by some hon. Members on the Conservative Benches, if the hon. Gentleman wants to ensure that the House and the Government answerable to it are better served in Brussels, in the Councils in Luxembourg and in the Commission, our rather prosaic proposals are likely to deliver greater efficiency.
  Mr. Doug Henderson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the key matter in reforming the European Union is the power of the Council of Ministers? If that power is retained as it is, with the ability of the sovereign countries to determine whether they will go along with foreign and defence proposals, the identity of the president and the officials and the nature of the systems in the committees are secondary matters. The issue of principle is the power of the Council of Ministers. If that does not change, there is no case for a referendum.
  Mr. Straw: I agree with my hon. Friend; I am about to come to that point.
  Let me deal with the issue of a referendum. It is important to remember that the Convention has no executive authority—none whatever. It will make final decisions on absolutely nothing—its deliberations are not definitive. Its task is to submit a constitutional text to member states next month at the Thessaloniki European Council. Whatever the Convention recommends, the decisions on whether there is a new constitution for Europe—then, crucially, what goes into it—do not depend on any operational institution of the European Union. No one should get obsessed about the fact that it will be called a constitution. Every party represented in this House has a constitution—that does not make it a nation state. I refer those who want further elucidation to an article that I wrote for The Economist two or three months ago, in which I try to expand on that. The content of any new treaties will depend solely on the Governments of the 25 sovereign states meeting together in an intergovernmental conference and taking decisions only by unanimity. That IGC negotiation is unlikely to conclude before the end of the year. Adoption of the draft treaty would then be subject to ratification by the different constitutional procedures of the member states.
  In the United Kingdom, there is no hard and fast rule about which issues should go to referendum, and the weight of an issue—its gravity—cannot be the sole test.We have routinely held referendums on what most of us regard as second or third-order issues such as Sunday drinking in Wales. We have never held referendums—nor has any other country, as far as I am aware—on the most critical question that can ever come before any Government and Parliament, but particularly a democracy: whether to go to war. Although there is no iron rule, in practice we have had referendums to determine whether to change dramatically our constitutional arrangements. That has been the case for the past 30 years. Thus, we had the 1975 referendum on

  1031
  whether to stay in or leave the European Union, and the late-1990s referendums on whether to have a Scottish Parliament, a Welsh Assembly or a London—orHartlepool—mayor. The euro plainly comes into that category of changing our constitutional arrangements in an open-and-shut, dramatic way, even though the criteria for the Cabinet's recommendations are, as we all know, economic. In each of those examples, the choices are very stark and the alternative consequences are clear. One stays in the Common Market—as it was—or leaves it; one has a Scottish Parliament, or not; one has the euro, or sterling.
  What we—successive Governments—have not done is to have referendums on whether to approve changes to the existing institutions to which we belong. The Single European Act of 1986 and the Maastricht treaty of 1992 introduced big changes in the way in which the European Union ran—on any analysis, bigger changes than could possibly be introduced by the Convention even if everything in it was simply rubber-stamped by member states, which will not happen. They were big, and complex, changes. It is worth remembering that 12 members—that must be a significant majority—of the shadow Cabinet, including the right hon. Member for Devizes, who is shadow Foreign Secretary, and the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), as well as the right hon. Member for Wells, who is not in the shadow Cabinet, voted against a referendum on Maastricht, and did so for very good and eloquently expressed reasons. Similar arguments must apply to the product of the intergovernmental conference. Any changes will be complex overall. Let me be clear that we will not sign up to them unless we are clear that they meet our aims—to make the EU more effective and responsive—and do not compromise our national sovereignty.
  I hope that the changes agreed by member states in the forthcoming IGC will involve important reforms, which we have discussed, to the way in which the EU operates internally. However, they will not entail any significant change in the relationship between the United Kingdom as a sovereign state and the European Union as an association of nation states. It follows that any likely overall reform package will not be on a par, in terms of importance, with, for example, whether we keep our pound sterling or share our currency with the euro. As I said, the IGC's product will be far less significant than either Maastricht or the Single European Act. Moreover—this is very important—the IGC and Convention product will be, on any basis, far less significant than the Bill in terms of the future of Europe and the future of this country. I have heard no calls from right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative Benches for a referendum on the contents of the Bill. Of course they do not intend to do that, because they are in favour of the Bill, but against the Convention.
  The IGC negotiations should result in reforms that enable the Union to respond effectively to voters' concerns. As we all know, one of the issues that animates European voters and Governments alike is Europe's—not necessarily ours, in fact far from it—relatively weak economic performance. We have sought to reflect our commitment to economic dynamism in Europe in the changes that are made by clause 2, which will make a modest, but important contribution in that respect. The
  1032
  point of clause 2 is to grant nationals from the eight central and eastern European accession countries the same rights to work in the UK from 1 May next year as are enjoyed by nationals of the existing member states. As I told the House earlier, nationals of Cyprus and Malta will enjoy those rights automatically on accession. That measure is in our national interest. It will attract the workers we need in key sectors. It will ensure that they can work here without restrictions and need not be a burden on the public purse. It makes sense financially, as we can focus resources on the real immigration problems, rather than trying to stop EU citizens enjoying normal EU rights.
  Independent studies, including recent independent research commissioned by the Home Office, suggests that there will not be a substantial increase in immigration from the accession countries that poses a threat to standards of living and employment in any region of the UK or to any occupation. That is because although there will be rights of migration here, what is bound to happen is that the economies of the 10 countries, especially the eight that I mentioned, will expand, and as a result the demand for labour in them will increase. For those who are concerned about the matter, I say this: we should bear in mind the experience of Spain and Portugal in joining the European Union. It is worth remembering that we now take Spain and Portugal for granted as countries that are on the same level as ourselves, but they were not in that situation at all when they joined the European Union in the mid1980s.
  I shall give some figures for Spain and France. When Spain joined the European Community in 1986, there were more than 100,000 Spanish workers in France. Within eight years, that figure had fallen to 35,000. What is fascinating about Spain and the United Kingdom is that there were many Spanish people in the United Kingdom before Spain joined the European Union; now, there are hundreds of thousands of British people in Spain—the migration has been the other way.
  Mike Gapes: I was in Portugal in 1985, and I recall Lisbon being an incredibly poor city. If one goes to Portugal today, one can see the massive transformation that has been brought about by membership of the European Union and the single currency. Does my right hon. Friend think that that is likely to happen in all the other accession countries as they join the EU and the single currency?
  Mr. Straw: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I believe that that will happen. If, however, there are problems, and we need to change the regulations that we introduce, clause 2(2) allows for the regulations to be changed for any individual country, or as a whole, or for the concession to be withdrawn.
  It is true that recent progress towards enlargement has not been entirely smooth. I regret that in Cyprus it did not prove possible for a settlement to be secured before Cyprus signed the treaty of accession on 16 April. We repeatedly sought to facilitate an effective negotiation between the two parties, Greece and Turkey. I pay tribute to the Governments of Greece and Turkey, who played a commendable role in trying to secure a satisfactory conclusion, to the United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan and his special

  1033
  representative de Soto, and to our special representative, Lord Hannay. A settlement was not possible, however, so Greek Cypriot Cyprus—the state that we recognise—is part of the European Union and the Turkish part is not.
  Mr. Andrew Love: Does my right hon. Friend welcome the opening up of the border between the two communities in Cyprus? We hope that negotiations will start in the very near future, and that they will lead to the solution that he is looking for.
  Mr. Straw: I do, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's work in trying to secure a rapprochement between the two communities. He knows better than almost anyone in the House that the diaspora of both Turkish and Greek Cypriots is a very important constituency for the political processes in Cyprus. The recent opening up of the borders has been terrific, and has provided people on both sides with hope regarding what is to come, and shown them how, after years of enmity, they could live in peace with a more open border.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and I have agreed that the European convention on human rights should be extended to the United Kingdom's sovereign base areas on Cyprus, with effect from 1 May 2004. This is good news, particularly for the 7,000 Cypriot citizens who live in the sovereign base areas, who will enjoy the same human rights protection as other Cypriots.
  I very much hope that, at some point during the next Parliament, the Government will be able to introduce a Bill to endorse the accession of Bulgaria and Romania in 2007. Turkey should follow thereafter. A state in which the overwhelming majority of people are Muslim, but which is secular, and accepts our conception of liberal democratic values, would strengthen Europe's ties with the Islamic world. I think that the whole House is united—I hope it is—in encouraging Turkey to continue its programme of reform so that we shall be able to judge it on the same basis as all the other countries in terms of whether it is ready to come into the European Union. We also look forward to the accession, on the same strict criteria, of an increasing number of Balkan states in the former Republic of Yugoslavia.
  Enlargement, as all the parties to the treaty have declared, is a continuous, inclusive and, I believe, irreversible process. This current enlargement, which is of unparalleled dimension and significance, will broaden the horizons of European unity, enhance the United Kingdom's influence in the European Union, and increase security and prosperity across the continent, to the benefit of all European Union citizens. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: Does "irreversible" mean that we cannot get out?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order.
  1.32 pm
  Mr. Michael Ancram: I would like to start by referring to a matter that the Foreign Secretary dealt with at some length, although it might not strictly come within the terms of the Bill. I would like to make a comment or two on his analysis of why he is not going to hold a referendum on the treaty that will be forthcoming as a result of the work done by the convention. I find his explanation quite extraordinary. We live in a world in which we have had 34 referendums since 1997. We have had them on Scotland, Wales and London, we have had them on mayors, and now we are going to have them on regional assemblies. Yet the Foreign Secretary tells us that, on this significant measure—which he tends to suggest is not as significant as some of his colleagues think—we cannot have a referendum.
  Mr. Tom Levitt: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ancram: Let me just pose one simple question to the Foreign Secretary. If it is significant to have a referendum on whether we should have a mayor, not just in London but in Hartlepool, why is it insignificant whether we should have an elected president of the Council of Ministers for a five-year period? What is the difference between the two? I will tell the House what it is. The Government are afraid to put this whole question of a constitution to the people of this country because, as the Secretary of State himself has said, they fear that they would say no.
  Mr. Tom Harris: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ancram: I will in a moment.
  We have been given a series of explanations of what the constitution is going to mean. We were told by the Secretary of State for Wales that it involved "tidying up", yet on Sunday he agreed that it was constitutionally significant. We have heard all sorts of explanations from the Foreign Secretary of the importance of the measure. We heard the Prime Minister the other day wrongly saying that the constitution was essential to make the accession treaty work. Whatever explanation is given, we cannot deny that this is a significant measure, and my colleagues and I would like to see it put to the judgment of the British people.
  Mr. Straw: We know what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. It is his arguments that are poor, not what he is saying. I have already explained this point, but I am happy to repeat it. If the Convention is agreed by member states in due course, it will involve some important changes in the way in which the European Union operates, but they are complex. It will not involve a significant change in the nature of our relationship with the European Union. If the right hon. Gentleman is now arguing for a referendum on the contents of the Convention, why was he against a referendum on Maastricht, which, on any analysis, involved much more significant changes in our relationship with the European Union? Let him answer that.
  Mr. Ancram: I will. Ten years ago, I was against all referendums. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] Yet, since 1997,

  1035
  we have lived in an age of referendums. The question that the Foreign Secretary refuses to answer is: why, if we have a referendum on everything else, can we not have one on the European constitution? As for the Foreign Secretary's— [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. We must have some calm and quiet in the House. These are important arguments that should be heard on both sides.
  Mr. Ancram: The Foreign Secretary's suggestion that we should not have a referendum because this is a complex issue is a total insult to the British people. He knows, and I know, that the Convention and the constitution are going to move Europe from being a Europe of sovereign nations to being a supranational Europe. If that is not significant, I do not know what is.
  Donald Anderson: That is surely a remarkable argument. The spirit of the age has changed, and therefore the right hon. Gentleman must change. Will he tell us where, along that Damascus road from Maastricht, the light dawned?
  Mr. Ancram: I find it quite extraordinary to hear the arguments of the other side. I believe that the British people should decide whether this is significant. All the opinion polls that we have seen suggest that they think it significant and that they want a referendum. Yet we have the arrogance of those on the Government Front Bench who say that, because it is a complex matter, the British people should not be allowed to make a judgment on it. That is the most disgracefully antidemocratic argument that I have heard in the House for a long time.
  Angus Robertson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ancram: No, I am going to move on.
  The Bill fulfils the technical requirements arising from the treaty signed in Athens on 16 April. It paves the way for the accession next year of 10 new members of the European Union. The Conservatives welcome enlargement, and we warmly welcome the accession countries.
  Mr. Straw: May I come back to the important question raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson)? At what point did the shadow Foreign Secretary suddenly change his mind?
  Mr. Ancram: When I very reluctantly found myself in a world in which we had referendums on Scotland and Wales, in which I had to take part, and a referendum on London—a world in which I suddenly found that the process was one in which we consulted the people in referendums. But why, if we do that on all these other issues, are the Government not going to do it on this significant issue? There is absolutely no question but that they are avoiding a referendum on this issue
  1036
  because they believe that the British people, if asked, would give them the judgment that we believe should be given.
  Angus Robertson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ancram: No, I am going to move on.
  I spoke about this matter at the beginning of my speech, because it does not strictly arise from the Bill, but the Foreign Secretary had raised it and I felt that it was necessary to deal with it.
  The Conservatives have consistently supported enlargement. As early as 1992, the then Government made the expansion of the EU into eastern Europe a clear policy aim, and we have promoted it ever since. Today we are pleased that it is coming to pass, and we support the Bill. That is not to say that we see enlargement as a panacea. Despite the Foreign Secretary's rather high-flown optimism, it will undoubtedly pose substantial economic challenges for many of the accession countries. It will need patience and understanding.
  There will be great disparities of wealth. Poland has a population more than three times the size of Greece's. Its gross domestic product per head is under a quarter of that of Greece, yet in the first year of full membership it will receive from the EU only 65 per cent. of what Greece will receive. There will also be great disparities in living standards, and there is no quick or easy way of resolving them. Successful enlargement will require commitment and courage from the applicant countries as well as from those who are already members. We must be realistic about the challenges that accession and enlargement will bring. I mention this so that we do not start this debate peering at enlargement through rose-tinted glasses.
  In that regard, I must also mention that the provisions in the Bill on the immediate freedom of movement of workers from accession countries are a cause of considerable concern. This is inevitably a sensitive issue, but for a start, we need to know why so many other countries are taking advantage of the transitional derogation that is available in the treaty. There are questions to be answered about why the United Kingdom is not doing so. We will return to that issue in detail in Committee, but for the moment, I flag it up as a matter of concern.
  Angus Robertson: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that a significant reason why other countries see that aspect as more important than it is seen to be here in the UK is that 80 per cent. of such people currently outside the accession countries are living in Germany and Austria?
  Mr. Ancram: As I understand it, six of the 15 current members will allow immediate entry, while the others will use the derogation for somewhere between the two and seven years that are allowed. I believe that we need to deal with the matter carefully and understand the implications. As I said, we will return to it in detail in Committee. I believe that many questions should be answered at that stage.

  1037
  We must pay tribute to the determination of the accession countries to join the EU even in the light of the challenges that many of them will face. I welcome this enlargement because it moves towards the completion of Europe—
  Mr. Bryant: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
  Mr. Ancram: I am in middle of making it; perhaps the hon. Gentleman should wait until I have finished making the point before seeking to intervene on it.
  I welcome this enlargement because it moves us towards the completion of Europe in a way that was impossible in the days of the cold war. As my noble Friend Lady Thatcher said in her famous speech 15 years ago:
  "We must never forget that east of the iron curtain peoples who once enjoyed a full share of European culture, freedom and identity have been cut off from their roots. We shall always look on Warsaw, Prague and Budapest as great European cities."
  Now those great European cities have regained their roots and are undeniably European again. I believe that everyone in all parts of the House will welcome that.
  Mr. Bryant: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He congratulated the accession countries on their determination to join the EU. Will he therefore distance himself from Conservative Members of the European Parliament who campaigned in several of the referendums in accession countries against their joining?
  Mr. Ancram: We made it clear all along in this House that we believed in accession and wanted enlargement of the European Community. That was the position of the Conservative party and it is exactly what we have said all the way along.
  I think that we should recall history. We should recall that Europe has never been the introverted, defensive and conformist entity that so many eurocrats like to paint it as. Europe is broad and varied, speckled and different, and combative and affectionate. To an historian, Poland, which is famous for its bravery, has always been a natural part of European history, along with the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. It is not often remembered—it may be that not many people know this—that the Lithuanians were the first European people to defeat the Mongols.
  Today, we welcome these countries, together with those other vital parts of European history and culture, the Czech and Slovak Republics and the Republics of Hungary and Slovenia. As Lady Thatcher recognised, they lie at the geographical heart of Europe. Like the Foreign Secretary, we welcome the accession of the Republic of Cyprus, although we regret that it is not possible for the island to join us whole. We delighted in the accession of the Republic of Malta, whose courage and resilience we in this country recognise and know well. Like the Foreign Secretary, I hope that we may one day welcome Romania and Bulgaria, and possibly, in due course and if European Union criteria are met, even Turkey.
  1038
  We are looking now not at an old, outdated fortress Europe, but at a new, vibrant and forward-looking Europe—a patchwork quilt of cultures, interests and values. We should now be turning our backs on a coercive, conformist Europe where power is increasingly drawn to the centre. That is yesterday's unenlarged Europe. We look to tomorrow's Europe as one that rejoices in diversity, recognises national rather than supranational interests and works on the basis of co-operation rather than coercion. That is what we believe is meant by a true partnership of sovereign nations.
  Ann Winterton: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. He is at a very important part of his speech. Can he confirm that the 10 applicant countries have without exception accepted the terms of all previous treaties in the European Union and have signed up lock, stock and barrel to the acquis communautaire, which seems to me to suggest that the Europe about which he is talking and which he hopes will come into place in the future is not actually on offer at present?
  Mr. Ancram: My hon. Friend makes a very important point that I was going to mention a little later. The applicant countries know what they have signed up to, but they will now face an intergovernmental conference that will supersede those treaties. I shall deal with the issue later, but my understanding is that those countries will not have full voting rights in that process, although they will be bound by whatever comes out of it. That is a very important point and we need to come back to it.
  I want to seek to clear up a little confusion—or perhaps I should say, given the turmoil in the Government at the moment on all matters European, a little of the confusion. The Prime Minister claimed last week that our call for a referendum on the new constitutional treaty had been made because we were against enlargement. As I said, he said that the constitution was necessary to make enlargement work. He has clearly not realised that enlargement can and will proceed now with or without a new constitutional treaty. Either he has not done his basic homework or he has done it but does not want an honest debate, as that is the position, as the Library has made perfectly clear.
  My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition remonstrated with the Prime Minister, only to be met by an hysterical and clearly rattled outburst of invective. Yesterday, in an extraordinary and intemperate letter, the Prime Minister turned fact and history on their heads and accused my right hon. Friend of jeopardising enlargement, claiming that he sought to take Britain out of the EU. I wish to make it clear that that is not only totally untrue, but black propaganda of the most cynical and disreputable kind. It was not my right hon. Friend who said that the EU
  "takes away Britain's freedom to follow the sort of economic policies we need"
  and was a reason for coming out; it was the Prime Minister in Beaconsfield in 1982. It was not my right hon. Friend who said that the EU had
  "drained our national resources and destroyed jobs"

  1039
  and that withdrawal should be negotiated. Again, that was the Prime Minister, in his election address in Sedgefield in 1983. I can tell the House that we will take no lessons from the Prime Minister on hostility to Europe and inconsistency in his approach to Europe.
  While I am on this theme, may I ask whether it is true that the Foreign Secretary, who was happy to quote me—I hope that he will listen for a moment—called at the Wembley conference in 1980 for withdrawal front Europe? How strange that that seems to have slipped his mind.
  Mr. Straw: I did not speak at the Wembley conference in 1980, as far as I remember. I may be wrong, but it was a long time ago.
  Mr. Ancram: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will wish to correct the impression given by a report on him by Andrew Roth, who seems to remember it well.
  The truth is that we believe in enlargement and want to make it work. What is clear is that it will not work in an environment that forces the accession countries to conform and toe the line. There is too much variety in Europe for that. Yet that is what the Government and their centralising allies are concocting and proposing. For all the weasel words of the Secretary of State for Wales, that is what is likely to emerge from the Convention. The Prime Minister was wrong to say that the measures being considered by Giscard d'Estaing for the new constitution are vital for enlargement. They are not. He would have been nearer the mark if he had said that what is emerging from the Convention would make successful enlargement that much more difficult.
  Mr. Tom Harris: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that, with the accession of 10 new countries to the European Union, the existing constitution in it s informal form needs no amendment whatever? Is that the position of the Conservative party?
  Mr. Ancram: No. I do not know how many debates on Europe the hon. Gentleman has attended, but I have been arguing from the Dispatch Box that we want a much more flexible Europe precisely because enlargement is coming. I am now saying that the Convention will produce something that is even worse than what we have at the moment, move us away from a Europe of nations towards a supranational situation and make it even more difficult for enlargement to work.
  Mr. Bercow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, 60 years on, it remains impossible to improve on the position as it was articulated by Winston Churchill:
  "We are with Europe but not of it. We are linked, but not comprised. We are interested and associated, but not absorbed. And should European statesmen address us in the words which were used of old—'Wouldst thou be spoken for to the king, or the captain of the host?'—we should reply…'Nay sir, for we dwell among our own people'"?
  Mr. Ancram: I am grateful not just for my hon. Friend's perfect recollection of Winston Churchill's words, but for the point he has made.
  Mr. Straw: What is the right hon. Gentleman's response to that eloquent intervention, though? The
  1040
  logical conclusion of what the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) has just said is that we should not be in the European Union. Is that the right hon. Gentleman's view?
  Mr. Ancram: No. What it means is that we should be in a partnership of sovereign nations. That is what "sovereign nation" means. The Foreign Secretary frequently talks about a partnership of sovereign nations, but his intervention shows that he does not understand what sovereignty means, and is quite prepared to alienate it because he does not think it matters.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: I am chairman of the European Movement, which Sir Winston Churchill set up with the precise objective of ensuring that we tied ourselves more closely to the continent. As Lord Jenkin pointed out in a letter to The Times, Sir Winston was emphatically in favour of our applying to join the European Economic Community—for exactly the political and economic reasons for which we eventually did join.
  Mr. Ancram: I do not think there is any difference between our arguments. We are talking about a partnership of sovereign nations, which is what the European Economic Community was. One of its basic principles was that power flowed from the national Parliaments towards the centre. The Convention proposes something very different—that power should flow from the top down towards the national Parliaments.
  Ann Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Ancram: I will give way once more; then I must make progress.
  Ann Winterton: I was somewhat confused by the intervention concerning what Winston Churchill aspired to. If I recall rightly, he once said, "If Britain has to choose between Europe and the open sea, she must always choose the open sea." I do not think that Winston Churchill would have been in favour of the European Union.
  Mr. Ancram: I say this with a great deal of diffidence, but I like to think that if that great statesman were standing at this Dispatch Box and were asked if he approved of what was emerging from the Convention now, with Giscard d'Estaing, he would give the same answer—because that is precisely what the choice could be.
  Enlargement requires decentralization and flexibility—what has sometimes been called flexible geometry, within which the very different interests and requirements of the accession countries can be better recognised and met. In a European Union with new members as diverse as Estonia and Cyprus, not only is conformity ludicrous; it makes flexibility essential. The Europe of the Convention and the constitution is anything but flexible. We are seeing the building of the new superpower to which the Prime Minister referred in his speech in Poland in October 2000. [Interruption.] The word "superpower" was used by the Prime Minister, not me. The Foreign Secretary must

  1041
  understand that the Opposition are very puzzled by the different descriptions of what is happening that we hear from the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Wales. It is time they got their act together and decided what they are trying to achieve in Europe.
  We are talking about a Europe in which fundamental rights will be centrally enforced, asylum laws will no longer be made nationally but will be made at European level, large swathes of international policy will be subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, the intergovernmental concept that gives nation states their voice and their moment of leadership in the Council will be weakened, and foreign policy will no longer be a matter for individual members but, ultimately, will be imposed centrally. It is a Europe that will have increasingly crossed the line between the Europe of sovereign nations and the sovereign nation of Europe.
  This centralised and bureaucratised Europe is precisely what enlargement does not need. Many of the accession countries to which the Bill refers have only comparatively recently freed themselves from centralised. Soviet domination. They are new democracies with national democratic institutions that are still young and finding their way. The last thing they want or need is to find themselves once again under stifling centralised domination. They want to see their national Parliaments strengthened, not weakened, and they want to have their own voice in Europe.
  Those countries had a taste of post-Giscard Europe during the Iraq crisis, when nearly all of them joined Great Britain and Spain in supporting the US line against the stance being taken by Germany and France. President Chirac's arrogant and intemperate response, chiding them for being "ill brought up" and threatening them with consequences if they did not dance to France's tune, was a salutary warning of the way in which a unified foreign policy would operate: it would be centralised, insensitive and bullying.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ancram: I have given way a lot, and I am not going to do so again for the moment.
  That is what is likely to be enshrined in the Convention's recommendations. The proposed constitution states that there must be a
  "common foreign and security policy",
  with a duty incumbent on member states
  "actively and unreservedly to support"
  that policy
  "in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity".
  Whatever the Foreign Secretary may say about what is meant by a unified foreign policy, that is what the Convention is trying to achieve.
  Different European countries, including the accession countries, will rightly have different ideas about the future direction of international affairs, different historical relationships and different interests. In a healthy, enlarged Europe those should be not
  1042
  constrained but encouraged. It would have been unthinkable to impose the French view about Iraq on all the accession countries, with all their close ties to the United States.
  The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ancram: I will give way when I have made further progress.
  The Maastricht treaty said that member states should co-ordinate economic policy. The new constitution says that
  "the Union shall co-ordinate the economic policies of the member states",
  which is completely the other way around. If that is not centralisation—if that is not drawing power away from nation states—I do not know what is.
  We do not yet know for certain every detail of what will emerge from the Convention, but we do know that it will be a lot more than the "tidying up" referred to by the Secretary of State for Wales. We do know that it will be a lot more than was implied by the Foreign Secretary's famous "golf club constitution" analogy. And we do know that it will mean seeking to centralise rather than devolve, and institutionalise rather than leaving things to national Parliaments. With a single five-year presidency, it will break the concept of intergovernmental leadership—a point made by a number of my hon. Friends in interventions. I believe that that is the antithesis of what enlargement and accession need to succeed.
  There is another aspect, mentioned earlier, which has a bearing on enlargement, arising from the constitution. The constitution will abolish and replace previous treaties. The accession countries will find themselves in a European Union fundamentally different from the one that they are about to join. It is not clear whether they will have equal rights of participation in the forthcoming IGC. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that they must not be treated as second-class members? Their future as well as ours is being determined in the debate on Europe's future. Would it not be better, therefore, for the IGC to take place after I May next year, when the accession countries will be full members and will be able to exercise their rights as such, including rights of veto?
  Mr. MacShane: The right hon. Gentleman has alleged twice that the accession states will not participate in the IGC. They will be full participants, and will take part in all debates. The treaty will be signed after I May, and at that point all 25 members will vote for or against. They will have full veto rights, along with the United Kingdom and every existing member state. The right hon. Gentleman must not raise false hares, and must rely on reading documents to know what is the case.
  Mr. Ancram: I did not learn that from reading documents; I learned it from the accession countries themselves. They know that while they may be able to participate, they will not have the same voting rights as other EU members while the treaty is being negotiated. I

  1043
  am merely advancing the sensible proposition that if the negotiation were left until after 1 May 2004, they could play a full and democratic part in it.
  Angus Robertson: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman had an opportunity last week to meet the high-powered delegation from the Hungarian Parliament. They all wanted the Convention's conclusions to be ratified after their country and others had fully joined. What would be wrong with ratifying the constitution after enlargement?
  Mr. Ancram: That is a fair point. I have gone further by suggesting that the IGC itself should take place after 1 May, when those countries are full members. I think that that is a constructive proposal, and am surprised that the Government have dismissed it out of hand. That too shows the view that the Government take of the democratic process in relation to the negotiations.
  I believe that both current and accession members of the EU can and should benefit from enlargement. It will increase our trade and theirs. It will encourage stability and prosperity. However, it is deeply disappointing that, in its rush to build the European superpower, the EU has failed to tackle the areas most in need of reform if enlargement is truly to succeed: reform of the common agricultural policy, of regional subsidies and of EU finances. It is also disappointing that more progress has not been made towards deregulation and decentralisation, which offer most to an enlarged EU and to the countries joining.
  Mr. Straw: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ancram: I have given way an awful lot. I have given way rather more than the Foreign Secretary did, and I have given way to him rather more than he gave way to me.
  Mr. Straw rose—
  Mr. Ancram: I give way one more time.
  Mr. Straw: Just to pin this down, it is clear beyond peradventure that new member states will participate fully in the intergovernmental conference. That was the conclusion of the Copenhagen summit. Another conclusion was that the new treaty will he signed after accession precisely in order to ensure that those countries can participate politically in the negotiations. They have to because, legally, the new treaty could not be signed until after their accession.
  Mr. Ancram: The Foreign Secretary, perhaps deliberately, is missing the point. The point is that those countries will not have the right to veto matters within those negotiations; until they are full members, they will not have the right to do so. That is what they say to me and I believe that my suggestion is important.
  We need a clear vision to reconnect the peoples of the present EU and the peoples of the future EU with the European Union. We need to create a Europe within which the peoples of the accession countries can feel at home. We have been arguing for some time for a Europe in which the democratic ability to hold the EU and its
  1044
  institutions to account is strengthened, particularly within the national Parliaments of the nation states. We have been promoting an EU within which the role of the national Parliaments is strengthened in terms of the initiation of European legislation. We are looking for an EU where sovereign Parliaments can come together to veto undesirable EU legislation that offends against the principles of subsidiarity.
  I heard what the Foreign Secretary said about the present proposals to allow the Commission to take back legislation, to look at it and to reconsider it. He knows as well as I do that that is no power at all, because the Commission could come back with the same legislation all over again. Why will he not accept my suggestion that a significant number of countries could say no to legislation because it offends against the rules of subsidiarity, and stop it in its tracks?
  We would like to see a Europe that works increasingly through framework rather than specific directives to recognise individual national needs. We want Europe to return to its first principles of power flowing from the people—through the national Parliaments—upwards rather than from the top down. We want a less bureaucratic and centralised Europe that will allow the new democracies among the accession countries to flourish, and which will recognise and respect the variety and differing interests of the increasingly disparate membership of the EU that accession will bring.
  Enlargement is at once a great challenge and a great opportunity for Europe. We wish the accession countries well but we must ensure that the Europe that they are joining is a Europe for the future—a genuine partnership of sovereign nations, flexible, responsive and dynamic, rather than a European superpower, top-heavy, centralised, coercive and inimical to the nation states.
  We stand at the crossroads of that decision. We on the Conservative Benches are clear that we will fight to preserve the primacy of the nation states in Europe, the new as much as the old, and we will never forget that, in the end, Europe must never be about its institutions and must always be about its peoples. That is why we believe that, when faced by momentous decisions on Europe's future, it is the peoples of the nation states who should decide, starting with a referendum here. We support the principles of the Bill.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that there is a 15-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches from now on.
  2.4 pm
  Keith Vaz: The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) ended his speech by talking about the need for vision. I think he is right. The lack of vision is on the Conservative Benches. What a confused and muddled speech from the right hon. Gentleman. Just imagine the shadow Foreign Secretary not reading the Copenhagen conclusions and therefore not being aware that the new countries when they join on 1 May will be able to participate fully in the next IGC. Of

  1045
  course they will be able to participate fully, as they have as observers in the debates that are going on at the moment.
  Mr. Richard Spring: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Keith Vaz: I am delighted to be participating in this debate. I am pleased to be able to be part of a debate that will see the enlargement of the European Union.
  Mr. Spring rose—
  Keith Vaz: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is being very modest. He has played a very large part in pushing the enlargement process forward. I congratulate him on what he has done and what the Government have done. Those of us who have been watching this particular development over the past few years would not have believed that, less than three years after the Prime Minister made his speech in Warsaw on 6 October 2000, we would be debating the accession of the 10 applicant countries.
  I have just returned from Poland, where I met a number of people who are involved in various activities concerned with entry to the EU. They do not share any of the concerns that have been put forward by the shadow Foreign Secretary. They are absolutely delighted that they will be part of the European Union. They are pleased that they will be able to participate in a new Europe and they want to be there as full members, participating in all the decision-making processes.
  Mr. Spring: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for finally giving way. He as a former Minister for Europe should know this and I am aghast that he does not. If he had spoken to any of the accession countries, he would know perfectly well that they do not have full voting and equal rights on exactly the same basis as existing members. He is in ignorance of that. Time and again, the accession country representatives have pointed that out to us and hoped that the British Government would take that issue up.
  Keith Vaz: The hon. Gentleman will find that he is confused. When those countries join the European Union on 1 May, they will be full members, exactly as the Foreign Secretary has said, and they will be able to participate fully in all the activities of the European Union.
  Mr. MacShane: Let me try to explain. When the IGC starts, when it is triggered—we do not yet know when that will be—all 25 member states will participate fully. There are no votes at the IGC in the sense of votes on amendments to a Bill. People search for compromise and the veto power comes at the end of the process. That will not happen until after 1 May next year, when the 10 new member states will be full, legal, veto-wielding members of that IGC. Beforehand, they will have exactly the same powers as us.
  1046
  I hope that hon. Members can now move on. There is not a problem on this matter. There is a debate about when the IGC should start and how long it should go on for, but we are clear that those countries will participate fully and have the same veto rights as we will at the end.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions, even from the Front Bench, need to be interventions and not speeches.
  Keith Vaz: I am grateful to the Minister for Europe. Perhaps he can conduct a seminar for Opposition Members after the debate so that they will know exactly what is going on. Perhaps that will result in another dramatic conversion by the shadow Foreign Secretary, who may then support some of the views that have been expressed.
  Mr. Francis Maude: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Keith Vaz: I give way to the Conservative Member who signed the Maastricht treaty.
  Mr. Maude: I am grateful for that. It is important to probe further the matter that the hon. Gentleman has raised, because the Minister's intervention, which I am sure was meant to be helpful, left the matter clouded in some obscurity. The issue of when the IGC starts is central. If the IGC starts some months before the accession of those countries, of course, there will still be vetoes to be wielded later, but a huge amount of the negotiating dynamic will already have taken place. If the Minister is saying that the accession countries will have full rights to participate in the IGC from the very moment the IGC starts, whenever it starts, that is the reassurance that the House is seeking.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I suggest that we get back to the speech of the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz). There is a time limit on his speech and he does not get extra time for later interventions.
  Keith Vaz: I am conscious of my time limit. Therefore, I will speak very fast and leave it to the Minister for Europe to clear up any ambiguity at the end of the debate.
  I am concerned about the early-warning letters that have been sent by Commissioner Verheugen, to whom I pay tribute for the work he has done over the past few years. In March he wrote to all the member-designate countries apart from Slovenia, pointing out that there were concerns about the way in which they were negotiating in the run-up to their admission. I hope that the Minister for Europe can give us an assurance in his reply that although these early-warning letters are clearly important, they will not in any way be an obstacle to the completion of membership on 1 May.
  When I was in Bydgoszcz, in Poland, last weekend, it became clear that there was concern about criticisms of the dairy industry. It is important that our Government should continue to play a leading role in helping the member-designate countries. During my visit to Poland, I heard about the action plans that have been launched by Ministers over a number of years. We need to

  1047
  continue to give that practical support. We have the finest diplomats anywhere in the world, and it is really important that the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office continue, through its embassies, to develop links with the member-designate countries, and to ensure that they are given as much support as possible.
  I disagree with the right hon. Member for Devizes—this country was right not to have a transition so far as the right-to-work provisions are concerned. We heard from the Foreign Secretary about the statistics for Spain. I do not think that there is a great desire on the part of citizens of the 10 applicant countries to come to live in this country and not to return to their countries of origin. Of course, those who wish to participate in our wonderful economy under new Labour would like to come to work here, but their intention is to go back to their countries. Those who currently work under work permits, or who come here as students and are therefore able to work for 20 hours a week, ensure that they send their remittances back to their countries of origin. We were right to act as we did, and Germany was wrong to provide that transition. If we are really talking about these countries as first-class countries and equal partners, the smaller the transition, the better. It is very important that we ensure that they can be accepted as first-class partners.
  Whenever the Foreign Secretary speaks, I mention to him the letter that was signed by Chancellor Schröder and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on February 2002: the reform agenda that we put forward as our means of trying to ensure that Europe was reformed. I hope that in his reply, the Minister for Europe will tell me how many of the 27 points that I counted in that letter have actually been satisfied. I know that the Foreign Secretary said that he was pleased with progress. We are all pleased with progress, but let us look at the practicalities of the way in which we can make Europe a better place to operate in.
  The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) talked about the Council of Ministers meeting. Any hon. Member who has been to such meetings will know that we need to make that whole process much more efficient and effective. As the hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton) said, when one attends such a meeting and each one of the 25 countries has to have its little say as to what it thinks policy should be, it goes on for ever and ever—rather like the Nice negotiations, which went on for four days. That caused enormous frustration to all those participating in them and it was the fact that they lasted four days that gave the Prime Minister the impetus to try to push forward the reform agenda. We certainly need to make sure that Britain is at the forefront of modernising the way in which the European Union operates, because the members-designate want an efficient and effective EU.
  We must also ensure that when we have these great summits such as Lisbon and Tampere, we follow up on what we are trying to achieve. The difference between Lisbon and other summit meetings was that it was the first international EU summit in which there were benchmarks as to what Europe should achieve. A particular figure was raised at Lisbon, as it has been subsequently. In the last decade, the United States of America created 10 million new jobs, but Europe managed to create only 1 million new jobs. It is clear that the arrival of the member-designate countries will
  1048
  ensure that the economic agenda will be moved forward. But as we set such goals at these grand summit meetings, I worry that, although people always say that these summits are a success—as with everything to do with the European Union—we do not follow them up as effectively as we could. The importance of Lisbon and Tampere is that there were benchmarks, and that is what the new members are looking for. They are not looking for wide-ranging woolly debates about where Europe is going. They want a practical solution to the problems that they face—and they do face enormous problems—and I hope that we ensure that that happens.
  As for Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey, we do of course want all three of those countries in the European Union. I hope that the impetus of getting 10 countries in at the same time will not mean that we neglect the candidacies of these other countries. It is clear that Turkey has a long way to go—everyone agrees that that is so—but we have to move the debate forward; rather than keeping on saying that about Turkey, we need to give some practical support. As far as our embassy in Ankara is concerned, we need to help the Turks, just as we need to help the Bulgarians and the Romanians. One complaint that I have heard in recent months is that the established countries have not given as much support. The French helped Poland, but Poland felt that it might have gone to one of the other countries for assistance. Practical assistance to Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey will make a huge difference.
  I want to say just one thing about the debate on the euro. I know that this issue does not relate to the treaty, but it does have a significance; certainly, a number of applicants have mentioned it to me. We had a long discussion about the EU debate on the Convention, which is not part of the treaty either. In terms of the ongoing debate, my visit to Sweden on Monday demonstrated that there is real concern that what should be a clinical decision is turning into a bit of shambles. I would be in favour of the Chancellor's bringing his statement forward, so that there is some clarity. What we say on 9 June will have a dramatic effect on the Swedish referendum. At the moment, the situation is very finely balanced.
  I, too, have changed my position, rather like the right hon. Member for Devizes. Of course, the five economic tests need to be assessed, and whatever the Chancellor says I will go along with, because he is much cleverer than I am on these matters and I accept his judgment. In that sense, my position has not changed. However, we should have a referendum on this issue on 14 September, to test public opinion. If we keep on raising expectations on this issue and then dashing them, we will not be in a position to know what the public really feel. So I am not against having a referendum earlier rather than later, and I should certainly like to have one during this Parliament. Whatever the Chancellor's tests are and his assessment is, I will go along with that. But I do not want us to put this issue off until after the next general election. We should be wary—what we say on 9 June is going to have an effect on countries such as Sweden, and, indeed, on the member-designate countries.
  This debate is about enlargement. As we all know, this is a slim Bill, but it will have massive consequences. The Prime Minister was right to take the lead on enlargement, but it is also right that we continue to push the reform agenda forward. Having 10 new countries in

  1049
  without moving that agenda forward will mean that Europe will fail to deliver on the many issues on which we must deliver on behalf of the people of our country, and the people of Europe.
  2.19 pm
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: It would not be a debate on Europe in this House if some reference were not made to Sir Winston Churchill—perhaps endorsing his success in the recent BBC poll—but it is always important to put quotations from the great man in context. He once said that Britain, when faced with a choice between Europe and the open sea, should always take the open sea. I believe that he was First Lord of the Admiralty when he said it, so such a view is perhaps hardly surprising.
  This Second Reading debate on accession takes place against the background of a debate that has recently commenced in the country—or at least, in some parts of it—which has very quickly assumed near-frantic levels, characterised by apocalyptic predictions and extravagant language. The truth is that we have heard such language on many occasions before.
  The language being used now evokes for some of us a very considerable feeling of nostalgia. Much of it is familiar from 1972, when Sir Edward Heath took the UK into the European Economic Community—without, of course, holding a referendum. Some might argue, on the basis of Damascene conversion, that he ought to have held one.
  In 1975, the referendum instituted by Harold Wilson was accompanied by the same sort of language. Language of the same kind was employed night after night when the previous Conservative Government pushed the legislation on the Maastricht treaty through the House on a three-line Whip, and we heard similar expressions and sentiments in respect of the treaty of Nice. Is it too much to hope that some day we may be able, in the country at least, and, I hope, in the House, to hold a debate about Europe that is not characterised by such extreme positions?
  The Bill is not strictly about the European Convention—although much of the debate has been taken up with that subject and I want to say a word or two on it in due course—and neither is it about the single currency. However, if the events of the past 24 hours are going to be replicated between now and 9 June, I am not sure that I can wait: the excitement may prove to be too much. I was much impressed by the loyalty of the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), who said that he would follow whatever the Chancellor said. I wonder how many members of the Cabinet have adopted a similar self-denying ordinance.
  The Bill is about an enlargement that many people predicted would never happen. They said that Europe was too introspective, exclusive and narrow. Those claims were made not all that long ago, but they have been firmly laid to rest by the enlargement process.
  Like the Foreign Secretary, I hope that further enlargement, when it takes place, will include Turkey. The right hon. Gentleman offered the very powerful reason that Turkey is a Muslim country and that Europe is open to all those capable of subscribing to its
  1050
  economic values and its standards of human rights and civil governance. All applicant countries have to meet those standards, but if Turkey joined the EU it would continue to emphasise that Europe, far from being introspective, is constantly looking outwards and willing to accept countries that can achieve the standards and principle on which Europe is built.
  It is worth reminding ourselves that eight of the countries covered by this treaty spent far too many years under the arid and unproductive domination of the Soviet Union. The Berlin wall fell some 14 years ago, in 1989. Now both NATO and the EU welcome those countries as full partners, and not in any subordinate or second-class role.
  I cannot help thinking that the applicant countries, and especially those freed from recent Soviet domination, would hardly be likely, in the first bloom of the exercise of freedom, to submit to the EU that the imaginations of the most fervent Eurosceptics continue to try and conjure up. A country is hardly likely to escape from the hegemony of the Soviet Union and then, in the first blush of freedom, subscribe to the perceived hegemony of Brussels if that involved signing away its new rights to democracy and self-determination, and its ability to decide about joining the EU or NATO.
  Angus Robertson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is making a very powerful argument. Does he agree that it has been underlined by the overwhelming votes in favour of accession achieved in the majority of countries that held referendums? The yes vote in Slovenia was 60 per cent; in Hungary it was 83 per cent; in Lithuania it was 89 per cent; and in Slovakia it was 92 per cent. Those are positive votes from people who understand that they are not giving up their independence in exchange for some sort of tyrannical governance from Brussels.
  Mr. Campbell: That intervention also underlines the fact that it is not just a question of not submitting to some tyranny of Brussels: people also see the positive advantages to be derived from the EU. In the early days, the possibility of NATO membership for former Warsaw pact countries was being discussed. Many of those countries said that membership of NATO and the EU was a necessary insurance against any reversion to the sort of political system under which they had laboured since the end of the second world war. Those countries wanted to secure what might be called an entrenchment, to ensure that the democratic principles that they had been able to espouse could never be watered down.
  It is self-evident that an enlarged EU would transform the countries that join it, and those that are already members. The advances in economic stability, competitiveness and democratic reform already evident in the applicant countries have been underpinned by the promise of EU membership, which is now to be delivered.
  Moreover, although the EU is not a military or security organisation, the coming together of countries for economic and political purposes that it represents will reduce the risk of instability on Europe's borders. That risk was very real, and some might argue that it remains so. Conflict can erupt during periods of significant economic and social change, and the Balkans are a constant reminder of the perils of that instability.

  1051
  In his speech, the Foreign Secretary rightly referred to the disappointment felt by many people that the whole of Cyprus may not join the EU. However, some encouragement can be taken from the way in which citizens of both the north and the south of Cyprus appear to be taking matters into their own hands. In the north, people do not consider the view of Mr. Denktash to be representative of the sort of lives that they want to live, nor of the relationships that they would like to have with their neighbours in Cyprus. That demonstrates that the prospect of EU membership can be a powerful encouragement to solving what appear to be intractable problems. Of itself, the opening of the border between northern and southern Cyprus was highly symbolic, but it may be even more significant in practical terms, given the change of heart and mind that it clearly brought about in many of the citizens of that unhappily divided island.
  It is also worth pointing out that, essentially, the European map has been redrawn. Countries that we opposed before 1989, and against which we might have used nuclear weapons, are now our allies and partners. We may be anxious about the CAP or the consequences of extending qualified majority voting to transport or financial services, but we must remind ourselves again and again that accession represents a quite remarkable political transformation. It ought to be recognised as such.
  For example, Germany is part of that transformation. It was split for the best part of 40 years, and its reunification was not achieved without difficulty. There were problems in relation to the prosperity of East Germany, and some would argue that the former Chancellor's over-generosity in agreeing to exchange one Deutschmark for one Ostmark contributed to the economic difficulties presently facing Germany as a whole. Even so, such matters are measures of enormous political advance. That should never be forgotten amid our anxiety about intervention prices for grain or the support to be given to milk producers.
  Mr. Banks: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way, as he is reminding the House what a remarkable historical development we are witnessing. Given the enormous changes in the map of Europe over the past 60 years, does he envisage that a European superstate will emerge in the next 50 or 60 years?
  Mr. Campbell: No, I do not. Countries that have won their independence will not give it up lightly. Furthermore, the balance of the argument in the United Kingdom has undoubtedly shifted to some extent. Fervent pro-Europeans such as me should recognise that. In respect of the common foreign and security policy, upon which we received an eloquent tutorial from the Foreign Secretary, the events of the past six months—although I took a different position from the right hon. Gentleman—have underlined for individual Governments the fact that there may be issues on which for moral, political or other reasons they may want to take an independent position. The British Government, and the House of Commons by a majority, took an independent position by comparison with, say, France.
  Let us suppose the circumstances had been different and the United Kingdom had wanted to hold back on military action. Members of the House would have
  1052
  wanted to retain that right—that obligation to our constituents. I speak as someone with a front-line RAF base in his constituency: RAF Leuchars. Young men and women went from my constituency to fly fast jets over Iraq. I shall not cede my responsibility for their welfare and the decision as to whether they go to war. Indeed, the vote was an interesting precedent that I hope will continue. Nor shall I cede my obligation to scrutinise the Government who send those young people to war. That is a much more common view both in the countries that are becoming members of the EU and in the existing membership. The events of the past six months may have served only to underline the importance of those matters.
  Reform in the candidate countries has brought economic benefits to their citizens. Increased levels of trade and investment in those countries have benefited the UK and all those within the single market. Trade with the 10 candidate countries has increased by 400 per cent since 1990, merely against the promise rather than the fact of accession.
  Both the European Union as a whole and Britain within it stand to gain from a larger economic bloc with increased weight. The EU will have a combined population of more than 500 million and a market twice the size of the United States. In international trade negotiations, the EU is already the most powerful member of the World Trade Organisation, and can only become more powerful.
  Along with those privileges and advantages come responsibilities. I very much regret that we have been inadequate in the face of one the most overwhelming of those responsibilities: reform of the common agricultural policy. The CAP takes 50 per cent. of the EU budget and also stymies or makes difficult the development of some of the poorest countries, whose principal commodities are agricultural. We have an overwhelming moral obligation to provide equitable market access for products from developing countries. Reform of the CAP is a necessary precursor to the fulfilment of that moral obligation.
  I do not share the reservations, or anxieties, of the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) about clause 2, although we shall listen carefully when he and his colleagues propose amendments and consider whether they have substance. However, the explanation proffered by the Foreign Secretary as to why the clause is in this form in this Bill is entirely reasonable and sensible and I am disposed to support it.
  Reform would have been of great value for its intrinsic worth and merit, but we should all recognise that enlargement has largely been the driving force behind it. As the right hon. Member for Devizes rightly said, enlargement can take place without the Convention. However, what sort of European Union would we have if enlargement took place under the existing arrangements? It would become sclerotic and incapable of decision making. Individual countries would have the capacity to stand in the way of the legitimate objectives of the whole of the rest of the Union. It is thus inevitable that arrangements suitable for six must be revised in the light of 25 and—who knows?—28, or even 30. That is why I support the principle of the Convention. It will clarify precisely the

  1053
  role of European institutions and will define the rights and responsibilities of states, their citizens and the Union.
  The right hon. Member for Devizes made a sound point about subsidiarity. Subsidiarity was one of the principles by which Mr. John Major, as Prime Minister, sought to underpin the Maastricht treaty. However, it is a reasonable admission that the application of that principle has been less than rigorous. If there are any mechanisms that would make subsidiarity more effective, including the one suggested by the right hon. Member for Devizes, we should not only embrace them but look for other measures as well. Brussels should do only what it is necessary for Brussels to do. The rest of government should be the responsibility of individual states.
  I have no anxiety about the use of the word "constitution". A constitution would be a much-needed improvement in both transparency and accountability. If hon. Members ever have to have recourse, at the request of a constituent, to some issue of competence, they will know of the problems of finding their way around the Rome, Maastricht and Nice treaties. It is by no means straightforward. It is something of a safari, or even a voyage, and is as likely to end up in the Sargasso sea as anywhere. It is thus essential that there is a far higher degree of transparency, and hence understanding, of the treaties and their consequences for us and for our daily lives.
  As I think is clear, my right hon. and hon. Friends' approach is generally supportive of the Government. I want to make one distinction, however. The Prime Minister and, in rather more colourful language, the Secretary of State for Wales were wrong to rule out, in all circumstances, a referendum on the Convention. If Convention proposals have constitutional implications, there should be a referendum. If they are, in truth, no more than a tidying up, a referendum will be unnecessary. However, I do not see how we can make that judgment at this point, when even the procedures of the Convention have not yet been completed, when the intergovernmental conference has not begun and when our Government have not come back to Parliament to indicate what they are about to agree.
  I have no difficulty about referendums. The former leader of the Liberal Democrat party, now Lord Ashdown, was the first to call for a referendum on the single currency. Why? Because it is not merely an economic issue. The tests may be economic, but there is both political and constitutional significance. If the proposals that emerge from the long and elongated process that I have tried to describe raise any constitutional implications, there is an obligation to put them to the people in the form of a referendum. Furthermore, there is political advantage to the Government in so doing, because we must get away from the notion that Europe is somehow only the responsibility of legislators and Parliaments and is not something on which we ask individual citizens to exercise judgment.
  Mr. Mark Hendrick: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests, the simplification of the treaties of Rome, Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice
  1054
  would be a great advantage. When we talk to our representatives on the Convention it is clear, first, that about 75 per cent. of the text would relate to business that had already been agreed, and secondly, that whether there should be a chairman or a president of the Council is hardly an earth-shattering issue that is likely to be raised in the Dog and Duck.
  Mr. Campbell: I am someone who believes fervently that there should be a common foreign and security policy, but I also believe that it should be based on the rights of individual Parliaments and Governments to determine their own foreign policy and decide on the circumstances in which they commit their troops to conflict. In setting up institutional arrangements, it is not impossible to bring about that highly desirable end, but we need to understand that constitutional implications may arise from the nature of the institutions themselves.
  That is why it is unwise to the point of foolishness— I am sorry if this is unpleasant for those on the Treasury Bench—to say that there will be no referendum. Until the process is completed, how can a rational assessment be made about whether the final product includes an issue of constitutional significance? We have to wait until we have the product or the package: only at that point can we make an informed judgment about whether a constitutional issue is raised that would require a referendum.
  I am going to conclude, because many right hon. and hon. Members wish to participate in the debate. To return to an earlier point, this is in one sense a rather prosaic occasion, but many people acknowledge that it marks an enormously significant step. Our continent was riven by two terrible wars in the 20th century and half of it was crushed by Communism for the best part if 40 years. It is now setting out, so far as it can, to come together in a union that seeks to preserve democratic values and ensure economic freedom. There will be 25 free and democratic nations in the European Union. The purpose of the Bill is to allow that to happen. This is surely an occasion to savour.
  2.41 pm
  Donald Anderson: I had, perhaps naively, assumed that this would be a consensus debate—a blessing, a benediction and a welcoming of what the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) referred to as a remarkable political transformation. I had not given sufficient weight to the ability of Opposition Front-Bench Members to exercise their visceral dislike of the European Union, which we encounter so often.
  The increase in the number of states within the European Union and the greater diversity that will flow from it will have many positive effects. For example, the new countries that looked to the United States for their liberation are far more transatlantic than the initial core of six nations who formed the Union. Foreign policy will therefore be mightily transformed, and greater diversity is surely to be welcomed, just as we welcome the historic rejoining of so much of Europe. On any definition—cultural, historical or political—the newer members of Europe are indeed part of our Europe, which was artificially separated at the point that Soviet tanks had reached at the end of the last world war.

  1055
  Certainly, 2002 saw fundamental changes in both the political and security landscape of our Europe—the biggest ever enlargement of the European Union and NATO at the Prague summit. The process began in 1989, and who can forget the wonderful scenes at the Berlin wall on 8 November that year? Since then we have seen great steps forward—not the end of the process, but a major change. It is so much a matter for joy and rejoicing that I ask the Minister for Europe whether the Government plan to celebrate the great change in Europe? Will any Government moneys be available, not just nationally but locally, for minorities such as the Polish community in this country, or perhaps to inform young people about the historic event before us? We could use the twinning arrangements in Wales and Scotland to ensure that the dramatic change is celebrated appropriately throughout the United Kingdom
  There were problems—sometimes despair—at points of the route along the way: discussion of the regatta principle and differentiation, for example. Certain countries seemed to have insuperable problems. Slovakia, with its leader Mr. Meciar, appeared to be ruled out at one stage, while Malta was so highly polarised in its political composition that it seemed that there would never be a consensus. Happily, we have seen the positive results of the referendums so far. In Malta, a subsequent general election confirmed the position established in the referendum. Along the way, there were fears that the Baltic countries, which were part not of the Soviet empire but of the Soviet Union, could not be welcomed into the political or security structures of Europe without causing too much offence to the Russian Federation. All that now appears to be in the past.
  We have arrived, and I pay tribute for having arrived not only to the Government—I recall the Prime Minister's historic speech at Warsaw—but to the valiant efforts of Günter Verheugen, the Enlargement Commissioner, who has coaxed and forced—carrot and stick—so successfully along the way. The new entrants are certainly historically and culturally European. The Baltic states were part of the old Soviet Union while others were part of the Soviet empire. Remarkably, Cyprus and Malta are included, which creates a new opening to the Mediterranean, so two members of the Commonwealth are joining us as members of the European Union—another significant fact to welcome.
  I welcome all this, not least because of my personal history. I lived in Hungary for some time—and what country is more European or democratic than that? The four parties in Hungary have all been in government at some point since the remarkable change. My first son was conceived in Hungary, married a Slovak in Prague last year, and is now living there. Another son is married to a Maltese citizen. Many of us, including the Minister, have grand personal links with the new countries. They have all come together; the results of the referendums are clear.
  Europe will never be the same again, as President Chirac found to his cost, when he lectured the new countries in respect of Iraq as badly brought up—mal élevés—which caused great offence. Foreign policy, so often Franco-German dominated, will now have to be discussed in more consensual ways over a far wider spectrum of issues. The newer countries have a greater
  1056
  transatlantic leaning. I am delighted that Poland has been offered leadership of one of the new zones in Iraq. What a wonderful transformation since 1979 and the end of the Soviet Union and empire. The Convention shows the new alignments, the new debates and the new challenges.
  As for problems for the United Kingdom, I have heard some understandable concerns about the dilution of regional policy as a result of the demands of the accession countries. It is fair to say, however, that the financial settlement reached with those countries was remarkably niggardly, certainly if assessed in terms of the amount per head of population—far less than in earlier enlargements. I have also heard some concerns about the movement of workers from the date of accession, but there are safeguard provisions. There are also concerns about the position of the Roma—a major social problem in Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. There is a need for an EU-wide policy to improve the social conditions of the Roma and to discourage a wave of emigration. The current visa regime for Slovakia, which will expire in May next year in any event, is causing concern. The Government could end that regime, if only for its symbolic importance, a few months before we are pledged to do so.
  It is important for the Government to ensure early ratification of NATO enlargement for the seven new members. There is surely no controversy about that enlargement, and the UK has championed that cause. Norway and the US Senate have been through their parliamentary procedures, and I urge the Minister to consider parliamentary progress on that matter. There is consensus and, because of our past, it is important that we are seen by the seven new NATO countries to be manifestly on their side. No opposition will be met in Parliament, so I see no reason why ratification of NATO enlargement should not be completed by the House by the early autumn at the latest. Perhaps the Minister can tell us when the NATO accession Bill will appear before the House.
  The problems that are likely to arise include the monitoring of the performance of the new members. The Copenhagen EU Council has the safeguard clause for unforeseen developments in the first three years, and we need real and rigorous monitoring to ensure that there is no backsliding by the new members. In the next stage of enlargement, Bulgaria and Romania have a target date of 2007, which was set at Copenhagen, but there is no prospect of an early accession for Turkey. Indeed, the Turkish Government have mentioned a period of 10 years. The Foreign Affairs Committee produced a positive report last year, which said that Turkey must be treated like any other country in respect of the Copenhagen criteria. However, key problems arise for the Turkish accession, including Cyprus. It is inconceivable that negotiations should be started with a country whose army is in illegal occupation of a fellow EU country. Other questions include the lack of civilian control over the military and the treatment of religious minorities—including the Christian minority—in Turkey, and they will have to be properly addressed.
  A glance shows that the Balkan countries, many of which have small populations, form a black hole on the map of Europe, because they contain the potential for instability in Europe. They must be encouraged along the way. Croatia, by far the most advanced and—on any

  1057
  definition—a very European country, has made its application already. After we have dealt with that application, we will have to consider Serbia and Montenegro, Macedonia and Albania. It may be that we should have a pre-accession strategy for the western Balkan countries as a whole, with possible differentiation for Croatia.
  Another problem is the new borders, and the danger of creating another fence at the edge of Europe. How will we deal with the new neighbours? Expansion has to end at some point. If there is Europe, there must be non-Europe, but how will we deal with those countries that, for the time being and possibly for ever, will be on the wrong side of the line, such as Ukraine, Belarus—with its current problems—Moldova and others? Europe must develop creative solutions to that problem.
  The Bill is short and technical, but marks a sea change in our Europe. It is a good story. After all, who can forget the joy of November 1989 in Berlin, which marked the start of this process? I see the process not as one of enlargement but of reunification of the free nations of Europe and I greet it with enthusiasm.
  2.55 pm
  Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson), who set out the scale and importance of the enlargement process with great clarity. Before he spoke, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) made an important announcement on behalf of his party by committing himself to a referendum if the final outcome of the intergovernmental conference includes any constitutional changes. His speech also indicated that that was likely, if not probable.
  The Convention contains a German group, called More Democracy, which has obtained 80 signatures from Convention members in support of national referendums on the outcome. Those signatures come from across the political spectrum—not only from critics, such as me, but from people who are fervently pro-Europe and the EU and who believe in a constitution for that body. Those people know—as the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife suggested—that if the outcome is to have a strong foundation, it must be based on the clearly expressed support and will of the people. For that reason, most other countries have already made a commitment, or expressed a firm intention, to have a referendum. They can see, even at this stage, that the constitutional consequences of the Convention will be enormous.
  I regret, and I have said so in the Convention, that the fantastic complexity of the present Union has led to an enormously complex treaty for the accession of the new countries. No attempt has been made to simplify or repeal sections of the acquis communautaire, which now runs to 97,000 pages, all of which have to be implemented to the letter in all the applicant countries. If another model had been attempted, we could have brought the newly liberated countries into the European family of democratic states much more quickly.
  The accession will happen on 1 May next year, although it has been described in some of the Baltic states as "an arranged marriage"—no love and little
  1058
  passion, as already shown by the low turnout in the referendums that have been held. However, the referendums will show a yes vote and enlargement will take place on time. For that reason, I support the Bill, but I am critical of several aspects of it.
  The implications have not been described or debated. The right hon. Member for Swansea, East mentioned immigration and the Romany population of some of the accession countries. Estimates range from 2 million to 5 million Romanies, all of whom would, in theory, have immediate access to this country. I do not claim that we should be unnecessarily scared about that, but we should at least consider the issue. The consequences of the free movement of people could take us all by surprise. The issue was debated last November, and when I asked the Minister about the terms of entry to this country, he said:
  "There will be transition periods with respect to free movement of people and Britain will apply some of those".—[Official Report, European Standing Committee B, 20 November 2002; c. 6.]
  Shortly after that, the Government changed their mind and they will admit, from day one, all workers and others from the accession countries to live and work in this country. Since that time, several other countries that had made similar decisions, such as Ireland and Denmark, have had second thoughts and will not allow such unrestricted entry. It is important that the Government clarify their position on estimates of the number of people who may be affected. The Commission believes that 350,000 people will seek to live and work in existing member states after enlargement. Many people have criticised its methodology for being based too heavily on what happened to East Germany, but its experience is on a different scale. Since 1990, it has received about £400 billion in assistance from the former West Germany for a population of only 17 million. The migratory flow has moderated, but it could be much greater after EU enlargement, given the poverty gradient and the fact that polls in those countries show that a great many people wish not just to travel to member states but to live and work in them. We therefore need more information about the subject if we are to get the public onside for this historic and unprecedented enlargement.
  We must also consider the effect on the countries concerned. I visited the Czech Republic last week, where I was told that we had been fantastically mean. Commission figures published in a paper by the European Research Group show that Greece receives in any one year four times as much from the EU as the Czech Republic will get over the next seven years. The terms of enlargement are therefore not particularly generous. More important is the fact that we are imposing on the new countries an enormous regulatory burden that will undermine their competitiveness. In some cases, we are imposing an agricultural system, particularly on countries such as Estonia, which has free trade and will have to raise its tariffs against poorer countries such as Belarus and Ukraine to its east. If that added to the known weaknesses in those countries' legal and administrative systems, we could be storing up great problems. Those have been under-reported and under-debated—indeed, they were under-remarked in the Foreign Secretary's opening speech.
  We learned about another effect of the EU's increased diversity during the Iraq war. Eastern European countries very much resented being told, particularly by

  1059
  the French President, to keep silent. That was the language that they used to get from Moscow—they were told, "Don't worry, we handle the foreign policy." We all need to recognise that it will be a different, more diverse and, perhaps, more diluted Europe. Unfortunately, the Convention on which I serve is designing a European constitution that will concentrate more powers at the centre. I want to say a word about the outrageous remarks of the Foreign Secretary in our debate. It is not right that a British Minister should pretend that the constitution is a "tidying-up exercise" I know that that was not his phrase—it was coined by the Secretary of State for Wales—but it should have been contradicted, clarified and put right by him. This is not a tidying-up exercise. We are engaged not just in building a new constitution for Europe but in establishing a written constitution for this country, which has never been attempted before. We are not a golf club or a political party, and to trivialise the matter like that, as Foreign Secretary did, demeans his office.
  Comparisons are made with Maastricht, and we are to have a referendum on that treaty, because by far the biggest issue at Maastricht was the single currency When the Government make their mind up about that, we will have a referendum—or perhaps not. At least we have been offered the possibility of a referendum on the single currency. In any case, Maastricht was signed by the Prime Minister of the day just before the 1992 election, and featured prominently in our manifesto. We ratified it after the election. There is not a single syllable in the manifesto on which the Labour party won the last election about the constitution that we are building.
  Mr. Tom Harris: My memory may be less accurate than the right hon. Gentleman's, but the Prime Minister of the day negotiated an opt-out on the single currency at Maastricht. That did not stop many members of his party calling for a referendum on the remaining clauses of the treaty. One of the people who called for a referendum, without any reference to the single currency, was the present Leader of the Opposition.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was absolutely right, and that call led directly to the promise by my party to hold a referendum on the euro decision—by far and away the most important matter to come out of Maastricht.
  Enlargement is far more important than Maastricht. The cure for anyone who thinks that this is simply a tidying-up operation with no constitutional significance is simply to read the draft constitution that is now available. All the existing treaties will be repealed and rolled into the new constitution after amendment. In addition, there is a new 50-page section that will become part 1 of the constitution, setting out a wholly new Union with its own new legal powers and powers in new areas. It will have its own new legal personality, and qualified majority voting will become the norm across the board. We will have a Europe Minister and harmonisation by qualified majority voting of criminal laws and criminal justice procedures. This week, the House debated the Criminal Justice Bill, which excited many hon. Members who wanted to retain trial by jury. I must tell them: enjoy it while you can, because once the constitution is enacted—and the Government have no quarrel with this part of the constitution—criminal
  1060
  procedures will be harmonised across the European Union by qualified majority voting, and they will not be determined by the House at all.
  Mr. Wayne David: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I am short of time.
  How can the Government pretend that a change of that nature, which clearly takes decision-making powers, such as those that we discussed earlier this week, away from the House and gives them to the new Union, is not of constitutional significance or does not affect what is called the institutional balance in Europe? Frankly, it is outrageous. We want honesty on this subject. If the Government are confident that all this is good for the United Kingdom and Europe, they should describe it accurately and defend those policies honestly in public debate. What is wrong and, I repeat, outrageous, is to take embarrassing or difficult proposals and simply deny their importance. I cannot accept that. The proposals in the Bill will have epic consequences for the powers of the House and this country's powers of self-governance. That is widely recognised on the continent. No one in the Convention is unaware of it—they realise that we are refounding the Union on a different basis with new and different powers. People who want that and people who do not both agree on the constitutional significance of the change that is being proposed. A Government who have said that they will grant the people of Iraq a vote on their constitution should have the humility to grant this country a referendum on our constitution when it happens.
  3.8 pm
  Mr. Tom Levitt: This, I believe, is an historic debate. The Bill will implement a treaty whose time has come, as it represents the continuing evolution of the European Union from six countries to nine, then 15, and now 25. We are in this process because we recognise that the economy, trade and the environment are continental, not national issues, and give rise to problems that require international solutions and international regulation. We have set out to work in common with our European colleagues, implementing the principle of subsidiarity to ensure that appropriate decisions are taken at the most appropriate level while still retaining the capacity to make decisions at a European level where required. We do all that without any diminution of national identity. Certainly, for those members who have been in the European Union for getting on for 50 years now in one form or another, there has been no diminution of national identity—perish the thought that there should be. However, the European Union is changing, and not just in the number of countries involved. Its nature is of course evolving as well.
  The debate is about whether the EU should be deeper or wider, and the Bill is about how wide we should go at this stage. Certainly, the EU should become wider. As other hon. Members have said, the face of Europe changed when the Berlin wall came down in 1989, and we are now welcoming countries that, in many cases, have undergone years of totalitarian regimes, and it is

  1061
  worth pointing out that they are joining other countries already in the EU whose people have lived under fascist regimes in recent history—Greece, Spain and Portugal. We welcome them all in the recognition that the natural boundaries are now the Atlantic, the Mediterranean and possibly the Urals.
  At the same time, NATO has expanded, and the idea of common defence, with European countries looking after one another's interest, is now well established. The expansion of the EU has been perhaps slower than that of NATO, and perhaps more controversial, but it is nevertheless just as crucial.
  I do not believe for a moment that those countries will enter a Europe that is significantly deeper because those national identities that I talked about have been removed, but I believe that, since we have had the treaties of Rome, Maastricht, Amsterdam, and now Athens, the EU is significantly different. To pick up a point that the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) made when he said that there had been 34 referendums on constitutional issues since 1997, it is interesting to note that there were also a handful of referendums on constitutional issues in this country, as I recall, between 1974 and 1979. I do not remember a single referendum on a comparable issue taking place between 1979 and 1997. Of course we will be heading for one, sooner rather than later, I hope, on the more constitutional aspects of membership of the euro itself.
  What has been very significant—my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) mentioned this from his experience—is the enthusiasm for membership of the EU found in the applicant countries. The Czech Republic, Hungary, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia and Malta have already said yes. Poland goes to the polls in a referendum in early June, and I want to concentrate some of my remarks on the situation in Poland, which despite, or perhaps because of, its geographical situation, is perhaps one of the more western-looking countries of eastern Europe. With 42 million people, its accession will represent the most significant increase to the numerical size of the EU, and it already has 10 years of successful economic reform and growth behind it.
  I first visited Poland in 1988, when it was a completely different country from how it is now. I met a certain trade union leader—Lech Walesa—in a clandestine meeting in a church crypt, and it was a fascinating firsthand experience to see the situation that Solidarity and the Polish people were in at the time. It was interesting to see a command economy in operation—if operation is the right word—eating through the black market, and how Poland had probably suffered over the years because of the loss of talented people who left the country.
  I do not claim that Poland has it all easy now. I think that there is an economic and political necessity for it to join the EU. It foresees difficulties in the first few years. Indeed, Poland expects to be a net contributor to the EU budget for two or three years, but its long-term future in the EU is certainly bright, which is more than could be said if it were to stay out at this stage. However, Poland has 17 per cent. unemployment and 60 per cent. of its farmers are subsistence farmers in a countryside that has barely changed in the past 50 years. It is worth
  1062
  mentioning subsistence farmers, because of course by riot selling into the market they are not involved in subsidies.
  Polish Governments have had a relatively short life expectancy, which has made long-term planning difficult, and its transport infrastructure is weak. Perhaps many of Poland's economic problems are caused by the natural and very close linkage that it has had with Germany. We should not take what has happened in Germany in the past few years because of its decision to go in for unification, which was taken for political and economic reasons, as being typical of what is happening in the eurozone. Other hon. Members have mentioned the cost of that unification, and it has distorted the German economy, but that is not typical of the eurozone as a whole.
  Mr. Hendrick: Does my hon. Friend agree that the effects of the experience of German monetary union, whereby there was an exchange rate of 1 Ostmark to 1 Deutsehmark, paved the way for the Maastricht treaty, which has led to a successful single European currency that now embraces 12 member states and is functioning perfectly well?
  Mr. Levitt: That is exactly one of the lessons that I drew on when I took my decision to vote yes—again, in the words of another contributor—whatever the Chancellor says, in the future referendum on the euro when we have the opportunity to do so.
  The enthusiasm for the EU that is shown in Poland, as well as the other applicant countries, is to be found particularly among the young, the educated, the middle class and the urban dwellers of that country. Despite the possible short-term pain, they recognise the advantages to Poland in accessing a larger market and in gaining economic stability, making it more attractive to inward investment. Younger people especially also see opportunities for the free movement of labour and greater opportunities to study abroad. The recent decision to normalise arrangements for Polish au pairs to come to this country does not sound significant to us, but it was certainly a very popular decision in Poland.
  We should remember that, when we come to the date for the European referendum in Poland, in theory, about 70,000 Polish people in this country could be entitled to vote in that election. The chances are that very few of them will take up that opportunity, partly because they are perhaps transient, and partly because there are only two centres in the United Kingdom—London and Edinburgh—where they will have the opportunity to vote.
  As well as having that very close link with this country—it is worth pointing out that English is now the second language in most Polish schools—there is a strong pro-American feeling in Poland. I do not know the exact figure, but I would not be surprised if perhaps 1 million Poles lived in the United States, particularly in areas such as Chicago. Polish people understand that being in a European alliance and a transatlantic alliance are not alternatives but complement each other, and that describes part of their good feelings towards the west generally.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David)—who hopes to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker—and I were in Poland recently, visiting schools

  1063
  there. A competition had been run in Poland to find out which schools knew most about the EU, and four of the winners won a visit from a Labour MP. It was pointed out that the losers won two visits from Labour MPs. Our visits were certainly very fascinating, and the two towns that I visited were both in rural areas some way from Warsaw. The further we got from Warsaw, the more obvious the rural poverty became. I visited a well established technical school for 15 to 20-year-olds in the town of Plock, and although it had been in existence for 85 years, I was their first foreign visitor of any sort. We were able, however, to have a debate with students at that college in English on the subject of joining the European Union. The enthusiasm there was tremendous. Why should we take that message to young people in Poland who are not old enough to vote? The reason is that they have family, friends and neighbours and a future, and it is young people who will campaign strongly for Poland's accession come referendum day.
  One of the issues that most amused people to whom I talked in Poland was the prospect of their country, a new member of the European Union, joining the euro before Britain, which a few years ago we would have thought impossible. I must admit that I am worried that we may come to a situation in which 24 countries in the European Union have joined the euro before Britain, which will put us at a major disadvantage.
  The problem that the Poles face with the referendum is the 50 per cent. threshold that has been set. Until now, there has been a real question as to whether turnout will reach 50 per cent. It is important—not constitutionally vital but politically essential—that turnout reaches that level, and opinion polls suggest that it might still be on the edge of that. I hope that there will be a big push over the next couple of weeks to ensure that the clear majority of 70 per cent. or more in Poland in support of European Union membership is translated into an effective turnout and result. It is worth pointing out that President Chirac's words about Poland in particular and the eastern European countries generally in recent weeks have, if anything, hardened the Poles' attitude and made them more determined to fight to get into the EU and ensure that their voice is heard.
  Like others, I confess to a Damascene conversion—I voted the wrong way in 1975. I have repented, and the Europe that I voted against in 1975 is not the Europe that is alive today. Today, we have a Europe that is about open borders, open minds, celebrating differences, celebrating diversity, respecting national identities and traditions and working together where we need to do so: a Europe with common values, a common market, and, I hope, in the future, a common currency. Europe has been constantly reinventing itself for the past 2,000 years, and is in the process of doing so again. This Bill helps to make that vision of a common Europe—a people's Europe—a reality, and I welcome it.
  3.22 pm
  Mr. Francis Maude: This has properly been a broad debate. The Bill is narrow—it is a slim volume—but its implications are wide. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and Mr. Speaker, have properly allowed the debate to range widely, because we can only consider the Bill in a wide context. The background and the implications are of great importance. The debate has
  1064
  been fascinating, and nothing has been more compelling than the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), who spoke with passion and deep authority about the implications of much of what is happening. I want to return later to one of the issues that he raised, but the House would do well to heed what he said.
  I support the Bill, and I am delighted that we are debating it. I confess to some mild surprise that enlargement seems to be coming to a conclusion so quickly, as it seemed that it would be protracted forever. I have some history in this matter—the Berlin wall came down and the liberation of east and central Europe from the Warsaw pact took place while I was the Minister with responsibility for Europe. I do not claim all the credit for it—I concede that there were other factors at work, too—[Interruption.] The praise of my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) from a sedentary position is too kind, but I want to share the credit as widely as possible.
  The fact is that this issue has been under debate for a long time, and I recollect a Foreign Ministers meeting in June or July of 1990 in which the accession of the new countries of eastern and central Europe as early as 1995 was discussed. For much of the period since then, it has always been five years away. Until recently, it still seemed five years away. The Government—I do not want to do more than give them credit—deserve some credit for the effort that they have put in to compress the final stages so that we can look to enlargement taking place next year. It is really important that this House give warm support to that, because whatever the implications—there are negative as well as positive ones, on which I want to reflect in a moment—enlargement was a historical imperative.
  We had a broad duty to abandon the idea that the European Union could be some kind of cosy club of prosperous western European countries and to expand it to embrace the whole European family. That is not yet complete—more is to come, as has been said; I am not sure about extending it as far as the Urals, but there is certainly scope for further enlargement. That was an imperative, it was necessary that it happened, and it is a scandal that it has taken so long to get to this point. I glory in the fact that it has at last happened, however, and I hope that the signal that the House sends in support of the Bill resounds with clarity outside.
  Let me reflect a little on the implications. There are financial implications, institutional implications, and implications for the broad foreign policy outlook of the new European Union that will emerge. First, I want to deal with the financial implications, about which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells has spoken clearly. What exists is too much a relic of the old cosy western European club looking after its own. I would not contest the fact that the financial transfers—much of which originate from this country, the second largest contributor to the European Union to Spain, Portugal, Greece and Ireland have made a significant contribution to the relative prosperity, compared with their previous position, that those countries now enjoy. It is indefensible, however, that those countries, which have advanced themselves considerably in economic terms, should continue to gain that scale of benefit from the EU budget while the accession countries, most of which are way behind economically, are fighting for the

  1065
  scraps that are left over after the club has had its full rations. There is scope in that injustice and inequity for a great deal of tension and division in what should be a united family of European nations emerging.
  Mr. MacShane: The right hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful speech, and I do not disagree at all with his points. Will he reflect on the fact, however, that the amount of money that is to be transferred to the accession countries is huge: about 3 per cent. of GDP—$26 billion—over the next two years? Were a lot more transferred, those countries might not have the capacity to absorb it. It is a technical point, but an important one. I am not saying that the arrangement is perfect, but throwing a lot more money at them now may not be the most sensible way of advancing.
  Mr. Maude: That is a fair point. As the hon. Gentleman's Government are discovering in relation to the health service, pouring in money in huge quantities does not necessarily do the trick. I am grateful to him for making that point. I fancy, however, that the Governments of the accession countries could make good use of a lot of those transfers if they were available earlier than is envisaged.
  It is the inequity, however, that will cause problems. Those financial implications, particularly in relation to the common agricultural policy, have not been grasped properly, or, to the extent that they have been grasped, they have not been dealt with. The common agricultural policy is an outrage. It is institutionalised folly, economically, financially, ecologically, socially and in every way that one can think of it. It has outlived any usefulness that it might originally have had. It should be demolished, or at least massively reformed. The process provided an opportunity to address that, but sadly it was not done. I have no doubt that there will be intense financial pressures in the enlarged Union that will lead to the issue being addressed again, and I fully expect it to be fudged again. Scope for huge division and tension is built in to the Union's failure to address that issue now.
  The institutional implications are formidable and have properly concerned many hon. Members who have spoken. I am not one of those who believe that the European Union can be endlessly enlarged without reform of institutional arrangements. That would be absurd, because what worked for the six original members—it has gradually creaked more and more as there has been enlargement—cannot possibly work for 25 or 30 members. There are two ways of addressing that problem, but sadly the wrong choice has been made through both the Nice treaty and the Convention.
  The centralising approach says that the decision-making machinery could not process efficiently the quantity of decisions required in a Union with 25 members. The solution under that approach would be to apply a more powerful engine to the mincing machine so that the mincing could be done more quickly. That is not the answer to the problem; it is an old-fashioned answer drawn from a world gone by. The right approach is to try to put less into the mincing machine so that fewer things are subject to EU decision taking. That would
  1066
  give countries more scope to make decisions for themselves and would allow the EU's arrangements to have more variability, flexibility and diversity.
  I have no rooted objection to the Council of Ministers having a permanent presidency rather than a revolving presidency—it does not cause me intrinsic offence. There might be something in the Foreign Secretary's comments about strengthening the Council of Ministers, which I would welcome. Effective rebalancing of the institutions requires a definitive shift of power away from the Commission to the Council of Ministers, which would require more than simply giving the Council a full-time President.
  There was an opportunity to use the process of enlargement to decentralise the European Union. Every other international institution in the world is doing that. International businesses, international voluntary organisations and all international institutions are decentralising to become multi-centred entities and network organisations rather than being centralised at head offices. The EU is the last relic of head office culture. The opportunity to respond to the institutional requirements of enlargement by creating a genuinely modern organisation for the future rather than by entrenching centralism has been lost.
  Mr. Hendrick: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if the EU had 25 member states and we continued to have a rotating presidency, the European Commission would indeed be able to run rings round the Council of Ministers and the Council's governance would be less effective? Surely a team presidency in which several member states could form a more cohesive presidency for two and a half years, for example, would limit the European Commission's powers much more effectively?
  Mr. Maude: I do not reject that argument out of hand—there might be something to it—although we would want to think about its implications. However, it does not alter my key point that the right approach is to move power definitively to the Council of Ministers, which requires more than tweaking existing powers or strengthening its ability in what the Foreign Secretary described as rather prosaic ways. I want something more interesting, radical and in tune with the modern age.
  The output of the Convention, after it has been institutionalised through the intergovernmental conference, will have constitutional implications. I take issue with only one point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells. We do not know for certain how large the implications will be because we all know that IGCs tend to water things down as time goes on and I have no doubt that Governments will exclude several measures that appear in the current draft and about which there has been speculation. I am sure that the British Government will want to exclude many measures, and they will have the power to do that. The Convention will not be as scary as its current draft looks. However, the fact that it will have significant constitutional implications for the United Kingdom is absolutely incontestable, and that is why it is absolutely right for my party to say that a referendum should be held on it.
  I know that a few hours of searching through Hansard would allow one to find speeches that I made in days gone by in which I turned down the idea of holding a

  1067
  referendum on the Maastricht treaty, to which, as the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) thoughtfully pointed out, I was a signatory. However, time has moved on. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wells said that the most important part of the Maastricht treaty was the single currency and, if the Government get round to it, a referendum will be held on that. The aspects of Maastricht that would have made the most difference to this country were the single currency and the social chapter, but the treaty as it stood implemented neither. The Single European Act was arguably more important than anything that happened subsequently, but there was much public sympathy with what it did. The worry is that current proposals are out of tune with public sympathy.
  I urge the Government to think again. If they are confident that they can present the ultimate output of the IGC as mere tidying up, housekeeping and a bit of administration, they should have the courage to tell the public that and invite them to endorse that view. If the institutional changes that I advocate—decentralization and reducing the quantity of governance that occurs through the EU machinery—were made, and my party were in government, I would be completely confident in submitting such changes to a referendum, because the public would be amenable to the changes and would welcome them greatly. I urge the Government to think again, because the public are already alienated from political processes. If the Government had the courage to hold a referendum, it would represent a way of bridging that gap.
  My final reflection is on the broad issue of foreign policy. Something rather important happened over the past six months, and in a way it was the first dividend of enlargement, even before enlargement had taken place. During the latter part of last year and the first few months of this year, there was a sense of the tectonic plates in Europe shifting somewhat. Oddly, it was almost triggered by the rather over-flamboyant celebrations of the French and German ruling classes of the Franco-German reconciliation in the 1960s. There were all those great celebrations in the Champs Elysees, in the sense of, "Here is the Franco-German axis, the motor of the European Union." Yet within almost days of that taking place, there was a division within NATO—admittedly not the European Union—where France and Germany found themselves leading a contingent that consisted of themselves and Belgium. The rest of the EU and all the accession countries that are part of NATO—
  Mr. MacShane: And Luxembourg.
  Mr. Maude: The Minister claims that Luxembourg was also part of that great phalanx. That may or may not be true, and it is marginal in its importance.
  However, a change took place, and in the diplomacy that led up to the Iraq conflict one could see the same movement in the tectonic plates inside Europe. Rather oddly, as a result of enlargement, the further east the EU extends, the more Atlanticist becomes its outlook. The physical centre of gravity has moved east, but in a way the political centre of gravity has moved west. I regard that as a benign outcome. The idea that Europe should turn itself into a countervailing superpower against America is absurd, wrong and dangerous. We are all on
  1068
  the same side. We should be part of an Atlanticist network and alliance. It is more likely that the EU will fall into that category now as a result of the enlargement that has taken place than was the case before. That is one of the implications of enlargement that seems to be unquestionably positive.
  This is a good debate to be having and it is right that it should range widely in a relatively non-partisan way across the issues. These issues will have implications for decades to come. I have no doubt that in 20 years' time we shall be looking at a European Union that is looser, more diverse, more flexible and more of a network Europe than anything that we can now envisage. This may turn out to be the point at which that development began to happen.
  3.41 pm
  Denzil Davies: I, too, welcome the Bill. Most of the 10 countries that are the subject of the accession treaty have had more than their fair share of war and tyranny, certainly during the past century. The hope must be that the new century will bring peace, stability and some prosperity to their peoples.
  It would be trite to say that most major decisions involving the European Union are political. Decisions by accession countries to apply to join and the decision by the EU to accept their applications were major political decisions, as we have heard in the debate. One does not have to be a Marxist to believe that politics cannot be isolated from economics. The accession of the 10 countries will have economic consequences both for themselves and for the other countries of the EU. The hope must be that the consequences will be benign.
  It has been said that there will be another 105 million consumers coming into the EU as a result of the treaty. That could well create, at least in the short term, a boost to trade. However, I suspect, looking back, that the EU is rather like those companies in the 1960s that grew through acquisitions. After a while, the growth fell off. There were then more acquisitions and then there was again some growth. The fear is that although there may be some growth at the beginning, it will then fall off.
  As has been said, almost all the applicant countries are perhaps of a different order from most of the countries that applied previously. I think that this is the fourth accessions Bill debate that I have attended during my time in the House. The first one was in 1972, when the United Kingdom and other countries joined the EU. I think that it is fair to say that with the three previous Bills, most of the countries, although not all—we had Portugal and Spain—were relatively well off. Now we have 10 countries, or possibly nine—perhaps Cyprus can be excluded, for instance—but eight, anyway, that are of a different order in terms of their economic development.
  The average income levels of the applicant countries stand at about 28 per cent. of the present EU level. As has been said, the population of the EU will grow by about 20 per cent., but only 4 per cent. will be added to the gross domestic product. If we consider GDP per head and take that of the United States as 100, the present EU countries reach about 62 per cent. of the US GDP. With the accession countries, that figure will drop to about 58 per cent. Those on the continent—I do not think there are many in the House—who see the

  1069
  European Union as an economic rival to the United States may not be too happy about that. On that basis, it will take a considerable time for the EU to catch up, if it ever does, with the US in terms of GDP per head.
  The present accession countries are applying to a European Union that is quite different from the one that existed in 1972. The structures have changed. There has been more integration, certainly on the economic side. Whereas in 1972 and later, countries would have been able to adapt their own economies to try to fit into the EU, that opportunity gets less and less as economic integration continues.
  We heard about the acquis. The right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) said that it consisted of 97,000 pages. I obviously did not count correctly—I got to 80,000 and decided to give up, but I accept the figure of 97,000. Those poor, unfortunate accession countries have to swallow the lot whole. Much of the acquis entails legislation of which we would approve, on employment rights, health and safety, the environment and social cohesion. We, as the wealthier countries of western Europe, might be prepared or able to live with such legislation, although the pressures of globalisation on the European economy and the EU are such that I am not sure whether the present members of the EU can live easily with some of the acquis and some of the legislation.
  The newer countries, such as Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, are coming into a system and they will have to take it all. That allows them less flexibility to try to increase their rates of growth so that they can come up to the levels of the existing member countries. It will be a difficult problem for the accession countries. They will not be able to be as entrepreneurial—the Poles, in particular, are extremely entrepreneurial—as they might wish. They will find that to some extent their economy is hamstrung by the dead hand of some of the acquis communautaire.
  In 1971 there was no monetary union. I do not think that there was monetary union at the time of the two following accession treaties, but it exists now. As I understand it, the new countries will not join the monetary union immediately. They do not have an opt-out, but they have something called a derogation. I am not quite sure what that is, but as I understand it, they have to work very hard towards becoming members of the monetary union. I do not know whether there is a time limit; I suppose not. It is not for me to give advice to countries like Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, but as regards monetary union, I would say to them, "Keep on derogating. Take your time. Don't rush it, not only for the sake of your own countries, but for our sake and for the sake of the euro area and the euro 12."
  If the accession countries are to move towards a common monetary policy, they will first have to conform to the Maastricht criteria. We all know what that means, so there is no need to repeat it. They will have to bring down their public borrowing—their public expenditure, in effect—to the Maastricht limits. If they have to go even further, to the wretched growth and stability pact, they will have to bring their borrowing down even further. Over the past four or five years, the growth and stability pact has had a deflationary effect on the European Union. It is not the only factor causing
  1070
  deflation in the EU—globalisation, the acquis communautaire and the inflexibility of the system are also causing deflation. Germany and the Netherlands are probably in recession and Italy is approaching it. Deflation is taking hold in the European Union. I am sure that the countries that we are considering want to be part of the greater whole, but if they start to depress their economies to reduce derogation or approach a common monetary policy, that will affect not only them but us, although we are outside the euro area.
  It is therefore a problem, and genuinely worrying, that any attempt by those countries to apply the growth and stability pact and the Maastricht criteria will have a deflationary effect in Europe, where we currently need inflation. Instead, we have deflation and high unemployment. My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) said in an offhand way that unemployment in Poland is currently approximately 20 per cent. It is almost 10 per cent. in Germany. If it is 20 per cent. in Poland now, what will it be when that country begins applying the growth and stability pact and the Maastricht criteria? I do not know the percentage of unemployment in the other accession countries. As I said earlier, I hope that they will keep on derogating.
  If those countries move towards monetary union, they will have to fix their exchange rates. I do not know what the Polish zloty is worth and I have no idea how one converts it into euros. However, experience shows that after exchange rates are fixed, everybody knows that the rate was wrong, although at the time, everybody agreed that it was right. It is extremely difficult—indeed, almost impossible—to fix exchange rates. Will the accession countries be encouraged to move towards monetary union and fix their exchange rates? I know that their currencies are perhaps not as tradeable or negotiable on the international markets as others, but such a move will affect those countries, and if they get it wrong, not only Lithuania, Estonia and Poland will suffer. We, too, will suffer, and so will trade with those countries.
  Mr. Andrew Tyrie: The right hon. Gentleman should know that many of those countries have fixed their exchange rates to the euro. Indeed, they have been fixed for many years. Estonia is already effectively in a currency union with the eurozone. The problems are surmountable. We need to devise ways of enabling those countries to join more quickly, not obstacles.
  Denzil Davies: Some have fixed their exchange rates and others have not. I do not know enough about Estonia's economy to say whether that has been good for the country. If the accession countries have to fix their exchange rates and they get it wrong, considerable problems will arise in their economies.
  Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Argentina is a good example of a weak economy linking its currency to a strong economy with disastrous results?
  Denzil Davies: I thank my hon. Friend for that.
  Let us consider interest rates. It is extraordinary that the European Central Bank will fix one interest rate for an area that extends from Portugal to Estonia. How can

  1071
  one rate take into account the diversity of those different countries' economies? Some of my left-wing friends may worry about me, and I do not want to sound like Professor Hayek, but why do we need a European Central Bank? Why cannot Lithuania or parts of that country—or parts of Britain—have their own interest rates? Why do we need a monolithic, bureaucratic, huge central bank, which supposes that it can fix exchange rates for the whole area? The movement towards monetary union could have a deleterious effect on the accession countries.
  Llew Smith: How will people in the accession countries feel when they realise that, under article 107 of the Maastricht treaty, it will be illegal for their political representatives to influence the European Central Bank? Will they conclude that they have reverted to a position whereby they have politicians who cannot represent them and cannot influence the decision makers? What is the point of elections if the people for whom we vote no longer have the right to influence the decision makers?
  Denzil Davies: Those may well be matters of concern for those people.
  The real problem is that the whole monetary policy of the European Union was designed for a period of inflation—that was entrenched in the system at the time—which results in a lack of flexibility. Major economic problems will arise when the system has to try to adjust to the deflationary trends that are occurring not only in Europe, as a result of the common policy, but in many other areas of the world. Those problems will affect the countries that we are discussing and existing member states.
  Recently, a prestigious French research group—I suppose that all French research groups are prestigious; this one is called, in English translation, the French Institute of International Relations—tried to forecast economic developments in the European Union over the next half-century. Frankly, its conclusions do not make happy reading. It is a long report. I have not read it all, but I shall quote two sentences. The Minister has obviously read it, probably in the original French. One of its conclusions was:
  "The enlargement of the European Union won't suffice to guarantee parity with the United States".
  Perhaps some of us do not want such parity, but there are people on the continent who do. More importantly, almost the final sentence says that it is foreseeable that the European Union faces an
  "inexorable movement onto 'history's exit ramp'".
  In other words, as a result of globalisation and the inflexible nature and structure of the European Union, and despite, or perhaps because of, the accession of the other states, the EU may be on the way to "history's exit ramp". That is a strong statement by a prestigious body, not an assessment that comes from me or from some of the wilder Eurosceptics on these Benches.
  We have talked about foreign policy and diplomacy, but there are real economic problems in the European Union, which will not be solved, and may be made worse, by the countries that are coming in. The accession countries clearly believe that their economies will be better off in than out. I trust and respect their judgment, and I hope that they are right.
  3.57 pm
  Mr. Ian Taylor: The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) has made similar speeches in all the years I have been listening to him since I entered the House in 1987, but one development in the course of that long period is that the euro now exists, and we have to face up to that. Indeed, the costs of not being a member of the euro are greater than some of the problems of being part of it that the right hon. Gentleman described. That is not the subject of the debate, and I shall try to steer away from it, but I am sure that we will pick it up on another occasion.
  I am delighted to welcome the Bill, which I support, not least because it gives me a unity of purpose with my own Front Benchers on a European matter. I am also delighted that there is cross-party agreement that the accession of the new countries is an extremely welcome development. I joined the Conservative party in the 1960s precisely because it was positive about Europe. I felt that one of the great challenges for my generation was to build together what was then western Europe after the fragmentation that occurred on three occasions in 100 years—in the 1870s, during the 1914 period and from 1939 to 1945—and that it was lamentable that we were out of one of the most exciting political and economic constructs available.
  I was also aware of the devastation on the other side of the iron curtain. I was in Prague in 1968. I left just before 21 August, when the Soviet troops came out of hiding and occupied the city, but I was able to sense the excitement and hope that were in the minds of the Czechoslovakian people before it was cruelly crushed. In 1988, when I went back with the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, we had a private dinner with Havel, who was partly beaten up by the police on his way there, and who told us of all the problems that he and the people who worked with him faced. The following day, he was arrested and taken out of Prague because it was thought that he might be the focus of attention. That was in 1988, shortly before the rapid movement to freedom that emerged in Czechoslovakia. Whereas my generation saw the challenge of bringing western Europe together in a political and economic union, the challenge for this generation is to realise the hopes and aspirations of those who were previously under communism—eight of the applicant countries in this accession round—and to ensure that they can benefit as well.
  It is important to bear in mind the fact that one of the strengths of the European Union was that we acted as a magnet for many of the people who tried to resist communism and who eventually brought down the Berlin wall. Of course NATO provided a military strength in the west, of which those people were aware, and which to some extent kept the Soviet Union at bay, but the positive side was the magnetic strength of the European Union. People could see and talk about its economic stability and the way in which countries could come together and form institutional arrangements while retaining their own identity; those things made the challenge worth while.
  The European Union has much to be pleased about in terms of its achievements in securing the accession treaty that we are celebrating today. Of course, the applicant countries are entering voluntarily. I sometimes read some of the more scurrilous British papers—and I do

  1073
  not blame Lord Black for all of them—but the reality is that this is a union that people voluntarily wish to join. That seems remarkable when we read those elements of the British press that concentrate only on the negatives. Those negatives inevitably exist; there are negatives in this country, for heaven's sake.
  Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: Is it not worth remembering that, as well as entering the European Union voluntarily, those countries are doing so having achieved overwhelmingly large majorities in the referendums that have so far taken place?
  Mr. Taylor: I am enthused by their enthusiasm for joining a political, institutional, legal and economic union. Incidentally, it was all of those things when we joined, although some of the more Eurosceptic commentators try to rewrite history. There has always been primacy of European Union law over British law where that has been agreed.
  There will need to be changes to the current arrangements within the European Union. I admire the clarity and eloquence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), but not always the conclusions that he reaches. The reality is that, to accommodate its almost moral obligation to provide a settlement to the east, the European Union will have to change the way it does things. We do not yet know how constitutionally devastating these matters will be, so it is premature to say that we should have a referendum.
  I have voted against holding referendums in the past, and because of comments that have been made in this debate, I shall share with the House something that perhaps ought not normally to be shared. By the way, in the past, it always used to be "referendums", rather than "referenda". [HON. MEMBERS: "It still is!"] Well, I noticed the rewriting of history by the Treasury Bench. I opposed the holding of referendums in a debate in the House—in 1992, I think. My views on the matter were already set and I was perfectly happy to express them in the debate. The opportunity to express them was, however, drawn to my attention by the Whip on duty at the time, who said, "Wouldn't it be a good idea if you participated in the debate on referendums, because we've got a few nutters on our side who think it's worth having one on Maastricht." I do not wish to be drawn on that, because history has shown that that was a very shrewd move if one wanted to lead the party, and I did not.
  I have not yet seen a reason why this House should be usurped by an instrument of which I am not in favour, in principle, in a parliamentary democracy. There may be a case for a referendum, but it is interesting that the people who talk about the primacy of the House of Commons are the first to rush to the instrument of the referendum, which is a populist move, when they think that they might not get their way through argument in this House. Let us not assume that there should be a referendum, but not rule it out, which would be equally foolish. However, if we jump to a conclusion now, we will do so using bogus arguments. Perhaps the reason why we are using those arguments is much more about
  1074
  whether we wish to be associated with the European Union in its entirety. So let us have some clarity about that, please.
  When we look at the Convention proposals, which may or may not be accepted by the intergovernmental conference, let us bear in mind one important rule. The purpose of being in the European Union and the European Economic Community dramatically changed in the 1980s, when it was realised that, in order to drive forward what we wanted—a single market—we had to make concessions. In other words, the rules had to be such that decisions could be reached to ensure that tariff and non-tariff barriers could be broken down.
  The situation was eloquently summed up by the noble Lady Thatcher, then Prime Minister, in this House in 1989, when she said that the reason why we accepted qualified majority voting was to overcome the protectionist instincts of any one member. I agree with that; indeed, it is at the heart of what the European Union is all about. We give up our independence, veto or so-called sovereignty to gain something of greater importance. The prospect of gaining something important is exactly what the applicant countries now see. Of course they are not saying that everything in the acquis communautaire is wonderful, although in the context of some earlier comments, I point out that the acquis communautaire has been a phenomenally effective way of helping those countries to adapt to what was a system with no rule of law at all at the beginning of the 1990s. The ability to meet the acquis communautaire has been one of the great abilities.
  In 1994, I attended as a Minister one of the first face-to-face meetings in what was then the single market Council. The meeting was held in Frankfurt an der Oder, which is on the border with Poland and is obviously situated in what had been the eastern Länder. All the hopeful aspirants came to talk to us. Although the progress that they have made since that day has taken longer to achieve than many of us, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), would have liked, it has nevertheless been made largely because of the help that has been provided, and the framework and acquis communautaire against which they have measured themselves while they have developed. We have helped them to do that.
  Mr. Banks: Would the hon. Gentleman also care to acknowledge the role of the Council of Europe? Applicant countries joined the council and benefited from a democratic training ground that now qualifies them and their institutions for entry into the European Union.
  Mr. Taylor: I am trying not to be selfish about my praise. The Council of Europe has an equal share in terms of its great achievements.
  The problem for us is not only the way in which we reform our institutions. This is not a debate in which we should explore that in detail. I was one of the active members of a group led by Lord Brittan which made a submission to the Convention that was signed by many Conservatives and endorsed by the former Prime Minister, John Major, proposing an approach radically different from that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells. I commend that submission to hon. Members; I know that the Government have read it, because they have referred to it in debate from time to time.

  1075
  I believe that there should be a constitution—I do not resile from that word—but the question is what it should contain. I would fiercely oppose some proposals and I hope that the Government would so as well. The idea that foreign policy should be kept as a separate institutional pillar, but with a veto, is obvious and common sense, and it should be kept. I believe that we should maintain a veto over certain taxes, including those that are not directly related to single market measures, such as value added tax, and those that are related to the governance of the country, such as direct taxation and most elements of corporation tax, although business itself would clearly like to remove some of the anomalies that exist in the tax base, as opposed to the tax rate.
  I issue those two big caveats, but the rest is open to discussion, and we must await the outcome. Certainly, in some instances, we shall want the power assigned to European Union institutions to be exercised properly, efficiently and rapidly. At present even good results take too long to emerge from the process. We want more effectiveness, but there is little doubt that the Commission will be too large with at least 25 members.
  Of course there must be reform, but we can discuss that in other debates. Amid all the excitement, there must also be some awareness of the problems that will arise. We shall need to explain why, as a result of doing our duty and bringing in countries that were formerly vulnerable, economic and competitive developments will involve certain costs—costs that we must bear and sort out.
  I was fascinated to read the findings of one survey, according to which economic convergence to within 75 per cent. of the EU wealth average might take between one year and—in the case of Romania—34 years. That may be a static analysis with hidden depths, but it is clear that if we want certain countries to be considered serious applicants—and that already includes Romania—we shall have to make great sacrifices. We shall have to ensure that budgetary arrangements and assistance for such countries are commensurate with the challenges that Romania faces, as long as it shows its political will.
  The problems, however, should be dwarfed by the overall benefit of a single market for 500 million people. That is twice the population of the United States, although I agree with the right hon. Member for Llanelli that nothing anywhere near the same gross domestic product per head is involved: that is an ambition for the future. The single market has huge potential, some of which has already been realised in the case of countries that were obviously going to join. UK trade with the 10 new member states has increased by more than 400 per cent., compared with a 43 per cent. increase in our trade with the rest of the world since 1990. We are seeing the benefits of that, and of the integration of our economy with the economies of those countries.
  There is no doubt that further benefits will result; but I ask the Minister to bear in mind in his public utterances outside this place that we must prepare people for some of the negative developments that may result, and explain why the sacrifices may be necessary.
  I shall not say much about asylum and the movement of people, but I will say that the problem of asylum in this country can be solved only on a European Union
  1076
  basis. That does not mean that we should not have our own policy, but it does mean that we must try to find ways of helping countries at the perimeter of the EU, which may not have sufficient controls, to ensure that uncontrolled population movements do not happen. There is no point in trying to do that at Calais, at Dover, or at any fortifications in the south of England. This must be seen much more as a European Union issue. We must ensure that such measures as the Dublin convention are more effective, rather than going on and on about dangers posed to this country. Let us take some European Union action.
  We need to prepare for other events. I believe that the next EU budget review will take place in about 2006. The current budget is capped at 1.27 per cent. We have so far failed to persuade the French that there should be a proper reform of the common agricultural policy, although there has been some movement on a sliding scale. We really must tackle that: our failure to do so constitutes a huge failure of EU willpower. It is not enough for us to say, "Let us write off the European Union as hopeless". Certain things in this country should be changed, and we have not tackled them. Such problems are problems for the European Union. We must play a constructive part in securing change, and continuing to work for it.
  It ill behoves President Chirac to tell off the Poles about foreign policy, but I would advise the American Administration not to start saying that France is picking on various EU member countries on a whim. Incidentally, it may not decide to pick on us at all times. I do not believe in forcing a single European foreign policy or even that a credible defence policy would work, but we must strive as far as possible to have common objectives in Europe on some of the dangers that face us in the rest of the world.
  4.15 pm
  Mr. Mark Hendrick: The European Union is now preparing for its biggest enlargement ever in terms of scope and diversity. As we know, 13 countries have applied to become new members. Ten of those countries—Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, the Slovak Republic and Slovenia—are set to join on 1 May next year. The historic treaty was signed in Athens last year. Following ratification, enlargement will take place on 1 May next year. I look forward to that, as I am sure many other hon. Members do, and indeed to the accession of Bulgaria, Romania and eventually Turkey.
  I would like to address the issue of accession from the economic, foreign policy and political perspectives. On the economic side of things, many studies have shown the economic benefits for incumbent members as well as for new entrants. About 14,000 British firms currently trade with central and eastern European countries. Enlargement will benefit the British consumer, allowing access by suppliers of goods and services to many of those countries. It will provide benefits to the British consumer in the way of much cheaper prices.
  As has been mentioned, the applicant countries will receive about £25 billion from 2004 to 2006. That is only 0.1 per cent. of Europe's GDP but will bring huge benefits. Their GDP is estimated to be set to rise by approximately 19 per cent. in the medium term. Pre-

  1077
  accession aid as set out in the current financial perspective will benefit accession countries by about €1.6 billion per annum.
  As we have seen, qualified majority voting has helped the European Union to achieve a stronger and more liberal negotiating position. A Europe of 25 must have QMV in as many areas as it needs. For example, QMV is necessary on the tasks and rules of the structural and cohesion funds to stop net recipients blocking efficiency and cost savings, which addresses the point made by the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude)
  Enlargement will remove barriers to trade. As I have said, UK companies will benefit from a more than 40 per cent. increase in the size of the single market, which will have more than 500 million consumers: the biggest single market for trade and investment in the world—larger than the United States and Japan.
  Enlargement will increase economic growth in the current 15 member states and could increase UK GDP by £1.75 billion as UK goods and services flood into the accession countries. In my region in the north-west of England, about 400,000 jobs are linked to membership of the European Union and access to the single market. In the next five years, it will receive about £1.5 billion in EU structural funds.
  Enlargement is a very good deal both for EU incumbents and for new members. For central and eastern European countries, enlargement will involve the elimination of tariffs, quotas and the adoption of a common external tariff, while gaining from single market access. Central and eastern European countries will have to establish the four freedoms—freedom of movement of goods, services, capital and people—which are a principal concern of this Bill. At the same time, they must recognise health, safety, industrial and environmental standards, the adoption of common competition and state aids policies, and the removal of frontier controls. Those countries will gain most from their own liberalisation. Importantly, new political and economic stability will boost external investment as risk premiums in those countries drop.
  Single market competition rules will cut tradedistorting tariffs, which average some 6.5 per cent. in central and eastern European countries, compared with about 3 per cent. in the European Union. Moving towards better competition will certainly provide increases in imports, lowering the cost of consumer goods and therefore increasing welfare gains for the accession countries. Although there will be initial barriers to trade such as product harmonisation, over the long term those barriers will lead to gains, which is the central long-term benefit of enlargement for the central and eastern European countries.
  As we know, in October 2002 a Franco-German compromise enabled the EU to agree on ways of financing the common agricultural policy after 2007. The Heads of Government agreed that between 2007 and 2013, the overall ceiling for CAP market support expenditure will rise by no more than 1 per cent. per annum on the 2006 level. That will mean that the budget for this part of the CAP for the EU 25 will be able to rise to just over €45 billion in 2006, and to about €48.6
  1078
  billion by 2013. This is not the reduction that many of us would have liked; nevertheless, it is a step in the right direction, because it could have been much greater.
  The EU agreed to offer a phasing in of direct aid to accession countries: some 25 per cent. in 2004, 30 per cent. in 2005 and 35 per cent. in 2006, rising to 40 per cent. in 2007 and increasing by 10 percentage points in each ensuing year, reaching 100 per cent. by 2013. I know that that was not the ideal scenario for many accession countries, but it is a step in the right direction. Cutting the CAP will benefit the UK and accession countries, as it is a distortion to trade. The Prime Minister and the Government are working hard to achieve those cuts, and by engaging more in Europe the UK will be in a stronger position to achieve further liberalisation and reductions in the CAP.
  It is very important that current EU member states support the accession countries in meeting European environmental targets. For example, Poland has recently expressed concern that it will need an extra €40 billion to meet the necessary environmental criteria by the 2015 deadline. It is important that we co-operate as much as possible in order that such targets are met.
  Huw Irranca-Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Lucas factory in Ystradgynlais exported its jobs to Poland three years ago not because the barriers to trade had come down, but in effect because standards of trade had not gone up? One of the great benefits of this Bill is the levelling up of standards, which will protect jobs across the whole of the European Community.
  Mr. Hendrick: I totally agree with my hon. Friend, and a little later in my speech I shall discuss minimum income guarantees, which will become the norm across the European Union and would have addressed the very point that he makes.
  Enlargement will enhance stability and security in Europe. Europe has been the centre of the two largest wars ever; millions of lives have been lost. We now have an historic opportunity to bring peace and security to central and eastern Europe through membership of NATO, and to bring prosperity through membership of the European Union. Europe's post-cold war architecture will change into a new, united Europe. The UK has been at the forefront of European policy on these matters. The UK-French initiative at St. Malo in 1998 instigated European defence co-operation. The rapid reaction force will give the European Union the capacity to conduct military operations in response to international crises when NATO is not engaged. Its range of potential missions is described as including
  "humanitarian and rescue tasks, peace-keeping tasks and tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking."
  Such a force was missing in Bosnia, and the consequences were also evident in Kosovo until NATO finally took action. NATO, not the EU, remains responsible for collective and territorial defence. It is important to note that we are not trying to create a European army.
  European Commissioner Hans van den Broek noted:
  "The voice of Europe will only be heard in world affairs if there is a single voice."

  1079
  Britain has consistently advocated a strong, successful and effective common foreign and security policy. The Iraq crisis has shown that foreign policies are ultimately determined by national interests. Britain needs to be able to act alone, on its own initiative, as it did in Sierra Leone—and, for that matter, as France did in Ivory Coast.
  Europe's disunity is not fatal. The Institutional Reform Commissioner, Michel Barnier, said:
  "The present crisis must be put in a historical perspective."
  Such crises can be prevented in future if the EU can develop a common diplomatic culture. The arrival of Javier Solana as the EU's first High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy has been a real success, as was evident in the Balkans. The current challenges for the CFSP are to confront the threats from terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and to develop a stronger relationship with the Muslim world. The role of the High Representative must be enhanced. By combining the present roles of Chris Patten and Javier Solana, the EU could create a single post that would improve co-ordination in external policy.
  In the final analysis, there can be no QMV on defence or foreign policy, and no European army. That would lead only to a bipolar world order that would be extremely dangerous. Again, I agree with the right hon. Member for Horsham, who spoke about the centre of gravity moving towards the Atlantic, even as the EU border moves east.
  This Bill is the formal ratification for redrawing the political map of Europe. Too often, the word "Europe" is synonymous with the term "western Europe". The democracy, peace and prosperity that we have enjoyed in the west have not been shared in the east. It is now time for the European family to unite around our common values.
  In order to join the EU, the accession countries have had to fulfil the Copenhagen criteria, according to which a prospective EU member must be a stable democracy, respecting human rights, the rule of law and the protection of minorities. That is a huge step to have taken in the short periods for which the different countries involved have been free of the shackles of communism. The success of countries in central and eastern Europe in achieving such structural changes in such a short time deserves congratulation, and it will allow Europe, finally, to be united and become more stable and prosperous.
  Enlargement will reduce the pressures for economic migration by boosting the economic growth of the candidate countries. Research from Portugal showed that there had been a decline in the numbers of people leaving Portugal to find work since it became a member. When Spain joined the EU in 1986, 109,000 Spanish workers were based in France; by 1994, that figure had fallen to 35,000. As accession countries benefit from increasing prosperity, their citizens will have more opportunities at home.
  It is time to redefine our discourse and act as a partner, not an adversary. As the symbols of communism collapsed with the removal of the Berlin wall, it is now time to get behind the common European identity of a united Europe, a union of nation states
  1080
  working together to solve common problems with common solutions. An article in the magazine E! Sharp of October last year commented:
  "Not only do the vast majority of EU citizens have no idea which countries are candidates to join the Union, but many of them do not even want to know."
  That is a worrying observation, and shows why we must rethink how we can engage citizens in achieving an historic prize—the unity of Europe.
  4.29 pm
  Mr. Boris Johnson: It is hard to think of a measure that the Government could have brought to the House that I could support more unreservedly and with greater pleasure than this Bill to expand the European Union. To sum up my response, I would merely say, "And about time too."
  It is 14 years since the fall of the Berlin wall. I vividly remember reporting from Brussels on how the European federalists responded with stupefaction and panic to that wonderful event, and on how they scrabbled to accelerate the process of European integration and to delay the moment of expansion of the EU for countries that had been kept in the socialist twilight for so many years. Only East Germany was admitted, but now, after 14 years of miserable refusal to trade freely with those other countries—keeping out their sauerkraut and their plums under the ridiculous quotas and tariffs that we maintained against them—they are finally to be brought into Europe, and I am overjoyed.
  This is the prelude to a change in the doings of the Community. There will be a change in its culture, which is, in some ways, a very good thing. There will be far greater use of English in the Community. I do not know whether that is a good thing, but it will certainly be to the advantage of those who speak only English—although it might be good for members of the Community to be forced to speak French, in so far as they are capable of speaking English already.
  There will also be pressure on the hard core of the Community—what Donald Rumsfeld described as the "old Europe". France and Germany will pedal ever harder to try to maintain the old ways. That is what is going on in relation to the constitutional Convention. It is a symptom of the recurring desire to fight the expansion of the Community, which they see as a threat to the way in which they have always run things—deepening and centralising authority and power in the Brussels institutions.
  Before I discuss the Convention, I shall talk briefly about the continent that people are playing around with as they go about their constitution making. There is one essential geographical point that no one has yet made in this important debate about European enlargement. Nobody has got to the fundamentals, because nobody actually knows—it is nowhere written in any European treaty—what Europe is. No one has defined Europe geographically.
  Herodotus said that the world was divided into Europe, Libya and Asia, without giving us any more detail. Strabo did no better. When I met the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), in the Library just now, I thought I would seek a more up-to-date opinion, so I

  1081
  asked him: "What is Europe, Robin?" He replied that it was that part of the Eurasian land-mass that stretches, more or less, from Portugal to Russia.
  That view would probably be broadly be accepted by the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt), who is no longer in the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Urals. If he were here, I would ask him whether the people who live in the Urals were European or not. Is it really credible to say, as the former Foreign Secretary did, that Russia is not a European country? Are we saying that Moscow is not a European city, or that Leningrad is not a European city? Are we saying that Vladivostok is not a European city? Patently, it is.
  Bill Clinton, a former president of the United States, has said that Russia should eventually join the European Community. There is intellectual force to that point. It is a fact that Israel is a member of the UN Economic Commission for Europe, so under some constructions of the word "European", Israel is a European country. There is no ready, logical, geographical terminus of Europe.
  Several Members have said how much they look forward to the incorporation of Romania. If we accept Romania, why not Moldova? If we accept Poland, why not the Ukraine, and so on? There is no logical, geographical definition of Europe and thus no coherent political unit. That is why so many efforts are made to find some other definition of Europe. Some people say that the definition is not just geographical, but cultural, because it has to do with values. We have seen some slightly creepy attempts by some members of the German Christian Democratic Union to exclude the Turks from an eventual European vocation on the grounds that Europe is coterminous with Christendom. I do not happen to agree. It is absurd to say to the Bosnians, whom we made such a huge effort to defend, that they have no European destiny because they are Muslims. That would be wholly wrong.
  I do not know whether any hon. Members are foolish enough to oppose eventual Turkish membership of the European Union. If so, I ask them where they think Europa was when she was raped by the bull? [Interruption.] Where was she? Such knowledge is probably banned by the Secretary of State for Education and Skills: it will not be allowed under new Labour because it counts as classical learning, which is to be extinguished by philistine Government Members. I will tell the House where Europa was—on the coast of Asia Minor. She was on the Turkish coast, which is one of the many reasons why Turkey ultimately has a European vocation.
  Those who oppose the widening of Europe to include a wide family of countries should reflect on the fact that many young people, increasingly sceptical about the methods and manners of the European Union, sniff in the idea something of a racist construct. They sniff in it a white man's laager on the edge of the Eurasian land mass. They do not like it and that is one of the reasons why the EU has been losing popularity among young people.
  I make those points because I foresee further expansion beyond 25 countries. As the community expands, it is vital that the institutions of the EU should
  1082
  be as flexible as possible. It is wrong to conclude from the fact of expansion that we must, as the federalists always do, try ever harder to fit everybody on to the same Procrustean bed, to force them all through the same hoops and oblige them all to obey exactly the same 97,000-page acquis. Rather than tighten the federalist ratchet every time we have an expansion, why not use our imagination and take the screwdriver to loosen the ratchet a bit, and include people on a looser basis? Would that not be a more progressive way of expanding the community?
  I am not by any means an ultra-Eurosceptic. In some ways, I am a bit of a fan of the European Union. If we did not have one, we would invent something like it—some means of association between the sovereign states of Europe, perhaps an organisation in Brussels—overnight. I was educated at a European school. If I wanted to, I could sing the "Ode to Joy" in German.
  My key point is that there are tangible benefits to our membership of the European Union. At some stage the game is up and all bets are off, as our political careers are all extinguished in one way or another. However, under the terms of the benign and beneficent Single European Act—several hon. Members have generously pointed out that it was a Conservative inspiration and that Mrs. Thatcher, as she then was, pushed forward with the extension of free market values across the European Community—I would be able to seek an alternative career as a dentist in Belgium or, with what we are inaugurating today, in Poland, Malta or any of the other accession countries.
  There are benefits to membership of the European Union. My only contention is that, in order to reap the benefits, it is not necessary to build a single European polity, as we appear to be trying to do—"e pluribus unum". I do not believe that we need to make, out of 15 different and disparate states, one state with a centre in Brussels. I believe that that is a mistake and I see no reason why we should agree to the constitution as currently proposed. The Minister has been involved in discussing the detail in Brussels, but there are several respects in which this is a constitution and a treaty too far.
  Huw Irranca-Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that some of the most successful clubs have stuck to their core principles and rules of membership and have not diluted them? When ties are loosened to any great extent there is no club any more.
  Mr. Johnson: The word "core" is important. It is precisely because we want to stick to the core competencies and exclude the excrescences that have built up over the past few years that our case is so powerful. We want to avoid the constant centralising and federalising tendency, which is why we oppose prima facie some of the stuff that is emanating from the Giscard Convention.
  Mr. Love: The hon. Gentleman is talking about the rules, but does he not remember that it was the Conservatives who passed the Single European Act and the Maastricht treaty, which established the very rules

  1083
  about which he now complains? Is he not concerned that he is going against everything that his own party previously agreed with?
  Mr. Johnson: I have already paid generous tribute to my party for being the inspiration behind the Single European Act. As for the Maastricht treaty, the point has been well made by several hon. Members that it was the Conservative party that decided to have a referendum on the treaty by calling for a referendum on the euro. The Government have yet to decide whether, owing to the Prime Minister's timorousness on the subject, they have the guts to call such a referendum. However, I believe that holding a referendum on the constitution would be a good thing if it were presented to the British people in the form that is currently before us. The proposal for an elected European President is a considerable constitutional advance according to the definitions. Interestingly, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) committed his party to a referendum. I believe that the proposal was a sufficient constitutional advance to trigger Liberal Democrat support for a referendum, and I very much look forward to seeing the right hon. and Learned Gentleman on the barricades.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Which barricades did the hon. Gentleman have in mind—Henley or St. Andrews?
  Mr. Johnson: The referendum campaign will go round the country, and I am sure that we can share a platform in many places.
  The incorporation of the European convention on human rights is another trigger, and will have a huge impact on our judicial system. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) spoke eloquently about the Criminal Justice Bill and handing over a lot of crucial decision making to institutions in Brussels. The constitution goes too far. If we had a referendum on it and the people rejected it, it would not be a disaster. People who are in favour of the constitution cannot assert that it is in any way essential, as it has no function and does not advance enlargement one bit. It is intended purely to centralise more power in Brussels, and it would be a great thing if it were revisited and more of an effort made to turn it into a proper vehicle for subsidiarity. I therefore hope that there will be a referendum. The Minister must realise that, if the Government fail to call one, there will be an independent referendum. It is likely that, out of the great mass of popular wrath at not being consulted on the issue for so long, there will arise a referendum. I very much hope that the Labour Government will have the guts to abide by the verdict of that referendum when it happens.
  4.44 pm
  Mr. Tom Harris: Hon. Members are rarely given the opportunity to discuss Europe and its many facets, and this is the first opportunity that I have taken to discuss an issue that is extremely important to my constituents, as it is to those of every hon. Member. It is refreshing not to have to focus obsessively on the single currency, although I understand why many hon. Members have chosen to mention it in passing. Any debate on the euro tends to
  1084
  degenerate into name-calling, with Europhiles describing anybody with legitimate worries about the single currency as anti-European, and Europhobes describing anyone who is at all pro-European as selling the country's sovereignty down the river. Of course those are caricatures and our electorates deserve better than that. I am delighted that those hon. Members on both sides who have spoken so far have generated more light than heat.
  Few would cavil at the idea of enlarging the EU. The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson)—whose speech I thoroughly enjoyed—was extremely critical of those hon. Members who oppose enlargement, but I have not yet heard any Member, even the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), oppose the principle of enlarging the EU.
  Mr. Hopkins: My hon. Friend may be interested to know that, for the very reasons mentioned by the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson), one of enlargement's strongest opponents was Sir Edward Heath, a former leader of the Conservative party.
  Mr. Harris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that useful information. Interestingly, he mentions someone who is no longer a Member, but who, I am sure, would have taken part in the debate today if he were.
  The former Prime Minister, John Major, mentioned on a number of occasions the importance of widening the EU, but not deepening it. In 1995, the then Foreign Secretary, Douglas Hurd, said:
  "Enlargement is not a luxury. It is a necessity if we are to build a safe and successful Europe for the 21st century."
  Even the current Tory leadership agrees with that. Last year, the shadow Foreign Secretary said:
  "EU enlargement is a project that has always enjoyed the total support of the Conservative party."
  I should like to know what the next sentence was, because that sounds like a preamble to a withdrawal of support.
  Last October, even the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) said:
  "enlargement is a great prize that is worth fighting for."—[Official Report, 28 October 2002; Vol. 391, c. 543.]
  There is no doubt that the enlargement that the Bill facilitates has led directly to the controversy over the new EU constitution that we have all been talking about in the past few months. I find it remarkable that, at Prime Minister's questions last week and again this week, the Leader of the Opposition called for a referendum on that draft constitution specifically to persuade the British people to reject it unequivocally.
  Even if the draft constitution discussed by the House rejects all forms of federalism—if it does not mention federalism but reinforces the nation state's rights to sovereignty—the Conservatives will still call for a referendum and for it to be opposed. It is unreasonable and unrealistic simultaneously to support EU enlargement and oppose the constitution that will enable enlargement to work.
  I tell the House unequivocally that, if I believed that the new European constitution would make this country subject to a federal Europe so that we were completely

  1085
  under the metal fist of Brussels, I would be one of those Members calling for a referendum on the constitution. The reason why I am confident that that will not happen is simply that I accept and trust implicitly the assurances given to the House by the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who said today and in a speech two days ago that, although the process of producing the new constitution was complex, the Government would not accept anything that compromised the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. I am absolutely happy to accept that assurance.
  Mr. Peter Duncan: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has great trust in the Prime Minister, but why does he not have the same trust in the electorate of Cathcart, and, indeed, of the rest of the UK, to make a remarkably simple judgment on whether the proposed constitution is in their interests?
  Mr. Harris: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point, as it brings me on to an issue mentioned by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). Why are the Government saying no to a referendum now when they do not know what the final form of words in the constitution will be? The reason is simply that the Government have insisted from the outset that the UK's sovereignty must not be compromised in the new constitution. It seems an odd negotiating stance to say at the outset, "Here is what we will not stand for. Here are the red lines. If we lose that, we will have a referendum." It is a ridiculous stance. We know already that the new constitution for Europe will not compromise the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. What it will do is put in place new arrangements to allow a 25-member EU to function properly. Because it does not take away any of the authority of this House, there is no need to put it to the people, any more than there was a need to put the Maastricht treaty or the Nice treaty to the British people.
  Dr. Alan Whitehead: Does my hon. Friend find it remarkable that eight of the 10 applicant countries that are largely responsible for the Convention on the Future of Europe meeting as it has done, are not only anxious but desperate to get into the EU on the terms that they are being offered, having only a short time ago exited from what was arguably a superstate under which they were oppressed? Does he agree that if they had a perception that they were about to re-enter an oppressive superstate, they would have made that point known in the negotiations by now?
  Mr. Harris: That is a valid point. On top of that, I suggest that, after hearing praise for the Government on the speed of this process, a move to a referendum, which would be a purely partisan political move at this point, would simply be seen as a way of delaying the process and delaying progress towards a constitution that is
  1086
  desperately needed. If I thought that it would compromise the sovereignty of this House, I, too, would favour a referendum, but I have no doubt that it will not.
  Mr. Spring: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Harris: I have given way several times, so if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I shall make some progress.
  I do not believe that a federal Europe will ever happen. Those who want to draw comparisons between a hypothetical united states of Europe and the United States of America are barking up the wrong tree and are very wide of the mark. Two things helped to create the United States of America: first, a single common language, and secondly, a brutal civil war that killed one in 50 of the population. Shelby Foote, the civil war historian, was once asked, "What was the great cultural legacy left by the civil war?" His answer was that the civil war made the United States a singular—before the civil war, the United States were; after the civil war, the United States was. Unless at some point in the future we miraculously have a single language in Europe and a brutal civil war, I would have to suggest that that path is not open to Europe. A federal Europe is nothing more than a Conservative chimera. It is something that nannies use to scare very young children who have an ambition to be Conservative Members into going to sleep: "If you don't go to sleep, the federal Europe will get you." Clearly, it will be used to scare voters, too.
  What we have is a Europe of nation states cooperating on many levels. Each nation state fiercely guards its rights when necessary, and shares sovereignty when it is in its interest. I hope that we press ahead with the historic move to increase the size of the EU by 10 nations—an unprecedented number, and an achievement about which we should all be proud and happy.
  Angus Robertson: I agree entirely with the intellectual thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument. Is it not an irony, however, that he overwhelmingly welcomes the enlargement of the European Union so that those countries can have a state of independence within Europe, but opposes that for the country that both he and I represent?
  Mr. Harris: Never let it be said that the Scottish National party does not have its finger on the pulse of political debate in this country. Given that it is three weeks since the party was decimated in the Scottish Parliament elections, now is not the time for the hon. Gentleman to start talking about tearing to bits nation states already in the European Union.
  We should press ahead with this historic move. Ten more nations understandably want to add the economic freedom of the world's largest trading bloc to their newfound political freedom. Members of this House must extend a welcome to those nations, not slam the door in their face.
  4.55 pm
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: The question of which nations should accede to the European Union is a matter for them, and I would not

  1087
  wish to intrude on their choice. However, I am certain that we should give the Bill its Second Reading and make the nations welcome if they decide, through their democratic processes, that it is wise and in their interests to join.
  Of course, those countries' accession will present an enormous challenge to the European Union. We have heard that several have a gross national product per head that is one seventh of the average in existing EU member countries. That will put an enormous strain on the European Union, and it is especially pertinent to clause 2 because if we are to avoid enormous population movement and migration of workers, it is vital to put in place measures to drive forward the single market so that those countries are swiftly brought up to a level of prosperity broadly comparable with that of the rest of the Union. In the short term after accession, we must avoid a situation in which the United Kingdom extends full free movement while the remainder of our European partners impose all sorts of restrictions, because that would mean that all the pressure would fall on us. The Government were wise to build powers into the Bill to deal with such an eventuality.
  Mr. David: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many parts of the United Kingdom, such as south-east England in particular, need more workers, especially skilled workers?
  Mr. Swayne: I am not convinced of that, although I have an open mind and remain to be persuaded. It is clear that the current work permit system represents something of an abuse, especially because of the way in which it relates to information technology workers. That issue was raised with the Prime Minister today, but it goes beyond the scope of the debate because the system relates to non-EU members.
  It is vital that newly acceded members do not rely simply on subsidy, which would make them a burden on other countries. They should develop as genuine engines of growth as we draw them into the free-trade benefits of the Union. If that is to happen, one of the requirements is growing flexibility in the rest of the Union, especially on labour practices, because an enormous strain will otherwise be placed on the Union. The economics of the Union need to advance and be reformed because there is otherwise a significant danger that the European Union as we know it might be consigned to the dustbin of history—a point that the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) drew to our attention.
  I shall move on to an aspect of the debate that I had not imagined that I would intrude on. However, almost every speaker has mentioned it and the Secretary of State himself brought it into our discussion. Although I welcome the Bill, I had not identified any connection between it and the European Convention. It was the Secretary of State who made that connection. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) reinforced the principle that the Secretary of State introduced: that being in favour of accession required acceptance of the reforms consequent on the Convention. I do not believe that.
  I do not believe that there is any necessity to draw together accession and what is happening in the Convention and the constitution that is its product. I
  1088
  have already said clearly that there must be economic reform if accession is to be a success rather than something that threatens the existence of the Union. Equally, I agree entirely that there must be significant institutional reform. That does not mean that we are required to agree to institutional reform of the scale or sort published in the draft constitution produced by the Convention.
  Mr. MacShane: What institutional reforms would the hon. Gentleman propose?
  Mr. Swayne: I want a completely different order of reform. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) said, we want reform that loosens ties—a dilution. That is one of the principal arguments in favour of expansion of the Union, although I accept that there are other more important economic arguments. Certainly one of the institutional arguments that was often advanced in the 1980s and 1990s for expanding the Union was that a wider Union would be a less deep Union.
  Mr. MacShane: Will the hon. Gentleman name one institutional reform? I would like one concrete example.
  Mr. Swayne: I shall concentrate precisely on what I do not think is desirable institutional reform, as advanced by the Convention. From that, I think that the Minister will be able to infer what I would be in favour of.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Under the hon. Gentleman's proposals, how many Commissioners would there be?
  Mr. Swayne: I am not interested in the number of angels that dance on the head of a pin, nor in the number of Commissioners that sit in the Commission. That is a matter of little consequence.
  Angus Robertson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be wholly welcome if, as proposed in the Convention, the Council of Ministers were opened up so that citizens could see how representatives of their Government argue and then decide on vital matters of national interest such as, for example, fishing? At least we would then know how hard people were arguing for us.
  Mr. Swayne: Absolutely. I accept that that might be highly desirable, but we are talking about what has come out in the draft constitution. I urge right hon. and hon. Members to log on to the internet website where it is available. It is clear that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart has not done so, given his closing remarks. The Union so described is clearly described by the Convention as the united states of Europe.
  Ministers have argued, as have Opposition Members, especially the Liberal Democrats, that it is legitimate for them to say, "It would be wrong in principle to commit to a referendum now, given that we do not know the magnitude of the changes. After all, this is only a draft constitution and the IGC has yet to take place. Perhaps we should consider later the real scale of change in terms of whether this is tidying up or whether it is something much more significant."

  1089
  I accept that, in principle, that argument has some value, but we must consider the practicalities and bear in mind the months during which the Convention has been gestating. The product is to a large extent a done deal. I am sure that there will be a battle on defence and foreign policy. I have no doubt that the Government will return from the IGC trumpeting their triumph. I have no doubt also that they will triumph on defence, foreign policy and taxation. It would be extraordinary if they did not, but they will use that to mask the profound changes to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells referred, and pass them off as a tidying-up measure that makes no fundamental change in our relationship with the rest of Europe. The Foreign Secretary was explicit. He said that there would be no significant change. I argue that there is an absolute and fundamental change, and it is already clear from the draft constitution.
  Our relationship with the Union now is set out in treaties that can be changed only by unanimity. The European Union enjoys its power and competence by leave of the member states. The constitution will fundamentally alter that relationship. We, as nation states, will enjoy our power and our competence by leave of the Union, through a constitution that can subsequently be changed by the Union, without requiring the absolute consent of all member states. That is a fundamental change in the nature of the Union, giving it its own legality and person. That is the enormity of what is being proposed. I do not believe for one moment that the Government will get away with passing that off as a tidying-up measure.
  I tried to intervene on the Foreign Secretary as he concluded his remarks—indeed, I had tried to intervene earlier. He concluded with a grand flourish about the process of enlargement. He said that he believed that it would be irreversible. I asked him—from a sedentary position, admittedly, but I am certain that he heard me—whether he would tell us what he meant by "irreversible". Unfortunately, he did not. I hope that when the Minister winds up the debate, he will expand on quite what the Foreign Secretary meant by it.
  There is a suspicion—not unnatural, given the way in which the constitution is expressed in draft form on the internet—that the position is irreversible because those that join have no way of getting out. I suspect that that is not what the Foreign Secretary meant. Perhaps this is part of Labour's search for some new belief. Having ditched clause IV, which of course contained the term "irreversible", it seeks some other article of faith. This European journey is it. I hope that the Minister will be able to enlighten us as to what the Foreign Secretary meant.
  It is clear from the draft constitution—again, I urge hon. Members to read it, so that they know precisely what they are talking about—that it is no tidying up, no codification of the existing treaties. There is a fundamental change in the nature of the organisation. All the other members of the Convention clearly accept, acknowledge and agree with that. Whether they are for it or against it, they acknowledge the singular nature of the change and its enormity. We cannot allow Ministers to pretend to the British people that it is something of
  1090
  little consequence, about which only a few people are exercised, and with which the rest of Europe is entirely content.
  5.8 pm
  Mr. Tony Banks: I am grateful to the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) for mentioning clause IV. We do not often hear it mentioned in this place any more. It brought a lump to my throat, and I almost felt a chorus of "The Red Flag" coming on, but it quickly passed, as it has done in new Labour.
  I should like to pick up something that the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) said in his speech. In his usual modest way, he pointed out that there was something that none of us had seen or discussed in the debate: the definition of Europe. It is an interesting point. As a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, I know that the subject is discussed there from time to time. In Council of Europe terms, Europe stretches from the Atlantic to the Urals. One needs only to make the short journey across the Bering strait to Alaska to reach north America. He was right to say that the borders of Europe will continue to expand, and so they should.
  Hon. Members who described the treaty of accession as an historic milestone are correct, and it is wonderful. The Foreign Secretary mentioned Europe's violent history. The map of Europe has been drawn and redrawn over the centuries, always on the basis of conquest, war and the imposition of treaties on unwilling countries. We are considering a completely different process. It is grotesque, especially in the context of the acceding countries, to suggest that one can compare the Commission to the Politburo. However, such language often creeps into discussions about developments in the European Union, especially in our media. We are drawing a new map of Europe peacefully, on a co-operative, voluntary basis. A dream is becoming reality.
  In recent years, there has been much argument about whether we should broaden or deepen. Those who opposed the concept of the European Union believed that broadening it would avoid deepening it. They did not want to expand it on the basis of what was good for other countries but to prevent the European Union from deepening. I believed that we should deepen before broadening, but we cannot. We cannot stand aside and tell countries that have emerged from the shadow of the former Soviet Union that we must get on with our business and they must wait. We must therefore try both to broaden and to deepen.
  We all have our personal stories about the accession countries. I am delighted about Lithuania's application. Not many people know—why should they?—that as a member of the Political Committee of the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly, I was responsible for a report on Lithuania. I was a rapporteur for its application to join the Council of Europe and I spent time in Lithuania, studying various institutions. It attained full status at the Council of Europe. All countries must do that before applying to join the European Union. The Council of Europe should be perceived as the democratic training ground for countries in transition from the totalitarian system of

  1091
  the former Soviet Union to the family of democratic nations. When I produced the report, several institutions could not be favourably compared with institutions in our country and other parts of western Europe. An act of faith was required. We had to say that the willingness to democratise meant that association in the Council of Europe—and now the European Union—would hasten the creation and development of democratic institutions in Lithuania and the other accession countries.
  There has been much discussion about the countries' reasons for joining. Of course there are economic benefits to joining the European Union, whatever the short-term difficulties they and we might encounter. However, the decision is essentially political. The accession countries want to join the European Union for political reasons rather than for the economic benefits that they hope will ensue. Although the debate is about the accession treaty, it is impossible to discuss it in isolation from other developments such as the Convention and the euro. However much we want to cloak the debates in the language of economics, though, they remain political. It is a political issue. When I heard the shadow Chancellor this morning—I hear him so often on the "Today" programme that I thought for a moment I was cohabiting with him—I agreed with most of what he said. An economic snapshot of convergence might be right on the day that it is taken, but a little further down the line it will not be. One cannot say that because we have economic convergence on one particular day it is right for us to join the euro. I should not like to say that we are misleading people, but we are trying to camouflage an essentially political decision in the language of economics. Frankly, it is not going to work, because our economies could be converging on one day and diverging on another.
  It is a political argument, just as it was a political argument that led the French, Germans, Italians and Spanish into joining the euro. When I hear that we are giving up our sovereignty or that 1,000 years of our history are threatened, I wonder what one would say to the French and the Germans about that. I have always felt that the French and German Governments are as anxious to preserve their sovereignty, history, customs and pride as we are. Those countries have not descended into barbarism because they joined the euro. Whatever else one says about the short-term difficulties that they may be undergoing, my personal experience is that quality of life and living standards in France and Germany are at least equal to, and in most cases exceed, those of this country.
  I do not believe that the Bill or any of the proposals so far in the Convention will lead to a European superstate. I do believe, however, that we are on the road towards a united states of Europe, and personally I very much welcome that. It might not be a view that sits well in this House or, at the moment, in this country, but there is an historical inevitability about it. I asked the right hon. and learned Member for North-East File (Mr. Campbell) what he thought about that, and I should like to hear his answer. Given the enormity of the institutional, political, social and geographical changes that have taken place in Europe in the past 50 to 60 years, I cannot believe that in another 50 to 60 years we will be looking at anything like the Europe that we are
  1092
  discussing today. We will have a European superstate—a united states of Europe—and that does not frighten me at all.
  Mr. Hugo Swire: It does not frighten the hon. Gentleman, but it worries—indeed, frightens—quite a lot of people. Would he be prepared to support a campaign to have a referendum on this and abide by the will of the people?
  Mr. Banks: A referendum on what? That is the important point. If the hon. Gentleman is asking whether I would put the question, "Do you want to have a European superstate?", that is a no-brainer, because I know exactly what everyone, in the House and in the country, will say: no. Perhaps not everyone—there must be a few more like me.
  I am simply asking the House to look beyond what is happening today, or might be happening in two or three years' time when the Convention is a reality, to what sort of a Europe we think we will be living in in 60 years' time. I can see the inevitability of a Europe with a president, a Government and the national Parliaments being more like state parliaments in a federal united states of Europe. After all, why should we stop at the borders of the nation state? Who is to say that the political entity of the nation state is as far as we can ever go? I am sure that the people of Wessex, Mercia and Essex did not particularly want to join England in a united state—
  Mr. David: Nor did Wales.
  Mr. Banks: Wales certainly did not. However, by virtue of conquest, it happened. Nowadays, we are talking not about invasion and conquest but about voluntarism and people willingly surrendering an element of their sovereignty, as we have already done in order to provide a greater European good. Whatever it does to the rest of the House, a united states of Europe most certainly does not frighten me.
  5.19 pm
  Mr. Peter Luff: It is always a privilege to follow the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks). Chelsea football club, which we both support—he rather more actively than I—is of course a wonderful manifestation of the ever-closer union of the peoples of Europe, although I think that it has a few more English players these days. When I listen to the hon. Gentleman speak, I reflect on how I could perhaps be persuaded of the case for a common criminal justice policy, because a single policy on hunting would be unlikely to lead to a ban—but that is another matter.
  I apologise to the House for having been absent for some of the speeches in this debate, but as you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I had important parliamentary business elsewhere on the Selection Committee. I apologise to you for that discourtesy, but fortunately I have not missed many speeches. This is only my second speech on European affairs since I came to the House just over 11 years ago; my first was six months ago. That was perhaps the more statesmanlike version; today's might be a little more knockabout.

  1093
  The right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson), the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, made an interesting contribution to our proceedings. He regretted the lack of consensus in the debate. I have to tell him that the reason for that on our side is, in part, that the Prime Minister started it. I had not intended to speak in this debate but I was absolutely infuriated by what he said last week during Prime Minister's questions. A lengthy exchange—it runs to a full page of Hansard—is perhaps best summed up in what he said about my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition:
  "What is very clear, as the right hon. Gentleman has just admitted, is that he wants people to say no to European enlargement … So what we now know from the Conservative party is that it is against the enlargement of the European Union and that it is against those new countries coming into Europe because, under his leadership, the Conservative party is against Europe."—[Official Report, 14 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 306.]
  That is simply untrue in every particular.
  I intend to give the House a history lesson on the Conservative party's engagement with the issue of the enlargement of Europe. We were in favour of it when the Labour party was still in favour of the United Kingdom's withdrawal from Europe. Today, the Prime Minister compounded the sin. I cannot quote his exact words, because I have not seen how they will appear in Hansard, but I noted them down like this: "The true agenda of him"—my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—"and his colleagues is to get Britain out of the European Union." That is complete nonsense. Why he feels this compulsive need to misrepresent his opponents, I just do not know. He seems to need to believe that the Conservative party is a distillation of the purest evil, so that he can define himself in distinction to what he needs to believe that we are—which we actually are not.
  That also applies to other opponents of the Prime Minister. He does not just misrepresent us on our positive attitude to enlargement of the European Union. He misrepresented the House of Lords, alleging that it had killed the Bill on hunting introduced by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster). That Bill never got to the House of Lords. He misrepresents our position on debt relief, saying that it effectively began in 1997 when this Government came to power. It did not—it began with the last Conservative Government. He misrepresents us over the issue of a 20 per cent. cut in public expenditure—a malicious Labour lie if ever there was one.
  Again, today, at Prime Minister's questions—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is getting a trifle carried away. Perhaps he ought to come back specifically to the Second Reading of the Bill before the House.
  Mr. Luff: Your intervention is well timed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because my notes lead me naturally back to that subject anyway.
  Today, at Prime Minister's questions, the Prime Minister also accused my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition of being a member of Conservatives
  1094
  Against a Federal Europe—CAFE. In fact, that organisation ceased to exist two years ago, so it would be a little tricky for him still to be a member. All these assertions are just plain wrong, but it is clear that the Prime Minister believes them. He means well—he means well on the issue of European integration—but Mr.Toad meant well. The Prime Minister is becoming the Mr. Toad of British politics, rushing from one new enthusiasm to the next and dismissing all those who raise perfectly legitimate objections.
  Because our party has serious doubts about the constitutional implications flowing from the Convention in relation to enlargement, the Prime Minister has persuaded himself—possibly quite genuinely—that we are against enlargement itself. We are not. The national interest, and the European interest, demand that these views should be expressed, because serious issues flow from the constitution, and I do not believe that they are necessary to facilitate enlargement.
  Mr. David: Does the hon. Gentleman dissociate himself from the comments made by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) last year, when he said clearly to the House that the Conservative party would oppose enlargement unless a reform of the common agricultural policy had taken place first?
  Mr. Luff: I do not recall my right hon. Friend ever having said anything of the kind. Of course, reform of the common agricultural policy is a much more important idea than this wretched constitutional Convention, in terms of achieving effective enlargement. I certainly think that the Government could have done a lot more to reform the common agricultural policy. How much better it would have been if their energies had been spent in that direction.
  My main purpose today is to correct the Prime Minister and persuade him that scepticism about the constitutional implications of enlargement is not opposition to enlargement itself. I was glad to hear the Foreign Secretary pay tribute to the last Conservative Government for their work on enlargement. He is indeed an honest and honourable man, and he rightly paid tribute to John Major and Lord Hurd. However, the first glimmering of an idea that the Conservatives would call for enlargement came from the noble Baroness Thatcher. My right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) quoted her remarks in his opening speech, but they bear repetition. In that famous Bruges speech, she said:
  "We must never forget that east of the iron curtain peoples who once enjoyed a full share of European culture, freedom and identity have been cut off from their roots. We shall always look on Warsaw, Prague and Budapest as great European cities."
  And so they are.
  In a fine speech in 1991, only a year or so after the Berlin wall tumbled, John Major spoke of eastern Europe's release from communism:
  "Outside our Community the strongholds of communism in the East have crumbled. Warsaw, Budapest, Prague, Sofia, Dresden—all now live in freedom. Hungarians, Poles, Czechoslovaks, Bulgarians and others look to our European Community for inspiration, hope and support. They must not, and I trust will not, look in vain."
  Towards the end of the speech, he said:

  1095
  "There are 80 million people in Eastern Europe who have recently gained their freedom. The 16 million who live in the Eastern part of Germany already enjoy EC membership. 64 million Europeans have still to make the same leap."
  Interestingly, his next remarks are an example of the Conservative party's pragmatic concern to ensure that enlargement works in everyone's interests:
  "If they made the leap too soon, it would not only be expensive for us, but perhaps damaging to them. We would be doing them no service if we held out false hopes of membership in the next three or four years; but we should make it clear that the option of full membership exists in due course. It is open to them, as soon as they can sustain the political and economic obligation that it entails. In the meantime, we must help them prepare for that day."
  That came from a party that supposedly opposed enlargement of the European Union.
  A group of colleagues from my parliamentary intake of 1992, three of whom are now in the shadow Cabinet, the "standard bearers", wrote the following in a 1991 pamphlet:
  "Now the EC faces a choice. It could, on the one hand, open its gates to new members, forge a partnership with Japan and the United States, champion the cause of free trade and free enterprise throughout the world. Or it could degenerate into a cosy, introspective huddle, suspicious of the outside world, suffocated within by bureaucracy and meddlesome regulation."
  They went on to say:
  "A Conservative Europe will welcome new members … front east of what was once the Iron Curtain."
  The Conservative party's track record is absolutely clear, but as always, just because we believe in something passionately, that does not mean that we should not ask questions about the mechanism by which it is achieved. When the Nice treaty was agreed, the Conservative party officially said:
  "We are not blocking enlargement, which we passionately support, by opposing the Nice Treaty. Indeed, we would commend tomorrow a Treaty that was genuinely about enlargement, including provisions on vote re-weighting and Commission size. But the current Nice Treaty is mainly about political integration, and we cannot support that. Indeed it will make enlargement more difficult, not easier. Furthermore a Union genuinely preparing itself for enlargement would be tackling its biggest obstacle—the CAP."
  That is enough quotations from the Conservative party's history. [HON. MEMBERS: "More!"] I am torn, as I have many more quotations, but I think that I shall leave them to one side and make the other points that I wish to make in the short time that remains.
  As the hon. Member for West Ham made clear, it is no secret that we saw enlargement partly as enabling a wider, but not deeper, European Union. I think that there is nothing wrong with that, as I believe that a wider Europe is the right approach. However, we also felt passionately that enlargement was about fulfilling the great goal of spreading democracy around Europe, just as we did in respect of Spain, Portugal and Greece. It is now the turn of central Europe. It is time to restore the countries of central Europe—rather than eastern Europe, to which they are sometimes described as belonging—to their full place in the European family.
  I was interested by the reaction of some of the foreign press to the signing of the treaty on 16 April. The way in which different countries have responded to the threat or prospect of enlargement is fascinating. Belgium's De Standaard believes that enlargement has "lost its lustre" after eastern European newcomers, by siding with Washington in respect of Iraq,
  1096
  "bit the hand of old Europe—France and Germany—which had shown so much generosity in taking them in."
  I am afraid that there can be no neo-colonial attitude to the new EU members. They deserve to be treated as the fully grown, mature, democratic states that they are. Such neo-colonialism from Belgium is simply not acceptable.
  Germany's Siiddeutsche Zeitung echoed that theme, warning that it will be increasingly difficult to provide an enlarged EU with a sense of direction after the current EU's failure to back France and Germany in what the daily calls
  "their alliance against George Bush."
  That is a fascinating reflection of German opinion.
  In the applicant countries, there was generally a sense of triumph. The Lithuanian paper Verslo Zinios, hailed an
  "historic and symbolic day of Lithuania's integration",
  while an editorial in Kauno Diena proclaimed that
  "for more than five decades we were torn from the West and now we are coming back".
  Mr. Spring: It is all the doing of the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks).
  Mr. Luff: Indeed. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his part in achieving that fine comment in the Lithuanian press.
  Interestingly, in Slovakia, Pravda took a slightly more careful view. It asked
  "What do we need EU for?"
  Today's EU, it said,
  "differs from the club to which Slovakia submitted its application".
  We should be alive to the fact that Slovakia has been presented with a rather difficult position. Either it comes in on the terms that we set for it, or it does not. That has important implications. We should be sensitive to the fact that, although such countries may have accepted the acquis communautaire—the regulatory framework that they will embrace as part of membership—that does not mean that all of them are enthusiastic about it.
  Mr. Lazarowicz: They may not all be enthusiastic, but 93 per cent. of Slovakians voted in favour of joining the EU. Does that not suggest that the Convention that the hon. Gentleman fears so much, of which those countries know they will have to become part, is something that they find much more acceptable than he does?
  Mr. Luff: I think the hon. Gentleman will find that there was only a 50 per cent. turnout in Slovakia—just enough to make the referendum valid. I hear what he says, and I am sure that the right decision was made, but that does not mean that a better decision could not have been made in the event of a different approach to the negotiations.
  In a fine speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) described the real priorities that would make enlargement the great success that we want—simplification of the acquis communautaire, deregulation, reform of the common agricultural policy and, yes, technical changes in the way

  1097
  in which decision making works in the EU. All those things matter. Decentralisation will be a key factor. I fear that failure to achieve those aims could lead to a failure of the EU's institutions, progressive paralysis, and disillusion with the very Union that Labour Members who are so enthusiastic about its current structure want to bring about.
  Angus Robertson: The hon. Gentleman makes a persuasive case for further decentralisation. What is the Conservative party's position on more direct rights of access to the EU for the Scottish Parliament?
  Mr. Luff: We are all in favour of scrutiny, but I will leave the details to my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring).
  I fear that enlargement—along with the Bill and the treaty to which it gives effect—has become an excuse not for a more liberal, outward-looking Europe but for a deepening of Europe. There has been an almost obscene rush on the part of existing member states to deepen the EU's institutions before the entry of the new member states. The Foreign Secretary said that the euro was a constitutional issue, and the hon. Member for West Ham said it was a political issue. I was interested to hear those views. I am not sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would agree with the Foreign Secretary, but I think that the Foreign Secretary is right. He said that there should be a referendum.
  I agree that it is just possible that the final outcome of the intergovernmental conference will be "tidying up". Other Conservative Members have accepted that possibility too. It is, however, extremely unlikely. My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) said that we should win the arguments here rather than putting them to the people. Given a Government as determined as this, with a majority this size, that simply is not an option. That is one of the reasons why a referendum is so important.
  I expect the constitution to turn out less awful than the worst predictions but to have major constitutional implications for the United Kingdom. Given the Government's record of squandering the advantages negotiated for them by the last Conservative Government, such as the opt-outs from the social chapter and the single European currency, we have every reason to wonder what they will end up with after the IGC. There must be a referendum on the most likely outcome of the constitution and the new enlarged Europe before the treaty is ratified.
  May I make a final, parochial point? My right hon. Friend the Member for Wells feared aspects of freedom of movement for those in the new countries—the enlarged Europe referred to in clause 2. I have a rather different fear. I accept the Labour argument that—as Spain and Portugal show—there will be a rapid growth in employment prospects in the new member states. My constituents in the Vale of Evesham who are involved in horticulture, who currently rely on employing low-skilled people from the applicant countries to pick and pack, may find themselves in difficulties.
  All kinds of painful readjustments will have to be made to accommodate enlargement, but it is right that we should make those readjustments. There will be local
  1098
  pain and suffering in a number of respects. The financial flows will be considerable, as my hon. Friends have said, but I am an optimist, and I agree strongly with my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude): at present, the trend still seems to be going deeper but I genuinely believe that a Europe of 25 member states—and, I hope, more—will inevitably be a looser, more diverse, more flexible Europe than we have at present. That is why, given the chance, I will vote with enthusiasm for the Bill. It is important legislation that deserves to succeed.
  5.35 pm
  Huw Irranca-Davies: I am pleased to contribute for the first time to a debate on European affairs. Bearing in mind the traditions of the House, at the outset I have to declare an interest: I woke up this morning and found that I was a European and that, apparently, I have been for a long time. It does not cause me any conflict with my identity as a Welshman or as a member of the United Kingdom. That contrasts with some of the opinions that have been rife in the tabloids. They have a more coy approach, saying, "Some of my best friends are Europeans," or "I deny I am European. I am in England"—or in Wales or wherever—"and I deny my heritage." It is part of my heritage, I am pleased to say. I am equally at home with being a Welshman, a member of the UK and a European.
  Mr. Hendrick: Would my hon. Friend say that Europeans are 10 a penny?
  Huw Irranca-Davies: I take note of the comment.
  My interest in this matter is manifold, as my wife comes from a Sardinian family that migrated to this country for economic reasons. They came in the 1950s and, as many Italian families were wont to do in Wales, set up a café, another café, then a bakery and did very well. They added a great deal to the diversity, culture and entrepreneurialism of south Wales. I have no trouble in saying: long may that tradition continue in terms of migration into our country to assist with our economy and culture; and the other way, too. The Bill goes a long way towards enabling that to happen.
  Frank, one of my closest friends, is a former Polish tank commander. He is in his 80s and drinks the strongest vodka I have ever come across. He is proud of his Polishness and to have been a resident in this country since the end of the second world war: he is proud of both heritages. Much as I am a friend and neighbour of Frank, I am equally, and the Bill goes to prove it, a friend and neighbour of people in Poland, Slovakia and the other countries. That is the ethos behind the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) made a very interesting speech. It was quite a historical speech on the fluidity of European borders and how they have ebbed and flowed across different regions, including into what is now Russia. I agree with him generally. In effect, we are going back to some of our roots—to what Europe was. He made a remark about socialism and the fall of the Berlin wall which I did not entirely agree with. I am happy that democratic socialism continues both in this Parliament and over another border: Offa's dyke in Wales.

  1099
  I am a former business lecturer in higher education. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) drew an interesting analogy when he talked about the expansion of a 1960s company. That analogy was apt. One of the challenges for any big company, whether it be IBM, which went through enormous turmoil, or any other large company that grows and wants to continue being successful, is to redefine itself, to assert its core principles and values as it grows; otherwise, it is in danger of going into lethargy and losing direction.
  Wim Kok, the former Prime Minister of the Netherlands, usefully reasserts what this enlargement is about:
  "If the EU does not move ahead with the reforms and adjustments that enlargement now demands it will miss the chance—perhaps for ever—to make Europe stronger and safer, in the interests of its citizens, its neighbours and the world."
  That is why we must welcome this Bill and the current enlargement.
  I join the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) in hoping that Yugoslavia also makes this transition, albeit in several years' time. However, I take issue with one thing that he said. Hansard will record that he said "even Yugoslavia", but I would say "especially" Yugoslavia and other countries like it. This is not, as some European partners report, a Christian mission or an exclusively western European mission; it is a mission that celebrates the values of diversity and inclusivity, and of equality for workers and for people throughout the European Union. If Turkey is minded to share in those values, for example, we should encourage it. The principle is not "even" Yugoslavia but "especially".
  Wim Kok's words may serve as a mission statement for what we are trying to do, but the aims are certainly well set out in the British Government's explanatory memorandum on the accession treaty. Reference is made to spreading European values, standards and norms, but what are they? The values that all of us within the European Union consider important, I hope, are equality, human rights, environmental sustainability, and diversity and tolerance. We should welcome all those who want to join this club. This Bill is important, slim though it is, because of what it will enable us to move towards.
  The Bill is also good because it will enable partners that fall down, particularly those that are coming on board with the project, to step up a gear. If our friends fall down, we will offer them encouragement and support in terms of equality, working conditions and trade standards—whether in farming or manufacturing—and assist them in raising their standards.
  The second aspect of the Government's explanatory memorandum concerns the larger single market. Companies such as Sony and Ford, which are in my constituency and the neighbouring constituency of Bridgend, can see the benefits of the larger single market as described through this prime aim. They are also looking forward to the day—I shall allude to this point only briefly—when we have clarity of purpose and set out when we are going to enter the euro. That is vital, and farmers in my constituency are sending the same message. Whatever happens in the next couple of weeks, we need a clear steer, on principle, as to what we should be doing, with no ambiguity.
  1100
  In an erudite and well informed speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli—I am no economist, but he has a background in economics—pointed out that in the early stages of enlargement, there may be a shake-out economically and some challenges ahead for our economies. I agree, but in essence what we are doing is putting a bigger engine in the car. Although we may have initial problems, if we can re-engineer the engine successfully—the Convention plays a primary role in this—we will go further and faster, thanks to the Bill.
  The third aspect of this re-engineering is tackling global issues such as migration, organised crime, drug trafficking, the iniquities of people smuggling, and co-operation on policing and border controls. Everything in the Bill has to do with setting out clearly the direction that we want to continue in as sovereign nations within the European Community.
  In classic business strategy, how do we get from where we are now to where we want to be? This is where the Convention comes in. Many have commented that three quarters of the Convention is already in place in the various treaties, but other aspects are currently under discussion. There are those who are calling for a referendum now, but how do we know what to have a referendum on, until matters have been finalised at the intergovernmental conference?
  Next, if the IGC shows that we are essentially talking about the same things, and pulling together what is already in place, what should a referendum be about if not the Eurosceptic argument that the whole thing should be chucked out? People who want that can put their arguments in an honest way, but we must wait and see what is on offer. I have faith in the Government's approach, and feel no need to call for a referendum, as I believe that one will not be necessary when we see what the IGC conference has achieved.
  Another aspect is the impact on influence. The Convention is essential, but big-tent politics is very important. It is better to be in the tent than outside it— and hon. Members will recognise that as an abbreviated version of that dictum.
  I know that other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall make only a very brief comment on the euro. Today's Financial Times reported that existing eurozone members are arguing persuasively that greater control of decision making should be reserved for them alone. That is another good reason why we need a very strong steer for euro entry as soon as possible.
  Finally, the Bill is a small footnote, in terms of size, but it will write massive chapters in Europe's history. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) that the expansion of the EU is not artificial but a reconnection with history. I hope that most Conservative Members would agree with that, given their affinity for history, tradition and so on.
  I am a Welshman, a British citizen and a European. I support the Bill, and the wider project to enable sovereign nation states working collectively to ensure that the lives of their citizens—European citizens and, because of our actions, citizens of the world—are better and more secure.
  5.46 pm
  Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: I begin by declaring an interest. I recently took part in a British-Polish parliamentary group visit to Poland, in part paid for by the Polish Parliament.
  I was very encouraged when, at the beginning of the debate, the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), said that the Opposition would support the Bill. It was such a pleasure to hear the Opposition say anything positive about something that has come out of the European institutions. It is a pity, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman's constructive comments about the Bill were spoiled by his Jekyll and Hyde transformation. I would not say that he became a raving Eurosceptic, as the right hon. Gentleman does not do raving, but he certainly became a mildly synthetically excited Eurosceptic, and felt that he had to include, at the beginning and end of his speech, the compulsory diatribe against the European Convention and all its works, and the dreaded threat of a European superstate.
  The fact that the shadow Foreign Secretary felt that he had to include that sort of diatribe shows that, at the heart of the Conservative party leadership, there is a grudging approach to Britain's membership of the EU. There is no point in giving us lots of enthusiasm about Europe in general when the Conservative party's approach to playing an active role in the EU is at best grudging.
  The danger for this country of the Opposition's approach is that it risks removing the possibility that Britain can enjoy the full benefits arising out of EU enlargement and the accession of 10 new member states. As has been noted already, the potential new market in those new members states is immense. Some depressing and discouraging comments have been made, to the effect that the GDP of each accession state is much smaller than the European average. Of course it is, but we should not be worried about the one or two economic blips that may have taken place in those states in recent times. We should remember the situation as it was 10, 20 or 30 years ago. Anyone who has visited countries in central and eastern Europe will have seen that, for the most part, their economies have been amazingly transformed. We must realise what those countries have achieved and the great potential that awaits us if we take advantage of those markets. We must also realise how much we will lose if we adopt a grudging approach to the potential that those markets represent.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are tremendous possibilities for regions such as the north-east, which relies on exports, and whose 76 per cent. of exports are to the European Community? Expansion to new markets in eastern Europe will give a big boost to such regional economies.
  Mr. Lazarowicz: Indeed. The benefits in my hon. Friend's area will be shared throughout the country, if we take a positive approach to enlargement, rather than the grudging approach in some quarters of the House.
  As well as the possible economic and employment benefits, the UK will gain new allies in the diplomatic and political world and in the decisions that will have to be taken on future European development. The situation in Europe is fluid. We can play a leading role in Europe and increase our country's influence, if we get in there and take an active part.
  1102
  The danger in the position held by the Conservatives is that in attempting to whip up anti-European hysteria they affect the attitude of British people towards the EU in general. As a result, we shall fail fully to take our opportunities. Nobody is against robust debate. The issues are important and I do not object to anyone putting forward their strongly held views as effectively as they can. However, robust debate is one thing; anti-European hysteria is another. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Devizes cannot believe half the guff a bout the European Convention that he has to come out with, so perhaps he should privately tell his leader that the anti-Europeanism that they are attempting to whip up is actually extremely damaging to this country's interests. They should stop doing it if they are interested in the employment prospects and the economy in both our country and the rest of Europe.
  Angus Robertson: The hon. Gentleman makes a persuasive case for "our country" being involved directly in Europe, for "our country" playing its part, together with central and eastern European countries. By what date would he like to see our country have the full normal status of independence so that we can join our friends and neighbours from central and eastern Europe?
  Mr. Lazarowicz: Our nation, as part of the UK, has the benefit of being one of the large member states of the EU. We should not have that advantage if we were having to negotiate to join the EU, which would be a consequence of the independence that the Scottish National party wants to foist on us.
  The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) made eloquent reference to an issue that was also discussed during the visit to which I referred when I began my speech, and which raises important questions for the UK, for the Government and for members of all parties. Where will the accession process go after the current round of accessions? Although, from our perspective on the north-western edge of the EU, Bialystok is a long way from Bristol, Riga is a long way from the Rhondda and Szczecin is a long way from Stirling, areas on the eastern edge of the new Europe naturally will not see the boundary that will then be formed between the EU and the countries to their east as the final border of the EU.
  When we talk to parliamentarians in those countries, they ask when countries such as the Ukraine and, under different leadership, Belarus, will join the European Union. It may seem to those of us who are only just getting used to the idea of the accession of 10, and then three, new member states that such questions can be left until a later date, but we have to decide on our approach to the large countries further to the east as the EU expands. Are we going to open the door to those countries, close the door, or put them into a limbo state for the foreseeable future?
  Turkey has been mentioned and I would certainly like to see its membership of the European Union coming forward at an early date. We should recognise that Turkey has been placed in a difficult position for decades: for many years it was effectively strung along with the prospect of EU membership, which became a real prospect only recently. The certain way to cause resentment among the states to the east of the new

  1103
  expanded European Union is to string them along as well and give them no proper idea of their future relationship to the EU. It may be impossible for some of those states to join. As the hon. Member for Henley suggested, the idea of incorporating Vladivostok in the European Union seems far-fetched, but these are important issues and it is important to raise them in tonight's debate.
  Our current debate may be preoccupied with accession, the Convention and possible membership of the euro, but the future direction of the European Union is crucial and it will confront us soon after the new, countries join in the next couple of years. I would welcome clarification of the Government's views on that matter. We will have to deal with it in future, but it is better to start the debate now rather than wait for it to hit us by surprise a few years hence.
  5.56 pm
  Mr. Hugo Swire: I apologise for my absence earlier, having been detained on the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. I was able to hear the start of the debate, and it is continuing much along the same lines, but I apologise if I repeat any points made by my hon. Friends.
  We are debating this evening a small, two-clause Bill, which deals with the accession treaty and freedom of movement for workers, but it is impossible not to stray—many hon. Members already have—on to the wider issues of the Convention and the euro. I warmly welcome the accession countries. I have always believed that the EU should be expanded to include aspirant countries, particularly those that recently threw off their communist yoke. It is vital for them to continue to enjoy their new-found independence, their freedom and their right to share in the greater prosperity of a greater Europe. It is also vital that an enlarged Europe develops in a flexible and decentralised way with emphasis on a genuine partnership of European states, rather than a bureaucratic and centralised state run from the top down.
  I am concerned about the problems of accession countries, with their different economies, some of which are only just coming to terms with free markets. Having lived for almost two years in Berlin during the cold war, I well remember seeing life there—on both sides of the wall. I returned after the wall had come down. I believe that some of Germany's present economic difficulties are a result of the over-generosity of the then German Chancellor in swapping 1 Deutschmark for 1 Ostmark. Some of the problems encountered by modern-day Germany are the result of East Germany not having been integrated fully into the more prosperous West Germany.
  The Minister recently told Le Figaro Magazine in an interview on 26 April that "today" the European economy, by which he meant the 15 member states,
  "produces 20 per cent. less than the US economy…According to economists at the Foreign Office by 2010 the European economy will produce 40 per cent. less than the US economy".
  In other words, given the same rate of growth, the US economy by 2020 will be more than twice as big as the EU economy, and by 2050 it will be almost four times
  1104
  as big. So it would take a leap of faith to believe that an enlarged EU would be as competitive as the US, for the foreseeable future at least.
  Mr. MacShane: I make that point constantly as a wake-up call to Europe. The figures are serious, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) quoted a report that I have also cited. This is the time for Europe to get back to work and down to business.
  Mr. Swire: I fully agree with the Minister, but I am trying to point out some of the problems faced by some of the accession countries. It is as wise for them to be aware of the problem as it is for the existing member states to be aware of it.
  The current 15 member states all enjoy roughly comparable living standards and basic rates of GDP. However, figures from 2001 show that Poland, Slovakia, Lithuania, Latvia, Hungary and Estonia all have a GDP per capita of under €5,000, compared with an average GDP figure for current EU members of €22,280. I am not trying to scaremonger. A report from the Commission, entitled "The Impact of Eastern Enlargement on Employment and Labour Markets in the EU Member States", highlighted the economic difficulties and concluded:
  "Any realistic policy scenario has to acknowledge that large income differentials will most likely persist for decades rather than for years."
  This afternoon at Prime Minister's Question Time, the Prime Minister spoke about immigration and the granting of work permits, especially for those in the information technology sector. Movement of labour in the existing EU has worked well to date—on the whole—but in an enlarged EU, without as many border controls, it could become a problem. This afternoon, the Foreign Secretary mentioned the issue of Spain and Portugal in the 1980s in an attempt to allay our fears. However, the numbers of which he was talking pale into insignificance against those for Poland, for example, which currently has an unemployment rate of 20.2 per cent., which means 3.7 million people. That is only 900,000 fewer than Germany itself has.
  Professor Piachaud, professor of social policy at the London School of Economics, has questioned the Commission's estimate that 350,000 immigrants would leave their homes to come to their more prosperous neighbours. He thinks that the real figure could be of the order of millions.
  Dr. Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman cites the current unemployment rate in Poland, but can he tell the House what the unemployment rate and level of economic activity were in Poland 10 years ago? Does he consider that the trajectory that might thus become apparent might cause him to come to different conclusions from those he has reached?
  Mr. Swire: The hon. Gentleman makes a tempting offer, but I shall not pursue that topic, given the time restrictions. I was not seeking to raise the issue of unemployment in Poland, other than to show that there are a large number of people who might seek to move elsewhere within the enlarged EU in order to gain employment.

  1105
  What assessment have the Government made of the impact of labour migration between member states following the accession of 10 new member states? If fears of mass immigration are overplayed, as the hon. Gentleman has just suggested, and the Commission is right that immigration will have little impact on wage costs in the existing member states, why have 10 member states—including France, Germany and Spain—retained the right to close their borders to workers from the accession states?
  A consensus has emerged in the House this afternoon that fundamental reform of the EU—not least, the common agricultural policy—is necessary. The political sentiment towards bringing the accession countries into a wider EU is understandable and reflects the changing world and a post-socialist eastern bloc. However, we would do no favours to the existing member states or to the accession states if we did not separate the political sentiment from the economic reality. It was disingenuous, mischievous and misleading of the Prime Minister to claim that those of us who want a referendum are against enlargement. The claim that a no vote would scupper enlargement is clearly not true. Many people simply cannot understand why the Government will not trust the British people with a referendum, particularly after what has happened on the Convention. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) lucidly said, all existing treaties will be repealed. I do not support the bland statement of the Secretary of State for Wales that this is all about a little local tidying up. The right hon. Gentleman's view is not borne out by the decision of 71 of 108 Convention members—not just little Englanders or Eurosceptics—from 25 countries who, by 7 May, had signed a demand that the constitution should be ratified by referendums throughout EU member states on the same day as elections for the European Parliament next June.
  For many people, it is quite extraordinary that the Prime Minister should argue that referendums are not in the British tradition when his Government have held more of them than any other Government in history. In a speech to the 1995 Labour Party conference, he said:
  "Of course, if there are further steps towards integration, people should have their say either at a general election or in a referendum".
  The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) said this afternoon that the Bill was a slim one but would have massive consequences. He is right, and what he says is true of the Convention as well. It will have huge constitutional consequences for this country, and the people must be allowed to have their say.
  6.6 pm
  Dr. Alan Whitehead: I ask the House to note that I have registered my interest as a member of the British-Polish parliamentary group, and was recently a guest of the Polish-British group in the Polish Sejm. I have visited Poland many times including, on occasion, before the fall of communism. In the light of my experience and what I have observed taking place in Poland over a long period, this afternoon's debate, subject to the passage of the Fireworks Bill, ought to be
  1106
  characterised by the letting off of fireworks. This slim Bill represents something incredibly important, as it redefines Europe after 40 or 50 years in which the textbooks described a Europe one talked about and a Europe one did not talk about—the one on the other side of the iron curtain. The imminent accession to the EU of Poland and the other countries that were on the wrong side in the geography that one did not discuss is a cause for great celebration. I warmly welcome that and support the Bill in its passage through the House.
  Joyce Quin: Does my hon. Friend recollect that in the past some people objected to the European Union because it only represented part of the European continent? One cause for celebration today is the fact that it will now embrace the whole continent, which we should get politically excited about. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to take that message from Parliament to the nations and regions of the UK in the months ahead?
  Dr. Whitehead: My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. She will be interested to know that in the Polish referendum the key phrase of the yes campaign was "Yestem Europielski", which means "I am a European." That is at the heart of what is now happening in countries that were formerly part of the communist bloc.
  I am rather saddened to hear, however, that those who express less than complete enthusiasm for such a move sometimes characterise those states as static countries, with economies that will drag down the EU, t hat will cause nothing but problems if their accession is agreed to. Of course such comments are not put quite like that in a lot of discussions, but that is the underlying import of what is said.
  I visited Poland just after the fall of communism, when inflation was about 600 per cent., unemployment was overwhelming, industry had almost completely disappeared and there was nothing to buy in the shops even if people had the money. I have here a 10 zloty note. At that time, 100 zloty was worth about thruppence and, indeed, the second time I went, it was worth about tuppence, but it is now worth about £1.60, as the Poles have reorganised their currency.
  We should take into account the tremendous strides in economic development made by the EU accession countries, particularly the former communist countries of central Europe, during the accession process. That seems to be a guarantee that we should not consider static figures. Those countries will be a great benefit to the EU and to our labour markets, trade and the partnerships that will develop in a different form of decision making in the EU. Therefore, it is not right to suggest that those countries are not ready to join and that they will be a problem.
  Those countries, particularly Poland, have also made that change partly as a result of the concentration on changing the way that they work by incorporating the acquis communautaire into their own legislation. As other hon. Members have said this afternoon, that has been the process whereby those countries have shaped their economies and how their societies work in the knowledge that that is a European way forward, and those countries have benefited thereby.

  1107
  It has been said that millions of people in caravans will suddenly start to move across Europe. Frankly, that is a myth, and it is important to note the work that countries such as Poland have done on the common borders of Europe, as part of the acquis communautaire. Indeed, they have dealt with issues such as the borders with Belarus, and there have been intense negotiations with Lithuania on the borders and the transition and visa arrangements with Kaliningrad.
  All of that is important not just for Poland and Lithuania, but for the whole of Europe. As other hon. Members have said, by acceding, those countries have done a very good job of ensuring that the movement of labour, immigration and determining who can go into which country in what circumstances are European issues, not just issues that start at Dover.
  Keith Vaz: I was in Poland last weekend, where there was tremendous praise for our Government's position in allowing the free movement of people and criticism of what the Germans have done, so those on the other side of the argument have nothing to fear from the decision that is being taken.
  Dr. Whitehead: My hon. Friend makes an important point, because the truth of the matter is that, yes, people from central and eastern Europe have worked in the EU, sometimes with work permits and sometimes illegally. The force of the argument for accession is that a highly educated and skilled work force will be harnessed in the EU, legally, within EU rules and on the basis of those countries assisting in the process of ensuring that people comply with those rules and, as I have already illustrated, that the EU's common borders are properly organised, so that those rules are maintained. It seems to me that that is a benefit to the EU, and we should similarly give full acknowledgement and praise to Poland and other EU accession countries for working so hard as part of the accession process.
  Taking all that into account, what a message this country would send, as a good friend of Poland and other EU accession countries— as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) pointed out, we are regarded highly by those countries as such—if by code or directly we sought to subvert the changes in the EU that are necessary to make that accession work Whatever arguments may be expressed in this Chamber, I fear that at the root of a number of those arguments about the Convention on the Future of Europe is a thought that if Europe does not work well, and accession therefore does not work, and if Europe is seen to be creaking, that is one further step along the road to the imagined nirvana of disentangling Britain from Europe and taking Britain out. Not all those who express concerns about the Convention believe that, but I am afraid that some do. Far too many, I am afraid, are suggesting that that is a covert way forward to nullify., effectively, what we should be celebrating today. If that message is sent to our friends in central and eastern Europe, it will be to the detriment of this country, to the detriment of the future of the EU, and to the detriment of the accession that I hope that all in this Chamber will strongly support.
  6.16 pm
  Mr. Andrew Tyrie: First, I want to say a few words about the state of the EU at the moment. Secondly, I want to ask why the accession countries are so keen to join. Thirdly, I want to ask why so many existing EU members desperately tried to prevent them from joining. Fourthly, I want to conclude by discussing why we in the House should be supportive.
  The EU is in a dreadful mess. I do not know anyone who has had professional contact with the EU who comes away from it more enamoured of the institution than when they started. That is not surprising: every aspect of the EU is in desperate need of reform. The EU budget is hugely wasteful—much of it should be wound up and is based on spending plans that were designed for another era. Much EU regulation is ineffective or worse, although some of it is valuable, and it is important not to discard all of it. The acquis communautaire now needs fundamental review, which the Convention has failed to achieve. The level of trade protection, too, is unacceptably high, although, of course, the Americans have a mote in their own eye on that. The decision-making structures are leaving electorates further and further away from an important centre of power.
  The EU is in drastic need of reform. A large proportion of hon. Members agree broadly on the agenda to deal with it. We want a looser EU with the supranational element stripped out. We want the application of subsidiarity, or whatever one wants to call it. We want much greater scrutiny of EU activity by national Parliaments. Few in this country believe that we could rely on the countries of continental Europe for our security and defence—those must remain fundamentally a function of the Atlantic alliance.
  As for my second question, if the EU is in such a mess, why on earth are all these countries queuing up to join? The answer is that for them, membership of the EU is a means of expressing their sovereign independence. It is the clearest demonstration of their new-found freedom as countries. It is the exact opposite of the motivations that led 50 years ago to the creation of the EU by the founding fathers, who wanted to put together France and Germany and, above all, put Germany into a supranational environment in which it could no longer destabilise the whole continent of Europe. That is why enlargement creates a fundamental contradiction if the goals and objectives of eastern Europe are compared with those of several of the founding members of the EU. That problem remains unresolved and must be played out in the years ahead.
  I got to know the countries of eastern Europe well during the five years in which I worked there. They are driven by fierce national pride. The Czechs, Hungarians and Poles have a strong sense of identity and will have no truck with the superstate rhetoric that occasionally seeps out from the Benelux countries and especially Rome. Of course, there are other motives behind the countries' decision to join but it would be wrong to suppose that their motivation is entirely, or even largely, economic. They are not merely engaged in some intergovernmental business deal. If anything, their economic motives for joining are negative rather than positive. They are fearful of being excluded from a rich western club on their doorstep rather than wildly optimistic about the economic opportunities afforded by membership.

  1109
  My third question is, why did the French, especially, and several of the other original six members fight so vigorously to prevent enlargement? The short answer is that it would heavily dilute France's main national interest in creating the European Economic Community—as it then was—in the beginning. The French have always thought of the EU as an opportunity to exercise disproportionate influence by acting as a guiding force on the Franco-German alliance. The Gaullist tradition is still strong in French foreign policy making. De Gaulle said of the then EEC:
  "Europe is a coach and horses. Germany is the coach. France is the coachman."
  He would certainly have opposed enlargement today.
  However, French foreign policy is in great difficulty. As enlargement dilutes the decision-making structure, France will find that the reins will be snatched from its grasp. The supranational alternative that several Benelux countries and especially the Italians are offering in the intergovernmental conference is equally unpalatable to France. As the Foreign Secretary said, the French will never be prepared to share their privileged representation at the United Nations Security Council and other institutions with EU institutions as a whole. I have little doubt that the French will be drawn back to a more intergovernmental approach and, indeed, that is already happening. Ironically, that approach will suit our interests more than the retention of the Franco-German alliance, which has been the basis of France's foreign policy in the EU for so long.
  My last question is, why should we want the accession countries to join? Our first and overriding objective is the moral imperative to which the Foreign Secretary alluded at the start of his speech. We owe them membership. These countries were out in the cold for half a century after the second world war and paid a huge price. While we revived, they stayed in a desperate position as prisoners of state socialism. The moral imperative has not gone away and is felt more deeply in those countries than here.
  These countries think that there will be mutual economic gains, as do we, which is a further incentive for us to encourage their accession. Enlargement will make it more difficult for the EU to develop into a superstate because most of the applicant countries are so strongly against that. A further important reason why the countries should join is because it will enhance the democratic stability of central Europe in the same way as has happened in the Iberian peninsula.
  It is a great scandal that it has taken 15 years to accomplish enlargement. We are lucky that eastern European countries have made such a successful transition to democracy and have become largely market economies.
  It might have been very different. We did far too little to help. The delay of 15 years has almost certainly carried a price. What effect might starting negotiations in the early 1990s with Slovenia have had on the development of the Balkan crisis? What effect would that have had on the Balkan countries if they had thought that if they could just get their act together they might get early entry into the EU? What effect has the delay of 15 years had on developments in Ukraine?
  1110
  Ukraine has scarcely started to make progress, or is only at a very early stage down the road, towards transition. Perhaps that is partly because Poland is not already a member of the EU. If Poland had been a member of the EU seven or eight years ago, Ukrainians would have been looking across the border. They would have been saying, "There is an opportunity for us, too." It would have become a major issue in Ukrainian politics. It is not at the moment.
  There has been a great opportunity cost of not accelerating enlargement. Those who drag their feet on enlargement carry responsibility for some of the present problems in central and eastern Europe, and much more than they are prepared to admit. A narrow conception of the national interests among some of the original six certainly did a great deal of damage.
  It will astonish historians that the EU, led mostly by the original six, carried on plodding away with the same Maastricht agenda and the drive towards monetary union after the liberation of eastern Europe's eastern half that it was devising before the collapse of the Berlin wall. That was myopia on a grand scale. It was a colossal abdication of leadership from which we are lucky to have escaped without paying a much greater price.
  I strongly support the Bill. I am conscious that it should have come before the House much earlier. It probably should have come before the House before I became a Member in 1997. I shall vote for it tonight with great enthusiasm if I get the opportunity to do so.
  6.27 pm
  Mr. Wayne David: I shall be very brief. A few weeks ago, I and my hon. Friend Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) had the privilege of visiting Poland for the purpose of speaking to pupils in a number of schools. I visited two, one in Warsaw and the other in Piecki, which is north of Warsaw. Our purpose was to tell young people about the situation as it is and to explain to them what the EU is all about, and that we did.
  What I found most rewarding was listening to what the young people had to say to me about their vision of Poland and of the EU. It was interesting that they hardly mentioned the reform of the common agricultural policy and the stability and growth pact. Instead, they mentioned the opportunities that they saw the EU offering them as young people. They saw the EU offering them the chance to study abroad. They saw new opportunities for travel across the European continent. They also saw the chance, if they so wished, to work in other European countries. They also said that they had a vision of Poland in the new Europe. They were proud of being Polish. They had an understanding of Poland's history and its bitter past. They wanted Poland to develop as an independent sovereign state. They recognised that the EU was not a threat to that ideal, but a chance to fulfil it in its entirety.
  Those school children saw Europe as a Union of states that was not in contradistinction to the United States but an entity that would work in partnership with the US. That was extremely important. Above all else, they saw the EU as a way of achieving long-term sustainable peace and prosperity for their country and their continent.
  I left Poland with a great sense of humbleness but also one of inspiration. I spent my time on the plane returning to the UK thinking long and hard about what

  1111
  young people had had to say to me about their country and our continent of Europe. I suggest that when we cast our votes this evening, if we do so, we should think long and hard about what those young people had to say.
  6.29 pm
  Mr. Richard Spring: I am pleased to welcome the Bill and support its primary aim. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) said earlier, we have always supported EU enlargement. During the debate we heard a number of thoughtful and well thought-out speeches from both sides of the House.
  It is a special and joyful moment when we can welcome 10 more European nations into the European Union. As the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) observed, there are two fellow Commonwealth members joining—Cyprus and Malta. For them we feel a special kinship. Eight countries formerly dominated by the Soviet Union are becoming members of the EU. The old division of Europe imposed by Stalin has now truly gone, and we have the potential to work together as partners in building a more prosperous and stable Europe. In three years' time, I hope that we shall all be voting on an accession Bill to let Romania and Bulgaria into the EU as well.
  Let no one make a mistake. Those countries want to join the EU as equals. They want to look to the future and see a true partnership. That is why we continue to press the Government to show leadership to secure full rights for the accession countries at next year's IGC. I make this point to the Minister: the accession countries become full members only on I May. If the Convention begins later this year, or earlier in 2004, decisions may well be made before 1 May over which they cannot exercise a vote or a veto. I pass on to the Minister from the accession countries the clear aspiration that has been expressed so many times to my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes and to me that that should be recognised.
  The threads of the Bill go back well into the 1980s. We can remind ourselves, as was freely acknowledged by the Foreign Secretary, that it was British Ministers who, when visiting eastern Europe, made contact with dissident groups, made specific public pronouncements and spoke out in defence of freedom, often to the fury of their communist hosts. Additionally, it was the then Government who took important defence and foreign policy decisions that helped to outface the Soviet Union. They did so in the teeth of violent opposition, both in and out of Parliament. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), I take pride in the fact that it was a Conservative Government who faced up squarely to the most important geopolitical challenge of the time.
  When the Berlin wall came down—I echo the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) about that—it opened up the possibility of the freedoms that we all take for granted. For the former communist countries in particular, the Bill is effectively the final act in their being embraced into the European family of democratic nations. Thus the expansion of the European Union is not only right politically, and not only beneficial economically; in my personal view, it is a moral obligation as well.
  1112
  To have enabled millions of our fellow Europeans to breathe free goes to the heart of what I and my parliamentary colleagues believe in. Furthermore, Members of Parliament of different parties can take pride in the fact that there is not one of us, to my knowledge, who has opposed expansion, and nor have the British public. That is virtually unique anywhere in the European Union.
  There is, however, one disappointment in the Bill: that Cyprus will not be joining as a united island. Recent events there give us hope that its two peoples are seeking reconciliation. We must also hope that that will lead to a political settlement, bringing into being a united Cyprus. The extraordinary examples of friendliness and lack of rancour between the two groups on the island when they have recently been allowed to meet was moving. I can only hope that it pushes those who resist full reconciliation on to a new and different point of view.
  The accession countries will benefit from and add to the size and opportunities of the European single market, but they also need structural funds. Both will be of significant benefit to them, and their membership and access to their markets will, in turn, be of benefit to us. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) pointed out, too much structural funding is devoted to subsidising countries for which European handouts were a hand up out of their economic ills. Many such countries have surmounted the difficulties and no longer need those funds, but the new members do. When I visited Poland last year, I was impressed by the difference that structural funds can make. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David), who is so involved in and committed to the cause of Poland in the European Union. An efficient road network would make it much easier for such countries' products to reach markets economically.
  The EU does not work as it should. It badly needs reform if it is to fulfil the expectations of its constituent peoples in the 21st century. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) made that exact point. If we asked people on, for example, Oxford street, the Champs Elysées or the Charles bridge what they wanted from the EU, they would of course reply the stability that it has fostered, but perhaps two further main aspirations would emerge.
  First, people want a sense of ownership of the European Union arid its institutions. I am pleased that the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) has committed his party to a referendum if the IGC produces a constitution that has a significant impact on this country. We believe that that will happen. I point out to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) that several other European countries that are not constitutionally required to have referendums on such an issue have committed themselves—or are likely to do so—to a referendum, because of the importance of the potential changes at the IGC.
  Mr. Tom Harris: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the Conservative Government should have held a referendum on Maastricht simply because the French did so?
  Mr. Spring: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) pointed out, the most

  1113
  important issue in Maastricht was probably the single currency and the opt-out, which the people of this country greatly value. The vast majority want to keep the pound. If a referendum is called after all the fighting that is going on in the Government, we, and the overwhelming majority of people, will know how to vote.
  The greatest challenge that faces all democracies is that people feel alienated from the political process. It is tragic that approximately 40 per cent. of the people of this country simply do not vote. The dismal story is repeated in many other countries. People do not believe that they have control over what has an impact on their lives. That applies especially to the EU, with its flow of regulations and directives and seemingly inexorable moves towards greater centralisation, regardless of what people want. If we do not tackle that democratic deficit and reconnect to EU institutions, considerable tension and further alienation will follow.
  Secondly, the people of Europe want jobs and prosperity. Unfortunately, the EU's economic performance has been poor and unemployment is too high. The EU suffers from an outdated, dirigiste and statist view of the dynamics of economic growth. The pursuit of harmonisation and centralisation is its defining characteristic. The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) implied that, and my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) also made that point. Either we embrace economic reform, liberalisation and decentralisation or we shall not be able to face up to the immense demographic challenges that beset our continent. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) made that point. If the enlarged EU is to succeed in the new century, it must concentrate on the new challenges. That is not a small task.
  The much-vaunted Convention on the Future of Europe has sadly failed to deal with the problems. If anything, it has done the opposite and may have compounded them by proposing an EU constitution that takes us in the wrong direction, with all the attendant supranational trappings. I salute my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells for his contribution at the Convention. He correctly chided his fellow Convention member, the Secretary of State for Wales, for disgracefully trivialising the important IGC. It goes well beyond a "tidying-up exercise".
  Those who want a more centralised EU—effectively a political union that might act as a counterweight to the United States; the word "rival" has been used—are not acting in Europe's best interests. The last thing that Europe needs is a greater concentration of power in Brussels. We need not more European presidents but more real power for national Parliaments, giving a real sense of connection between the European Union and the citizens of its member states. The European Union evolved as it has because of a post-war political generation who possess a bloc mentality. It was a response to the horrors of the war that has bedevilled our continent—a point that was made by the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks)—and to the threats from the old Soviet empire. Much of what dominates the debates in the Convention on the Future of Europe arises in response to threats and challenges that simply
  1114
  no longer exist. As recent events have clearly shown, the world has moved on, but much of the thinking in Europe, and regrettably here in London, is frozen in a time warp ill suited to the way in which the world will work in the 21st century, where the aggressive pursuit of harmonisation and centralisation is destructive and indeed irrelevant.
  I suspect that the accession countries will be far less likely to accept the nit-picking and invasive interference in the political and economic lives of member states that is such an unwelcome characteristic of the EU. In view of the many visits that my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes and I have paid to the accession countries and the dozens of meetings that we have had with their representatives, I hope and believe that they will be allies when it becomes obvious that the current and proposed constitutional architecture of the European Union is ill suited to the needs and challenges of the people of Europe. I echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson): we will inevitably have to build a new set of relationships with countries such as Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova, assisted by the considerable knowledge and experience of countries such as Poland and Lithuania. That will require more flexible structures, but the current thrust of thinking in the European Union is that one must accept the acquis communautaire in toto, so we have some fresh thinking to do.
  The Conservative party fully supports the Bill, but List week the Prime Minister asserted that we were opposed to enlargement, which is utterly wrong. I want to quote what the Library has to say on that point. The reason why I dwell on it is that it is incredible for a Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to be so ignorant of the workings of the European Union that he seems to have no clear idea in his mind of what the Convention is there for. The Library's research paper on enlargement says of the Convention that
  "it has not been part of the enlargement process itself. The Prime Minister said in Prime Minister's Questions on 14 May 2003 that the Convention was 'necessary to make the accession work'. The Copenhagen European Council Conclusion stated, perhaps more accurately, that: 'Without reform the Union will not fully reap the benefits of enlargement'. The Convention and its outcome are not prerequisites for accession, the sole legal basis of which is the Accession Treaty"—
  which has already been signed. So much for the Prime Minister's understanding of the structures of the European Union.
  We shall vote for the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Opposition Chief Whip will ensure that we have the opportunity to demonstrate that the Prime Minister had his facts wrong and—inadvertently, no doubt, and wholly out of character, of course—misrepresented the position of the Conservative party. In reiterating our support for the Bill, let me state categorically that I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote aye in the Lobby tonight.
  6.44 pm
  The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): I want to maintain the bipartisan approach that we just heard about. In fact, it is a tripartisan approach, because last week the right hon. Gentleman who speaks on Europe from the Conservative Benches, the right hon. and learned Gentleman who speaks on Europe from the

  1115
  Liberal Democrat Benches and I launched a wall poster on the enlargement of Europe that will be sent to every school. I am sending one to every hon. Member in case they would like to present it themselves to one of their local schools to get over the message that on enlargement the House speaks as one.
  It is also a great pleasure for me personally to wind up this debate on what might be a rather small Bill but which represents a very big moment in the history of Europe, not simply because it happens to be my birthday today—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]—although, as the years go by, I tend to reflect less on birthdays—but because I was born the son of a Polish army officer who was wounded in the 1939 campaign, and who fought through France and arrived in Scotland, where he met my mother. He died when I was very young. It is in "Who's Who"—MacShane is actually my mother's name. I think that the House of Commons will tonight send a clear message of friendship and solidarity to the people of Poland and of all the other countries that will be coming into the European Union. For new EU members, the European Union is a blueprint for freedom, for prosperity and for anchoring their democracy in the great family of nations combined in the Union.
  We have heard some fine speeches today. We have heard from the club of ex-Europe Ministers: the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude); my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz); my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin); and the right hon Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory). At the close of the debate, we had a fine speech from the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), and, in just two or three minutes, some remarkably effective points were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David). I make that point across the House to stress the issues on which we can all agree.
  We have also strayed into the question of the euro and, of course, the question of the Convention. A number of remarkable allegations have been made about the Convention—some that we have read in the papers and others that we have heard in the debate this afternoon. I think that the right hon. Member for Wells said that the European Union was about to abolish trial by jury. I can assure him that that is not the case. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary says that that is a Labour proposition.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I made no such statement What I said was actually the truth—and the Government must start telling the truth—which was that the draft constitution, which is not opposed by the Government, contains a provision for deciding criminal justice procedures by majority voting. Clearly, the draft constitution contains all the provisions for amending our entire common law tradition and merging and converging it with the inquisitorial system on the continent. That is the threat, and such provisions would render completely irrelevant the debates that we have had this week on the Criminal Justice Bill. That was the point that I was making.
  Mr. MacShane: I do not want to get into a polemical exchange with the right hon. Gentleman, but Hansard tomorrow will record a reference by him to trial by jury: "Take it while you've still got it."
  1116
  We have read in the newspapers today that
  "Gordon Brown would be forced to open his annual Budget speech to the House of Commons by stating to MPs that he had cleared its contents with Brussels."
  Let me reassure the House that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor does not even clear the contents of his Budget speech with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson). We also read last week that, under the Convention, Napoleon would replace Nelson at the top of Nelson's column. Well, I think that Nelson should stay there, but if people want someone who did real damage to the British way of life, why not put Margaret Thatcher up there? We have seen the most profound nonsense in the press about this Convention.
  The plain fact is that the Convention will finish its work some time next month. We shall then have a pause for reflection, followed by an intergovernmental conference. Talking about a referendum seems quite nonsensical when we do not actually know what we would be having a referendum on.
  Mr. Maude rose—
  Mr. MacShane: May I just finish this point?
  We heard a remarkable speech by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor), who, like me, is an idealistic pro-European. He recalled that, during the debate on the Maastricht treaty, he was set about by a Conservative Whip and told to come into the House to make a speech because some "nutter" was calling for a referendum. That nutter is now the Leader of the Conservative party; we checked up on that.
  The shadow Foreign Secretary was asked why he so adamantly opposed a referendum when he was a member of the Conservative Government, but is now in favour of one. He said that times had changed. It is not the times that have changed, but his party, which is now committed to a policy on which I again quote the leader of the Conservative party:
  "I welcome everything that moves us closer to the point where we can say 'No' on Europe".
  That statement appeared in The Irish Times in 1997. Opposition Members will say that that was six years ago, but do any of them believe that it is not the position of the leader of the Conservative party to move closer to a point at which we can say no to Europe? As the shadow Attorney-General so eloquently put it at the same time:
  "We would prefer it if the EU did not exist".
  More recently, only last year, the leader of the Conservative party said:
  "I think that the whole European project will fail…If you ask me whether, at heart, I am a withdrawer, it depends on who is withdrawing from what."
  Mr. Maude: I am sorry that the Minister is somewhat trivialising what has been a serious and non-partisan debate. Will he now address the specific point that has been raised several times? If the IGC starts before the accession countries join the EU, will those countries be able to take part fully in every stage of the IGC? Will they be able to do so no matter when it starts?
  Mr. MacShane: The answer is yes. That has been said three times from the Dispatch Box. The trivialization

  1117
  lies in the fact that a debate on EU accession that should have been wholly bipartisan was turned into a lengthy disquisition in which what is said in the flowing rivers of the Daily Mail and The Sun has been repeated from the Opposition Benches. I am disappointed about the new axis for popular plebiscites between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative party. I hope that the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) will reflect on whether his party now wants to call for a referendum on the IGC when we will certainly not, I expect, know the final contents this year or even next year.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: If the final form of the proposals is unknown, is it not entirely sensible to keep open the possibility of holding a referendum if constitutional issues are raised?
  Mr. MacShane: The right hon. and learned Gentleman, who is one of the most distinguished contributors on foreign affairs in the House and a staunch pro-European, knows full well that the campaign for a referendum, about which we have heard all the clichés this afternoon, is actually about withdrawing from Europe, as the leader of the Conservative party has constantly made clear.
  I now wish to address some of the points that have been made. My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, asked what we were doing to promote enlargement. With the help and support of the CBI, the British Chambers of Commerce, the TUC and other Ministers—I will welcome any hon. Members who wish to take part—I will visit some 100 UK towns and cities in the coming months to promote the benefits of enlargement. I leave tonight on the sleeper to Edinburgh.
  Mr. Spring: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Will he be kind enough to respond directly and clearly to my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude)? The fact is that, until 1 May, the accession countries will not be full members of the EU. If the IGC is under way at that time, having started towards the end of this year and the beginning of next year, and issues are brought up for consideration, those countries will not have the right of prevention by veto under the current arrangements. That is the point that we are trying to make. We are trying to extend that facility and I am amazed that those on the Government Front Bench do not understand that.
  Mr. MacShane: Perhaps one of the distinguished former Ministers on the Opposition Benches who dealt with European matters could take the hon. Gentleman to one side and explain that the IGC does not vote on proposals line by line. It debates and discusses, and it is in the closing stages that one gets to what one calls vetoes. Those closing stages, in the sense of the ratification and signing of the treaty, will not take place until after I May next year, when the incoming states are full members. This is the fifth time that that has been placed on the record.
  Mr. Maude: What the Minister is saying now is rather different from what he said to me a moment ago. He now
  1118
  seems to be saying that the accession countries will not be able to take part in the IGC until after 1 May, but that it will not matter because the decisions will not be made until then. Is he absolutely clear about the fact that, from day one of the IGC, the accession countries will be full participating members with a veto and ability to take part in all negotiations?
  Mr. MacShane: I repeat for the sixth time what the Foreign Secretary said, and what has been made clear in public declarations by the European Union. The incoming states will be full participating members of the IGC when it begins. There is debate about how long the IGC will continue, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the incoming states will be full participants.
  Another important issue that is certain to be discussed in Committee is raised in clause 2. I refer to the free movement of workers. Once the 10 new member states are full members of the EU, all EU citizens will be able to travel freely. People will come and go as they please. Those who want to work here must have jobs to go to.
  We have taken a more liberal approach than that of Germany and France. I was surprised by what I thought were suggestions from some Members that we should adopt a more illiberal regime, and clog up our labour markets with yet more red tape by demanding individual work permits and permissions, requiring lots of paperwork, for EU citizens who can find jobs here. I think that this will be good for the United Kingdom. It means that people who are currently working here, perhaps on an undocumented basis—to use the American term—will have full legal status. Equally, the 10 incoming member states will have to abide by health and safety and environmental rules—to abide by the famous acquis communautaire, including the social chapter. I hope that that will help to raise wages and develop the internal demand economies in the incoming countries.
  It has been suggested that the foreign policy of the incoming countries is likely to be much closer to ours. I welcome that. All the discussions I have had suggest that Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary will prove strong partners in respect of our approach to the great foreign policy issues of the day. I think that the Europe of 25 will want to be a strong partner of the United States rather than, as some have suggested, an opposing pole.
  We heard a remarkable, bravura speech from the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson), who referred to the rape of Europa, Procrustean beds and Herodotus, and made other Greek allusions. But he too ended with the demand for a plebiscite now with regard to the proposals discussed at the Convention, of which we possess no details.
  When the House is united in sending a message to our friends in Latvia and Estonia and the Commonwealth countries of Malta and Cyprus that will join us in the European Union, once again we hear among the London elite and the ranks of the Conservative party the rising whine of anti-Europeanism. That strikes me as very irresponsible. I hope that we can bury that, because it is in the House of Commons that these issues will be debated.

  1119
  There will be a vote on Europe. There will be a vole next year in the European Parliament, in due course there will be a vote on the referendum on the euro, and the most important vote of all will take place in a general election in the next two or possibly three years.
  Let me say again to the House, and to the people of eastern Europe, that the party that will win the next general election will be the party that is in favour of Europe, the party that is in favour of enlargement, and the party that is in favour of a strong European Union. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 491, Noes 0.

  Division No. 212]

  [6:59 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Brennan, Kevin

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Ainger, Nick

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Browne, Desmond

  Allan, Richard

  Bryant, Chris

  Allen, Graham

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Amess, David

  Burgon, Colin

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Burnett, John

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Burnham, Andy

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Burns, Simon

  Burnside, David

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Burstow, Paul

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Burt, Alistair

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Butterfill, John

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Austin, John

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Bailey, Adrian

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Baird, Vera

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Baldry, Tony

  Cameron, David

  Banks, Tony

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Barker, Gregory

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

  Barnes, Harry

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Barrett, John

  Casale, Roger

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Cash, William

  Battle, John

  Caton, Martin

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Beard, Nigel

  Challen, Colin

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Bellingham, Henry

  Chaytor, David

  Benn, Hilary

  Chidgey, David

  Bennett, Andrew

  Chope, Christopher

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Clapham, Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Clappison, James

  Berry, Roger

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Best, Harold

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Belts, Clive

  Blackman, Liz

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Blunt, Crispin

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Borrow, David

  Clelland, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Cohen, Harry

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Collins, Tim

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Colman, Tony

  Brady, Graham

  Connarty, Michael

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Conway, Derek

  Brazier, Julian

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Breed, Colin

  Cooper, Yvette

  1120

  Corston, Jean

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Cotter, Brian

  Grayling, Chris

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Crausby, David

  Grieve, Dominic

  Cruddas, Jon

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

  Grogan John

  Gummer, rh John

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Hain rh peter

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Curry, rh David

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Hammond, Philip

  David, Wayne

  Hancock, Mike

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Hanson, David

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Hawkins, Nick

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Healey, John

  Dismore, Andrew

  Heath, David

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Doran, Frank

  Hendrick, Mark

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Hendry Charles

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Heppell, John

  Duncan Peter (Galloway)

  Hermon, Lady

  Duncan Smith, rh lain

  Hesford, Stephen

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)

  Heyes, David

  Edwards, Huw

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Hinchliffe, David

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Etherington, Bill

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Evans, Nigel

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Fallon, Michael

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Howard, rh Michael

  Fisher, Mark

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Hughes, Beverly (Stretford & Urmston)

  Flight, Howard

  Flint, Caroline

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Flook, Adrian

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Follett, Barbara

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Forth, rh Eric

  Hutton, rh John

  Foster, rh Derek

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Illsley, Eric

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Jack, rh Michael

  Foulkes, rh George

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Francois Mark

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Jamieson, David

  Garnier, Edward

  Jenkin, Bernard

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Gilroy, Linda

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Goodman, Paul

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  1121

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Mercer, Patrick

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Merron, Gillian

  Keetch, Paul

  Michael, rh Alun

  Kemp, Fraser

  Miliband, David

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Mole, Chris

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Moore, Michael

  Kidney, David

  Morgan, Julie

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Mountford, Kali

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Mullin, Chris

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Lamb, Norman

  Olner, Bill

  Lammy, David

  O'Neill, Martin

  Lansley, Andrew

  Öpik, Lembit

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Organ, Diana

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Ottaway, Richard

  Lepper, David

  Owen, Albert

  Leslie, Christopher

  Page, Richard

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Paterson, Owen

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Pearson, Ian

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Perham, Linda

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Pickles, Eric

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Pickthall, Colin

  Lidington, David

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Plaskitt, James

  Linton, Martin

  Pollard, Kerry

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Loughton, Tim

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Love, Andrew

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Prescott, rh John

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  McCabe, Stephen

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  McCafferty, Chris

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Prosser, Gwyn

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Pugh, Dr. John

  MacDonald, Calum

  Purchase, Ken

  McDonnell, John

  Purnell, James

  MacDougall, John

  Quin, rh Joyce

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Quinn, Lawrie

  McIsaac, Shona

  Randall, John

  McKechin, Ann

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Redwood, rh John

  McNulty, Tony

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  MacShane, Denis

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Robathan, Andrew

  McWalter, Tony

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  McWilliam, John

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Malins, Humfrey

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Maples, John

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Martlew, Eric

  Ruane, Chris

  Maude, rh Francis

  Ruddock, Joan

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Salmond, Alex

  1122

  Sanders, Adrian

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Trickett, Jon

  Sawford, Phil

  Truswell, Paul

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Selous, Andrew

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Short, rh Clare

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Simmonds, Mark

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Viggers, Peter

  Singh, Marsha

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Walter, Robert

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Waterson, Nigel

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Watkinson, Angela

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Watts, David

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

  Weir, Michael

  White, Brian

  Soames, Nicholas

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Soley, Clive

  Whittingdale, John

  Southworth, Helen

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Spellar, rh John

  Wiggin, Bill

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Wilkinson, John

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Willetts, David

  Spring, Richard

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Squire, Rachel

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Willis, Phil

  Steen, Anthony

  Wills, Michael

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Wilshire, David

  Winnick, David

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Straw, rh Jack

  Streeter, Gary

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Stringer, Graham

  Stunell, Andrew

  Wishart, Pete

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Woolas, Phil

  Swayne, Desmond

  Worthington, Tony

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

  Syms, Robert

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Young, rh Sir George

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Timms, Stephen

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Tipping, Paddy

  Dan Norris and

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Joan Ryan

  NOES

  Tellers for the Noes:

  David Maclean and

  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  EUROPEAN UNION (ACCESSIONS) BILL (PROGRAMME)
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002],
  That the following provisions shall apply to the European Union (Accessions) Bill—

  Committal
  1. The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
  Proceedings in Committee, on consideration and on Third Reading
  2. Proceedings in Committee, any proceedings on consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed at one day's sitting.
  3. Proceedings in Committee and any proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 6.00 p.m. on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
  4. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 7.00 p.m. on that day.
  Other proceedings
  5. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages, from the Lords) may be programmed.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
  Question agreed to.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  BROADCASTING
  That the draft Broadcasting (Independent Productions) (Amendment) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 1st May, be approved.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
  Question agreed to.
  Andrew Selous: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I correct
  1124
  slightly a statement that I made during Prime Minister's Question Time today? I was correct in saying that there had been a fivefold increase in the number of work permits, but it has happened since 1997 rather than over the past year. I welcome this opportunity to put that on the record.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in informing the House of that mistake.

PETITIONS

  Community Pharmacies
  7.16 pm
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: I wish to present a petition from Ruth Ingham and others.
  The petition declares:
  That the removal of restrictions on pharmacies able to dispense NHS prescriptions will have a detrimental effect on local chemists.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government both to reject proposals that would allow unrestricted opening of pharmacies able to dispense NHS prescriptions and to preserve local pharmacies and safeguard their continued services to local communities.
  And the Petitioners remain etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Village Post Offices
  Mr. Michael Clapham: The petition of 307 residents of the village of Ward Green in the constituency of Barnsley, West and Penistone declares:
  That the proposed closure of the village Post Office by Post Office Ltd will have a negative impact on the community because of the inconvenience caused particularly to elderly residents.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons ask that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry intervene and stop the proposed closure.
  And the Petitioners remain etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

Postwatch
Motion made, and Question proposed,That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
7.17 pm
Mr. Christopher Chope:The Government's programme of deliberately closing 3,000 post offices in urban areas is now biting hard. At the end of April, 447 proposals for closure had been put forward to Postwatch. I am told that, so far, 205 branches have closed under the programme.
I have long opposed that vicious assault on a key pillar of the social fabric of urban England. It gives me no satisfaction to report that my experience of what has been happening in the Christchurch constituency has justified my worst fears, as expressed in previous debates and questions in the House.
Last November, I challenged the Prime Minister on having reneged on his promise, made prior to the 2001 general election, that he would do everything in his power to enable all post offices to become general Government practitioners. Indeed, the Government are using £180 million of taxpayers' money to bribe up to 3,000 sub-postmasters to withdraw their services from the public.
The ostensible reason for the Government's policy U-turn was that the conclusions from the evaluation of the "Your Guide" pilot of post offices as general Government practitioners were that if such a service were rolled out nationally it would not represent value for money. However, everyone close to the subject knows that that was specious and disingenuous. There certainly cannot be worse value for money than bribing sub-postmasters with 28 times their monthly income to close down. We have reached a situation where the size of the bribes, which average £60,000 and are often nearer to £100,000, is far greater than the market value of the good will.
True to new Labour, however, the Government do not want to accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions. That is where Postwatch comes in. If Postwatch does not object to the closures, the Government are off the hook. Fortunately, Postwatch is objecting—and more vociferously than it has in the past.
Postwatch was set up under the Postal Services Act 2000 as a replacement for the old Post Office Users National Council. Its principal statutory objectives, according to its annual report, are to protect, promote and develop the interests of all customers of postal services in the United Kingdom. In 2002 it received grant in aid from the Department of Trade and Industry of between £8 million and £9 million. I accept that that is dwarfed by the £438 million net administration costs of the Department, which have risen by more than 40 per cent. in four years, but it remains a significant sum of money.
Postwatch is accountable to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The purpose of this debate is to ensure that the Secretary of State is properly accountable to Postwatch and, through it, to those who depend, like so many of my constituents, on an extensive urban post office network.
Postwatch has negotiated a key role in the consultative process over post office closures. It is given privileged access by the Post Office to details of branches
1126
proposed for closure two weeks before any public announcement is made or MPs are informed. It can then participate in the public consultation, which takes place over the following 28 days. During that public consultation, however, it is not allowed to share with the public the vital information that is essential for proper public evaluation and discussion of any closure proposal or alternatives.
It is clear from the Christchurch experience—Stanpit and Town Common sub-post offices were involved—that a public consultation period of only four weeks is far from adequate. It is not enough time for public meetings to be convened or for information that comes to light to be fully investigated by Postwatch. I recognise the need for reasonable speed, but surely the period for consultation could be extended to six weeks, even if it meant Postwatch forgoing its two weeks of privileged access. Something urgent must also be done to ensure that all the facts are available to inform public debate on proposed closures.
Closure proposals are now coming forward at a rate of between 16 and 30 every week. Amazingly, however, there is no ostensible plan underlying them. That became apparent in Christchurch when, on the day after the decision was announced to close Stanpit post office—despite the strongest possible representations from Postwatch, local residents, councillors, and, indeed, myself—it was announced that Town Common post office was proposed for closure. That prompted me to inquire why the overall plan for future post office provision in Christchurch had not been published.
Postwatch took the point up with the south-west region of the Post Office, but was told that there was no plan and that closures were carried out on an ad hoc basis in response to individual requests by postmasters to close down their service. I am told that there are now more than 3,000 applications by postmasters to take the money—more applications than can be satisfied. There is still no plan. If I were the Minister, I would regard it as extraordinarily irresponsible for the Post Office to proceed in this way with what is effectively a business reorganisation, particularly when funded with £180 million of taxpayers' money.
The Post Office will not even discuss the number of closures planned for different parts of the country. For example, it is rumoured in the south-west—only one of nine Post Office regions in England—that as many as 1,000 urban sub-offices are to be closed. That is one third of the national total, which is extremely worrying, but there is no opportunity for open debate because the key information is suppressed.
Postwatch is also concerned about reports that Post Office managers responsible for the urban reinvention programme are to receive a 25 per cent. salary bonus if they reach their target of closures. Why have the targets in individual areas not been shared with Postwatch? When Stanpit post office was closed, despite Postwatch's objections, there was a strong feeling that Postwatch was not being taken seriously. In respect of the Town Common post office, a regional review meeting is taking place tomorrow.
But such a review meeting will not be of any substance if the outcome has already been pre-empted by a binding contract between the Post Office and the subpostmaster. That problem occurred in the case of the

1127
closure of Downside post office in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous). I am delighted that he is in his place and will participate, albeit briefly, in the debate. While I welcome the instigation of a regional review, I find it disturbing that the Post Office has not been willing to disclose to Postwatch, in advance of tomorrow's meeting, whether it is already irrevocably and contractually bound to pay compensation to the sub-postmaster at Town Common, irrespective of the outcome of the consultation.
The Post Office says that it is still intent on ensuring that 95 per cent. of people in urban areas live within a mile of the local post office, but that is a national figure rather than one with any local validity. In Christchurch, the proposed closure of Town Common post office will result in several thousand more residents living more than a mile from their nearest post office.
The Minister rejected a suggestion that I made during the Easter Adjournment debate that the Government should decide closure cases if Postwatch had raised serious objections. He said that he would not become involved because the matters were commercial decisions for the Post Office. I call on him again to become more involved, because it is apparent that a lot of taxpayers' money is being wasted on subsidising the closures of the "wrong" sub-post offices. That is certainly the situation in west Christchurch where, as a result of gaining access to information about the number of basic transaction hours expended on Post Office business, it has become apparent that the post office identified as an alternative, in Barrack road, currently has less business than Town Common, which is scheduled for closure. Furthermore, the Barrack road post office has recently been acquired by Tesco, and there is no guarantee that Tesco will wish to maintain it as a post office in the long term.
Those points were made in a strong letter by the south and west regional chairman of Postwatch, Charles Howeson, to the Royal Mail Group, dated 18 March 2003. He said:
"The Post Office at Town Common serves a significant percentage of Christchurch's residents, 27 per cent. of the electorate, as highlighted in various representations to you, not least at the public meeting held on…13th March. Indeed, your own figures record that Town Common Post Office undertakes significantly more postal transactions than Stourvale… Far from the half an hour a day's transactions being undertaken as stated… at the meeting, the office undertakes between 2.5-3.0 a day—six times the figure quoted…the fact that your migration modelling only predicted that 22 per cent. of Town Common's customers would transfer to this branch is indicative of the non-viability of the proposal: people will not/cannot access this branch."
He also makes the point that the alternative branch at Barrack road does not have a secure future now that it has changed hands.
What has happened as a result of that letter? No notice appears to have been taken of it and the Post Office has confirmed that Town Common post office will close at the beginning of June. That resulted in the regional secretary of Postwatch, Mr. Hepburn, writing to the Royal Mail Group to request an appeal. That letter, dated 1 May, made the point that the Royal Mail Group had not satisfactorily considered and addressed all the issues that were raised by the proposal. It also requested an early meeting. That meeting will take place
1128
tomorrow and I hope that it will result in a reprieve for Town Common post office and all the people who use it, many of whom are pensioners.
The role of Postwatch goes further than objecting to closure when it is not the right solution. Postwatch's involvement goes to the heart of the viability of the post office network, and that is why I was very interested in some of the information it gave to the Trade and Industry Committee. Postwatch gave oral evidence yesterday and had already produced written evidence. It makes it clear that in its view the actions of the Post Office and the Government are deliberately undermining the viability of what remains of the post office network. Postwatch is concerned about the introduction of the new card for the direct payment of benefits and the mixed messages about that. It is very worried about the contrived and complicated process that ordinary citizens have to go through to get access to a post office card account. It seems as if the whole process has been designed to deter people from applying for such an account.
Tellingly, Postwatch also makes the point that the cost of running a post office is going up, with the minimum wage rising from October to £4.50. In an annexe to its evidence to the Committee, it shows that the individual transaction payments received by post offices for card account, bank and other transactions are wholly inadequate if they are to survive in the longer term, let alone the near term. It is extremely concerned and critical of the Government's involvement in what I regard as a conspiracy substantially to reduce our post office network.
7.31 pm
Andrew Selous: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly in this debate.
Many post offices have been closed in my constituency, including those in Studham and Tottenhoe, but I wish to mention in particular the closure of Downside post office in Dunstable—the first closure against which Postwatch lodged a formal objection. Postwatch sent a letter to the Post Office in which it said that that would be an opportunity
"to test if this consultation process will be taken seriously by yourselves".
Sadly, that was not the case.
I am angry about the fact that, at a residents meeting that I chaired in which 60 local residents discussed the future of Downside post office, a senior official from the Post Office assured us that no decision had been taken to close it, even though a draft agreement had been signed with the former postmaster. There was no new information at that public meeting that could possibly have influenced the Post Office to close Downside, and the reasons that I was given when I pursued the matter by letter involved such things as pedestrian access, transport links and the distance to other post offices, all of which were known before the meeting. The only thing that the Post Office could have taken away from the public meeting was the fact that the post office was a much-needed facility in the area. It is a case of deceit—not a word that I use lightly—on the part of the Post Office to tell my constituents that no decision had been taken. I do not believe that that was the case, because of

1129
the reasons that I was given. The Post Office actively discouraged another business in the same parade of shops from taking over the post office, even though it had offered to do so. I should like the Minister to respond to those specific points.
7.33 pm
The Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness (Mr. Stephen Timms): I welcome the opportunity to respond to the issues that have been raised by Opposition Members. I congratulate the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) on securing the debate, and I listened carefully to what he and the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) said.
I think that the hon. Member for Christchurch said that there was a rumour that there might be 1,000 urban closures in the south-west. I have been told that there are 634 urban post offices in the south-west, so I can reassure him that there certainly will not be 1,000 closures. He also said that the average compensation payment was about £60,000, but in fact it is less than £50,000, and was £49,700 until the end of April. Nevertheless, he made some important points that I want to address carefully.
Let me stress that the Government remain firmly committed to maintaining a viable nationwide network of post offices. We recognise fully the importance of sub-post offices as a focal point in their local communities, particularly for the elderly and less mobile. The post office network serves 24 million people every week. The current rationalisation and modernisation of the network is part of what we need to do to strengthen its viability, maintain good accessibility and provide a wider range of better quality services to customers.
The number of people using the Post Office has declined sharply in recent years. That has happened for all sorts of reasons, partly past under-investment but certainly not only that. In many urban areas, the network is now too dense to be supported by the level of business that remains, so the Post Office has to undertake this careful process of reducing the number of urban post offices, but in a way that minimises the inconvenience caused to customers and maximises the number of people who continue to use the post office network. The alternative would be a process of unmanaged decline, where individual sub-postmasters simply decide to shut down and leave. Opposition Members would accept that such an unmanaged process would be much more damaging to the interests of our constituents in urban areas than the one that we are going through.
Let me comment on the constituency cases referred to by the hon. Member for Christchurch. I am aware that there was very strong feeling in Stanpit against the proposals, particularly as the Post Office's alternatives were felt to be inappropriate for people with disabilities because of problems with access. I am pleased to say that—as I am sure he is aware—Purewell Cross, which is the nearest alternative to Stanpit, has received an investment grant of about £2,500 to improve the facilities there. I understand that Postwatch's concerns have been significantly allayed in the light of the fact that improved disabled access is being provided at
1130
Purewell Cross. Indeed, Postwatch is monitoring the provision of a ramp there. That is an example of the kind of improvements that we want to arise from the consultation process that Postwatch is taking forward.
Again, I recognise that Postwatch opposed the proposals for Town Common. The hon. Gentleman was concerned about the fact that Tesco had recently acquired one of the alternative offices, and there was a question about its long-term security as a post office. I understand that, if there were any change in the arrangements at that store, six months' notice of that fact would be needed, so there would be time to ensure that there was an alternative in the area. However, as he said, there will be further discussions between the company and the Postwatch South and West tomorrow.
The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire and I have discussed the case that he raised, and I pay tribute to him for the way in which he has diligently pursued it. I have seen a recent letter from Peter Carr, the chairman of Postwatch, in which he makes some suggestions about what might be done in that case. Post Office Ltd. will consider those suggestions—I do not know what the outcome will be—but that continues to be a live issue.
When a sub-post office closes under the programme, the Government will meet, from a £30 million fund, the costs of adapting and improving those offices that remain. The key to improving standards in those offices will be the increased volume of business that they can expect, but the grants for each office that expects to take on a significant number of additional customers—to be matched by the same sum from the postmaster—will be an important boost too. The grant made to the post office at Purewell Cross is an example of that. I should make the point that that is the first ever programme of Government investment in urban sub-post offices and that it is an additional measure on top of those recommended in the performance and innovation unit report, which started the whole process. Proposals that Post Office Ltd. makes for closures under the programme are determined by how many offices are close to each other in the area, the current and projected business volumes and whether individual sub-postmasters have already indicated that they want to leave the network. Those are by no means the only criteria for the decision, however. Factors of high importance to customers are also examined closely. Those include the convenience of other branches, public transport links, facilities, access for the disabled and the ability of other branches to absorb the work without detriment to the service that they provide. Post Office officials visit every area, walk in the area, and make a study of the configuration of the offices and of local factors before submitting a proposal. The aim is to ensure that it is as easy and convenient as possible for customers to use other post offices nearby: after all, the Post Office wants to maximise the number of customers who continue to use the network at other offices, thereby maximising the amount of business from a closing office captured by other offices in the post office network.
The hon. Member for Christchurch set out the legislative basis on which Postwatch was set up. It is an independent organisation, and is not attached to the Royal Mail Group or any part of government. It was set up as a consumer watchdog for postal services to ensure that post offices, Parcelforce, Royal Mail and any competing postal providers give the best possible service

1131
to customers. It is consulted on every closure and relocation proposal that Post Office Ltd. makes, and has been given an important role in the implementation of the restructuring programme by examining every proposal made and monitoring the overall programme. At the start of the process, Postwatch set out for me the funding that it would need, in its view, to do that job well, which required the appointment of a number of field advisers around the country. The Postwatch budget for the current year includes that additional funding in full, and staff have been recruited accordingly. We did that because we recognised that the Postwatch contribution is essential for the programme to be seen through successfully.
Postwatch, in its briefing on the urban reinvention programme, has accepted the findings of the performance and innovation unit report: that changes to the urban network are needed to achieve economic viability and to bring about "bigger, better, brighter" post offices. Rightly, however, Postwatch has also made it clear that although it does not oppose the principles behind the programme, it needs to set the aims of Post Office Ltd. against the needs of customers and it will monitor carefully the implementation of the programme.
Building on the code of practice in relation to Postwatch and Post Office Ltd. for branch relocation, closure and conversion, an enhanced consultation process has been negotiated that aims to allow customers, Postwatch and other representative bodies to have their views heard, to influence and, when appropriate, to change the Post Office's decision. During public consultation, Postwatch researches local opinion, conducts its own investigations into the impact of the proposals on customers, and examines every proposed closure and its impact on the local area with the aim of ensuring that the right branches stay open and that they provide the right services, by assessing opening times, number of counter positions, impact on queuing, disabled facilities and access, product availability, planning issues, transport and other factors.
Postwatch does not expect to oppose proposals that involve closing an individual branch in an area where there are other branches that are easily accessible to the local population and that offer a good range of services. If Postwatch is not convinced by the proposal, it asks the Post Office to withdraw or modify it to make it more acceptable. If that does not happen, Postwatch will coordinate local opposition, and if necessary, will campaign to keep a branch open.
1132
I understand that, so far, Postwatch has received 550 advance notifications of proposed closures. Eighteen were withdrawn before reaching the public consultation stage, and another 24 were modified. The latest figures that I have show that Postwatch opposed 23 of the 484 public notification letters received. Four cases that have entered public consultation have been withdrawn completely because of objections made by Postwatch and others. Proposals have been amended as a result of issues raised during consultation in a further nine cases. Typically, amendments were made to the timing of the change proposal or to suggest improvements and changes to facilities in nearby branches that were expected to pick up migrating business from the closing office.
Of course each closure has an effect on customers, but there have been relatively few contentious proposals to date—we have heard about three in the debate. In the light of the experience of the early stages of the programme, an additional review procedure has been added to deal with disputed proposals. The procedure has been agreed between Postwatch and Post Office Ltd. and may be applied when Postwatch opposes a closure decision. I agree with the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire that the process did not work well in the case that he drew to my attention, and the new procedure is, in part, a response to that. I accept that that is of no comfort to him but I hope that the procedure will help to avoid such difficulties in future. The procedure is administered at a senior level in both Postwatch and Post Office Ltd.
It is important for hon. Members to note that Postwatch recognises that with or without the urban reinvention programme, sub-postmasters will want to leave the network from time to time. It believes that taking an active role in a programme of managed change provides the chance to examine an area and its post office provision systematically, logically and analytically, and also gives Post Office Ltd. the opportunity to concentrate on taking poorly located and underperforming branches out of the network. Post Office Ltd. has said that it will shift its emphasis from more vulnerable offices to wider areas as the programme continues.
The programme will run for three years. It is in its early stages but it is important that we get the decisions right. I welcome the comments that have been made in the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to Eight o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. JOHN MCWILLIAM in the Chair]

Fly Tipping
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Heppell.]
9.30 am
Mr. Robert Jackson: My purpose in seeking a debate on fly tipping is to remind the Government and the House of the scale and seriousness of the problem, to draw attention to factors that are likely to increase the dimensions of the problem and to propose a number of specific remedies, which I hope will be considered for urgent action.
I pay tribute to the work of the officers of the Environment Agency in the Thames region west area, in particular the manager, Mr. Innes Jones. My request for this debate arose from a visit that I paid earlier this year to the agency offices near Wallingford in my constituency, and from site visits that the agency organised for me where fly tipping was going on around the city of Oxford. I also thank my local branch of the Country Land and Business Association, which first got me interested in the subject by drawing my attention to the costs that fly tipping imposes on private farmers and landowners and the injustice that it represents.
All hon. and right hon. Members will be uneasy about the recent increase in litter along Britain's highways and byways. In a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on 7 May, the Minister for the Environment recorded that there are no centrally collected data on the extent of fly tipping, but that a provision in the Anti-social Behaviour Bill now before Parliament will require the Environment Agency and local authorities to collect data and submit annual returns. That is welcome, so far as it goes. However, the Minister was able to report that the Environment Agency has been operating a national incident recording system for the past two years. In the light of that, it is believed that there are about 50,000 fly tipping incidents each year that impose clean-up costs in the order of £100 million a year.
The independent consultancy Marcus Hodges has examined the current impact of fly tipping on landowners. It concluded that fly tipping on agricultural land in 2002 cost farmers £57 million. That figure is high, but it is quite believable because, on 4 March, the Minister told the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) that a recent report on fly tipping on agricultural land estimated that about 600,000 tonnes of waste was deposited on farms in England and Wales in 2001.
Of course, cleaning up is not cheap. For instance, the local authorities in my county of Oxfordshire recently had to spend some £12,000 on putting to rights a single lay-by in the north of the county. The National Farmers Union tells me that, in response to a recent survey, 46 per cent, of its members said that they were spending
254WH
between £500 and £1,000 a year removing fly-tipped waste, and one farmer reported the cost of one incident to be £30,000.
Mr. John Horam: I am glad that my hon. Friend instituted this debate, because it is an important topic. I apologise that I shall have to leave after a short time to chair the Environmental Audit Committee.
Is my hon. Friend aware that fly tipping is now so rampant that people are dumping waste on ordinary suburban streets in outer London? Huge mounds of waste are being dumped by fly tippers in daylight on the outskirts of London. It is hugely inconvenient, and the cost of cleaning it up is large.
Mr. Jackson: Yes, I am aware of that, and I shall go on to say something about its impact on charity shops, which have become a favoured locale for the dropping of waste, which is often dumped in the middle of the high streets of many towns.
So much for the scale of the problem. On the basis of the data that I have given, I think that all hon. Members will agree that the amount of waste involved, the number of incidents and the annual cost of cleaning up are already unacceptable. Unfortunately, deficiencies in the statistics mean that I cannot produce hard numbers to demonstrate that the dimensions of the problem are increasing, although the Minister may be able to shed some light on the issue in his reply. However, there are anecdotes aplenty, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) referred. The Association of Charity Shops tells me that there has recently been
"an exponential increase in the dumping of rubbish at charity shops"—
something that it describes as fly tipping by stealth. To add insult to injury, charity shops are obliged to pay for that rubbish to be removed as commercial waste, even though most of it is of domestic origin.
One indicator may, however, serve as a proxy for an estimate of the rate of increase in fly tipping. I mention it because it points towards a more effective way of dealing with the problem, and I shall return to that at the end of my speech. The indicator in question is the number of persons who are convicted annually of fly-tipping offences under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. On 9 December 2002, the then Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn), supplied a series of figures from 1991 to 2000. In 1991, just after the Act came into force, four people were convicted of fly tipping. The number rose to 18 the following year. Subsequently, it has risen steadily, from 104 in 1993, to 317 in 1999, and 393 in 2000.
Clearly, one factor is the increasing activity of the Environment Agency and local authorities. However, another important factor is simply the increase in fly tipping. We must all recognise the basic fact that the incentives to fly-tip have increased as a wholly foreseeable consequence of Government policies. I do not say that to attack the Government, whose broad approach to waste disposal I support. However, they must anticipate the inevitable consequences of their polices, and they have not been very good at that in this area.

255WH
The biggest factor behind the increase in fly tipping has been the introduction and gradual escalation of the landfill tax since 1996. It has increased the cost of waste disposal to businesses, including construction businesses. I strongly support the tax, which should be escalated even more rapidly than the Government propose. I also believe in the diminution of our national reliance on landfill disposal. However, it is simply realistic to recognise that the landfill tax gives unscrupulous businesses a financial incentive to transfer to others the increasing cost of disposing of their waste.
On top of that, there is the increasing impact of recycling targets on the collection of all kinds of waste by local authorities. Again, I strongly support the policy, but it is simply realistic to recognise that it increases local authorities' sensitivity about the waste that they collect. It also increases the complexity of the way in which householders and businesses must present waste for collection, as well as the charges for disposing of waste in general and some kinds of waste in particular. All of that gives unscrupulous or merely thoughtless people an incentive to shift the cost of disposing of their waste on to others by fly tipping it.
Britain's approach to the disposal of waste is being transformed by successive waves of European Union directives on landfill and packaging, as well as on the disposal of fridges, electronic equipment, cars, tyres and hazardous wastes. As those new laws take effect, one inevitable consequence will be that the cost of disposal rises, and the incentives to fly-tip will inevitably increase. Let me repeat that the directives are leading us in the right direction, and I would not urge the Government to be slow in implementing them—even if that were an option, which it is not. However, I do urge Ministers to act with greater urgency to deal with the inevitable consequences of their policies. In particular, I urge the Government to bear in mind their responsibility to ensure that alternative methods of disposal are available as landfill sites are closed, especially sites for the disposal of hazardous wastes. The Environmental Audit Committee, which is chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington, drew attention to that problem, which I also raised during Prime Minister's questions because I believe it to be of such importance.
In a recent answer to me, the chairman of the Environment Agency said that some 400 of approximately 1,400 landfill sites across the country are already being closed, and that the number will increase over the next three years. It has been reported in the specialist press that the agency has indicated that from July 2004 the number of landfill sites for the disposal of hazardous waste—roughly 20 per cent. of all waste—will fall from 184 sites to only 14, and that my own Thames region will be left with no site at all for the disposal of such waste. There is a real risk that the lack of local opportunities for waste disposal will precipitate a step increase in the amount of fly tipping as the sites close, and that that will include increasing amounts of waste designated as hazardous.
I was glad to see that the Minister told the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) that the Government recognise that fly tipping is "a growing antisocial problem", and that they are
256WH
"currently considering bringing forward changes to legislation"
that will
"do more to empower both local authorities and the agency to deal with fly tipping".—[Official Report, 24 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 88W.]
I hope that the Minister will tell us how his consultations are going, what issues he is considering and, above all, the Government's time scale, as this problem is urgent.
My shopping list for legislation includes several suggestions. Should we amend section 59 of the 1990 Act to allow clearance cost recovery from any producer or previous holder of waste who has failed in their duty of care? Should the Government do more to make businesses aware of their duties under the law? Is there a case for extending a duty of care to householders, so that they will be held responsible for the clearance costs of the fly tipping of their waste if, for instance, they have failed to use a registered waste carrier or to obtain and retain a waste transfer note, or would such a change in the law be inappropriate, as the Environmental Services Association has argued on the grounds that the Litter Act 1983 is sufficient?
Perhaps we can do something to make it easier for the Environment Agency and other enforcement agencies to trace unregistered vehicles. I am told that much of the business end of fly tipping is carried out using such vehicles. Making it easier to trace their ownership will help to tie down the business involved. Can we improve the definition of waste to make it easier to secure convictions? The enforcement authorities currently have to prove that the waste was household, commercial or industrial. If the defendant refuses to be interviewed, he can simply walk into the court and claim that the waste came, for example, from agricultural premises, and the case against him will fail.
The Government must also do something about the increasing injustice of the rising cost to farmers, landowners, charity shops and private individuals of disposing of waste fly-tipped on their premises. Before a local authority will take on the cost of clear-up, the occupier has to be able to prove that the waste is not his and that he did not knowingly permit it to be deposited. That is too high a hurdle. The law should be changed so that if the occupier can establish that he has taken reasonable steps to prevent fly tipping, the local authority should be required to clean up the waste.
Can we not introduce a fixed penalty system of minor offences? Such a system would enable them to be dealt with more quickly, and the fixed penalties would impose a greater penalty on minor offenders than the current written warning letter. What about increasing the levels of fines, many of which have remained unchanged since the relevant legislation came into effect? Can we improve the guidance to magistrates on the appropriate way to handle these offences, and make it a topic in the training offered to magistrates?
Mr. James Gray: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but he may not have heard the Minister say "Absolutely" from a sedentary position a moment ago when my hon. Friend proposed that fines should be increased. Does he take great encouragement from that? We look forward to hearing from the Minister.
Mr. Jackson: I do take encouragement from that. I hope that the Minister will also give an affirmative

257WH
response when I suggest how the fine income should be used, but for now I shall concentrate on the role of magistrates courts. If fines are impracticable, such as when an offender claims to be unemployed, could more use be made of community service orders? Action along those lines would improve the legal framework within which fly tippers can be more effectively pursued.
I have another suggestion, which gets nearer to the heart of the problem. The fundamental problem is not the legal framework, although that could certainly be improved, as I have suggested. Rather, the problem relates to the means and resources for enforcement. Let me juxtapose two sets of figures that I have already put before the House.
In a written answer, the Minister recorded that there were
"approximately 50,000 fly-tipping incidents each year"—[Official Report, 7 May 2003; Vol. 404, c. 715W.]
In another written answer, which I have mentioned, the then Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Leeds, Central, recorded that 393 individuals were convicted of fly-tipping offences in 2000. Let me repeat those figures: there were 50,000 incidents, and 393 people were convicted. The clear conclusion to be drawn must be that enforcement of the law against fly tipping is not sufficiently effective. Quite simply, not enough resources are being put into that work.
Of the series of recent written answers on this issue from the Minister for the Environment, the most pathetic is that which he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) on 21 November 2002. Perhaps with pride—or perhaps not—the Minister stated:
"The Environment Agency has purchased £120,000 worth of surveillance equipment that may be used in covert surveillance operations to identify fly-tippers attempting illegally to dump waste"—[Official Report, 21 November 2002; Vol. 394, c. 284W.]
Let us compare that £120,000 with the £100 million annual cost of clear-up that the Minister records in another written answer.
On that point, I should like to refer to my experience on a visit to the Environment Agency's enforcement operations in my constituency. Those are effective so far as they go, but they are far too limited in scale. In the western area, there are funds to operate no more than four covert cameras at one time, running 24 hours a day, as they need to do. However, the evidence from those cameras enables the agency to refute the all-too-common "I gave it to a man in a van" defence. Such evidence also makes it unnecessary to persuade reluctant witnesses to come to court to testify.
There are many other detection and deterrent devices of proven value, which could be made more effective with a greater commitment of manpower than the agency and the local authorities can currently afford.
Mr. Gray: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way a second time. Although there are obvious and sensible uses for closed circuit television in enforcement and prosecution, does he agree that there is a risk that that will only shift the fly tipper along to the next farm, which does not solve the problem?
Mr. Jackson: I have discussed that matter with the enforcement people, who say that the psychology of fly
258WH
tipping is that people see a site and use it. If it is cleared up, they may return, but if it is repeatedly cleared up, they will abandon it and perhaps go elsewhere. The enforcement people's experience is that surveillance cameras are very effective, and I think that more use should be made of them.
Other things could be done if more resources were available. Registration of carriers could be more effective. Another example is roadside checks on carriers, which is obviously manpower intensive. The placing of "stings" is another example. I believe that that has been tried successfully in Birmingham. It involves placing "trackers" in the waste that illegal operators pick up from vulnerable old people. They often make an exorbitant charge for that and then simply fly-tip the waste. If there is something in the waste that enables them to be identified, so much the better, but that is a manpower-intensive operation.
I conclude by suggesting what should be done to improve enforcement. On 24 November 1995, I introduced an Adjournment debate on speed enforcement cameras. Based on experience in the Thames Valley police authority, which covers my constituency, I put on record evidence of the effectiveness of speed cameras in reducing accidents and saving lives. I proposed that some portion of the fine income produced by speed cameras should be reinvested in increasing their numbers and improving their operation. The debate was an early shot in what was a protracted campaign to persuade Whitehall, especially the Treasury, to see sense in the matter. I am glad to say that in the end, after a number of years and the unnecessary loss of life, the Treasury dogma about hypothecation was put to one side and my proposal was adopted.
I therefore make another proposal in the same vein: let the Government take the necessary action, which does not involve primary legislation, to enable local authorities and the Environment Agency to recoup the cost of enforcing the laws against fly tipping from the income that is derived from fines for fly tipping. The case for doing so is even stronger than it was in respect of speed cameras, which has been conceded. There can be no question in this case of the same sort of objection, which reasonably exercised Transport Ministers, that motorists might resent the camera system as a revenue-raising device.
The Government have an excellent policy, which it inherited from the Conservatives, that is summed up in the slogan "the polluter pays". My suggestion is to make the polluting fly tipper pay directly, through the fines imposed on his activities, for the cost of extending and making more powerful the means of enforcing the law against those activities. I commend the proposal to the Minister. I hope that he will make it part of his current policy review and that it will not take as long to persuade the Treasury to adopt it as it did to persuade it to accept the need for speed cameras, because the problem of fly tipping is acquiring an immediacy and urgency that the Government should not underestimate.
9.52 am
Siobhain McDonagh: First, I apologise for coming late to the debate. I managed to lock myself out of my office.

259WH
I congratulate the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) on securing the debate on a subject that is uppermost in the mind of most Members. In the past few months, I have been carrying out a detailed survey of my constituents in Mitcham and Morden. The result shows that people's two principal worries are crime and environmental quality of life issues such as graffiti, abandoned cars and fly tipping, which are the priorities for nearly two thirds of my constituents.
Fly tippers vary from the unscrupulous Mr. Bigs of enviro-crime, who seem to think that it is our duty to pay to pick up their commercial waste, building rubble and even hazardous chemicals, to individuals who would rather dump their mattress on the street corner than telephone the council's bulk refuse service. The Environment Agency estimates that fly tipping could cost local authorities as much as £150 million a year.
Fly tipping is one of the council's top priorities in the borough of Merton, and it has set a target for clearing 93 per cent, of fly tips within one day. There has been a 36 per cent. increase in the incidence of fly tipping in the past year and more than 85 fly tips are reported each week. Merton's fly tipping budget will increase by 20 per cent. next year and cost council tax payers nearly a third of a million pounds, which is a significant amount for a small London borough. However, it does not cover the aspect of the problem about which I receive the most complaints: fly tipping in back alleys that are jointly owned by private householders who do not feel that they should have a personal responsibility for clearing the rubbish dumped at the back of their houses by small builders and people trying to get rid of tyres.
I therefore suggest a cost-effective, low-cost way of getting rid of the problem—rolling out a national alley-gater scheme in which residents get together with the local authority to block off the back alley. Residents contribute part of the cost, and the council or voluntary sector group involved can help.
One such scheme was carried out in the Pollards Hill ward in my constituency, which has one of the highest levels of fly tipping and of crime generally. It was a huge success, and the pay-off was enormous. Neighbours spoke to one another, the amount of money collected from residents always exceeded what was needed because it was seen as giving good value, the council's contribution was small compared to the benefits for local residents and people on community service constructed the gates. The scheme was cost-effective and much appreciated by local residents.
I believe that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Home Office should work together to come up with such a scheme, because the other pay-off is that it drastically reduced the number of domestic burglaries. Indeed, a couple of years ago in a Wimbledon ward in the borough of Merton, an alley-gater scheme brought about a 65 per cent. reduction—again, a small scheme with a big effect.
Last October, I tabled a ten-minute Bill on waste management licensing whose main aim was to give local authorities the power to combat fly tipping. I was astonished to discover that they did not have the power to ask small businesses or high street shops whether they had valid trade waste removal licences, even though the
260WH
council tax payers had to pay to clean up the waste if they did not. I am pleased to say that, due to the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, that is no longer the case. We should ensure that local authorities are fully aware of their new powers.
I am pleased that the Anti-social Behaviour Bill, which is being considered in Committee, will introduce fixed penalty notices for fly tipping. That will make it quicker and easier for councils to take action, and the scheme will provide them with some modest help by allowing them to keep the fines to offset their costs. However, an awful lot needs to be done. For instance, out of 4,361 cases reported in Merton last year, only 1 per cent, resulted in sanctions being taken against the perpetrators, even though the council spent more than £75,000 on enforcement. The result is that 99 per cent. of fly tippers get away with it. That is a local statistic of the type sought by the hon. Member for Wantage.
Unfortunately, local authorities still do not have the power to seize vehicles involved in fly tipping, nor to see their waste carrier licences. Only the Environment Agency has those powers. As I said when introducing my ten-minute Bill, giving those powers to local councils would encourage better co-operation between the councils and the agency, which could help with enforcement of the rules. However, most important is the fact that it might lead to an increase in the number of successful prosecutions and to some really tough punishments that would act as a genuine deterrent.
I want to see more powers being given to local authorities to deal more efficiently and effectively with fly tipping. My constituents in Mitcham and Morden are angry about antisocial crimes such as fly tipping that blight the streets and open spaces around their homes. I hope that the debate once again raises the profile of an important matter and that the Government continue to listen. Through initiatives such as the alley-gater scheme, we might be able to reduce the incidence of dumping. However, environmental crimes such as fly tipping should not be tolerated, and environmental criminals should be made to pay for the misery that they cause to my constituents and to people throughout the country.
9.58 am
Andrew Selous: I am delighted to take part in the debate. It is important to establish that fly tipping is a rural and an urban problem. It involves not only the countryside, but, as we have already heard, affects all our constituencies, whether town or country. Fly tipping sends the most terrible signal about how people view an area. It contributes to lawlessness, and sends the message that the area is not cared for and that anything goes. That detracts hugely from the quality of life of those who live in areas where fly tipping is a frequent menace.
The cost of clearing up fly tipping is enormous. The Environment Agency's figure of £150 million has been quoted, but I doubt whether it captures all the costs to local authorities, the police and the other responsible agencies. I shall give a brief example.
I was talking to a gentleman who runs a building business, part of whose remit is to clear up fly tipping on behalf of local councils. He told me that it costs £3,000

261WH
a month to clear up the lay-bys on either side of a dual carriageway on the way to Westoning in Bedfordshire. That is just north of my constituency, so it falls in Mid-Bedfordshire district council's area. The gentleman knows that cost because he bills the local authority, and the figure of £150 million is probably an underestimate. The waste of taxpayers' money, when we all know that there are vital services that could use it, is horrendous. The Government need to focus on that.
I have thought long and hard about this issue, and I mentioned it in my maiden speech. I have a number of different suggestions and solutions that I would like to put to the Minister for further consideration. I am sure that he views the issue as seriously as we all do. The gentleman to whom I spoke used to take waste away from building sites, but he was almost being run out of business because he was competing against fly tippers. Being a resourceful fellow, he developed the other half of his business, which is clearing up fly tipping. He is managing to hang on in there, and he has made a very practical suggestion, which I would like the Minister to consider.
When those in the building trade apply for their road tax licence, they should also be asked to show an operator's licence. As they are illegal businesses, many of those engaged in fly tipping do not possess an operator's licence. If they were asked to show one when they bought their road tax, that would cut off some of that activity at source. I commend the suggestion to the Minister. Perhaps his officials can look into it further and liaise with the other relevant Departments.
Can the Minister clarify whether the local authorities and the police have the power to seize vehicles that are engaged in fly tipping? Last Friday, at half past 6 in the morning, I went out with my local chief superintendent on an operation to try to clear up fly tipping. He did not know whether his officers have that power, which is quite worrying, and he asked me to find out. Do local police forces have that power under the antisocial behaviour legislation? The police can seize vehicles that are involved in antisocial behaviour. Does fly tipping qualify as antisocial behaviour? I certainly think it should, and I hope that we can make progress on that point.
The ability to identify a vehicle and tie it to a specific owner is vital. Our constituents, the police or a local authority are sometimes lucky enough to see the number plate of a vehicle involved in such activity but, because of the way that cars are bought at auction and the way that they can change hands without the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency or other official bodies knowing who owns it, it is difficult to link the vehicle with the person responsible. That is an area where the Minister needs to link up with other Departments if we are to tackle this successfully.
We have heard about increasing the fines for fly tipping, and the Minister gave a nod to that suggestion earlier. I hope that we increase the fines massively. I hope also that the people who are caught suffer and regret having done it. There were 50,000 incidents, although I suspect that there were a lot more, but only 393 convictions in 2000. Most people get away with it. We must introduce that element of fear and worry to the mind of the would-be fly tipper so that he thinks, "If I get caught, it will be too costly and too awful. The fine
262WH
will be huge, and I will lose my vehicle. I cannot contemplate that, so I will dispose of my waste legitimately."
I am convinced that we must increase the number of covert operations by local authorities and police to catch fly tippers. I know how many cameras my local district council has, and I wish there were more. Those cameras are deployed, but there is an onus on police and local authorities to involve the public as well. The public can be the eyes and ears of the police and local authorities, gathering; the information and evidence that will lead to convictions. Fly tipping is often done very late at night in lonely and isolated spots where there are no people around, so it is difficult for the police and local authorities to get the evidence that they need. For that reason, we must involve the public in helping us to get that evidence.
I am concerned that it is too difficult in many cases for small builders or landscape gardeners to dispose of their waste at tidy tips. No business, however small, can go to a tidy tip and dispose of its waste for free. There are bars on the entrance to many tidy tips that prevent larger vehicles from entering. Part of the solution to the problem is to make the legitimate disposal of waste easier. Perhaps we should think again for the sake of the small jobbing builder or landscape gardener who is trying to get rid of hedge cuttings and the like, and who wants to do so legitimately. We should make that as easy as possible. It should be free, because we are paying more in clear-up costs than we would to take more material in a legitimate way.
I hope that the Minister will liase very closely with the other Departments involved. I had it in mind that a Home Office Minister would be present, because I consider fly tipping to be a serious crime. I am delighted to see the Minister for the Environment here, however, and I hope that he will assure us that he is involving his colleagues in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, because I understand from the police that the primary responsibility to prosecute lies with local authorities. I hope that he will also liase very closely with his colleagues in the Home Office, who are responsible for criminal justice. The problem requires a joined-up approach.
10.7am
Gregory Barker: I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) on securing this debate. It is very timely, and its subject will find resonance up and down the country. He has not only secured the debate, but has come up with a list of common-sense measures that I hope the Minister for the Environment will shamelessly plunder and incorporate into early legislation. Those measures deserve to be enacted.
I was also struck by the sensible and constructive input from the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh). The use of alley-gaters might be a little harsh, but the idea is extremely innovative. Likewise, I was impressed by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous). Many of the points that he made apply to my constituency.
Fly tipping not only pollutes the environment, but unfairly imposes costs on law-abiding landowners and farmers. The countryside is an obvious target for the

263WH
illegal disposal of waste, whether it is household rubbish, food and drink containers, or much larger disposals. The Country Landowners Association has given a staggering figure of more than £50 million for the cost to agriculture of this problem. The National Farmers Union estimates that 67 per cent. of farmers situated next to urban fringes were affected last year by fly tipping. In a recent survey, the Local Government Association found that 94 per cent. of local authorities had experienced incidents of fly tipping, with 20 per cent. recording more than 1,000 incidents. In 2001, the Environment Agency responded to 3,774 incidents of fly tipping. Since Labour came to power in 1997, the Environment Agency has convicted 1,361 individuals and businesses of illegally dumping waste, which is only a fraction of the number engaged in the activity.
Fly tipping is a major blight on the Government's already fragile waste policy. We are slowly making strides towards improved direction and regulation of the legal disposal of waste, but without a properly thought out and efficiently policed system to crack down on fly tipping, the illegal disposal of waste that it represents could run out of control. As with other areas of the waste hierarchy, isolated action is not part of a holistic approach to the issue; it results in waste being displaced from one area of activity to another. Fly tipping is being diverted into illegal activity, as the figures confirm.
If the lack of, or difficulty in, enforcement leads to no deterrent to breaking the law, better and more progressive environmental legislation that is designed to improve our quality of life and to enhance the countryside will not work and Britain will be a worse place in which to live. The current division of responsibilities between local authorities and the Environment Agency—that depends on the type of waste dumped and its location—has led to inadequate collection of data on fly tipping and an inefficient response to the problem.
I welcome the statement by the Minister in which he said:
?The Government are currently discussing with the Environment Agency the potential for setting up a national recording system for fly tipping, which would record this type of data from both the Agency and local authorities in England."—[Official Report, 20 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 873W.]
My hon. Friend the Member for Wantage said that there was a plethora of inaccurate and unreliable statistics that made it difficult to gauge the seriousness of the problem. It is likely that the data underestimate rather than overestimate the problem. The LGA recently found that 84 per cent. of local authorities believed that they did not have sufficient powers to deal with fly tipping, and that 97 per cent. supported a change in the regulations. In the light of such figures and the clear demand for a change in the law, I hope that the Minister will tell us what progress is being made towards the implementation of a system that will provide an accurate picture and reliable database to inform future policy development.
The picture may be blurred, but there is no doubt that the problem is getting worse, and my experience in my Bexhill and Battle constituency is that it is getting worse fast. Rother district council has seen a sharp rise in fly
264WH
tipping of materials such as tyres and abandoned cars. There were 130 cases in 2002, whereas there were barely a handful in previous years.
However, as my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire said, the problem is not confined to rural areas. Between July and December 2002, Leeds reported 1,884 incidents of fly tipping, which cost the council £250,000 to clean up. That prompted Simon Firth, the Environment Agency's team leader for Leeds, to say:
"Fly tipping is both an economic and environmental blight. It is antisocial, looks terrible and can attract vermin."
The proliferation of vermin often goes unmentioned. However, in January 2003, the Daily Mail highlighted the issue, reporting that Scotland's rat population has increased by a quarter in just four years, largely as a result of fly tipping.
Mr. Jackson: Since devolution.
Gregory Barker: Yes, since devolution. It is clear that broad changes are needed. The Environment Agency dealt with only 3,774 fly tipping incidents last year; the majority of incidents were processed by local authorities, which are ill equipped in terms of legal status to do so. As I said, local authorities overwhelmingly believe that the system needs an overhaul. We need to arm our local authorities with new and coherent powers.
The Select Committee on Environmental Audit, of which I am a member, recently produced a report, entitled "Waste and Audit", which confirmed that the number of illegal disposal cases had mushroomed since the late 1990s. I particularly commend the report's comments on fly tipping. In point 21, we noted:
"The Environment Agency has recently applied to DEFRA for additional funding to support a Fly Tipping Abatement Task Force"
at a start-up cost of £14 million, plus £1 million annual running costs. In light of the cost of cleaning up, that is a small-beer solution. We strongly recommended that DEFRA gives the application urgent and sympathetic consideration.
Siobhain McDonagh: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that local authorities might be better placed to do that work than the Environment Agency, because they are under greater pressure from the local population to deal with the problem? Most of our constituents consider that it is the responsibility of the local authority.
Gregory Barker: I agree that responsibility must rest with locally elected and accountable councillors. However, there is a need for a coherent national policy and a national strategy to ensure that laggards conform, as not all local authorities are up to best practice. The Environment Agency is best placed to make the concerted effort that will ensure that that is done and that there is uniformity of implementation and application of environmental legislation.
Our other point was that:
"Both the Environment Agency and local authorities need more defined responsibilities and improved powers to combat the growth in fly-tipping."

265WH
We recommended
"that DEFRA takes the opportunity presented by the Anti-social Behaviour Bill to address the weakness in the anti-fly tipping regime."
It is clear from everything that we have heard that the number of prosecutions for fly tipping, and the fines imposed, are insufficient to cope adequately with the problem, especially when companies decide that it is more economic not to comply with environmental law than it is to comply with it. The average fine imposed for fly tipping is gradually increasing, but it is still far short of the maximum that the Environmental Protection Act 1990 allows. We need greater powers to tackle persistent offenders, and more effective imposition of fines at the point of sentence.
Complaints about the inaction of local authorities and the Environment Agency regarding fly tipping are ultimately a reflection on the Government. I know that the Minister is committed to trying to do more, and that budgets cannot be stretched as far as the Government would like. Because of the waste-related costs imposed on local authorities and environment agencies as a consequence of new regulations, local authorities' budgets are already strained; they have competing priorities other than just responding to fly tipping. As always, we come back to the issues of priorities and funding. This year, in particular, local authorities see their budgets stretched and their priorities questioned more than ever.
The issue can be solved only by improving the myriad ineffectual and sometimes burdensome regulations. We should not stop there but should look at ways of improving public education. We need new regulation plus proper implementation and guidance, or we run the risk of achieving the opposite effect and harming the environment that we are trying to protect.
Andrew Selous: I have listened to my hon. Friend with great interest. So far as public education is concerned, would he agree that schools, particularly primary schools, could play an important role? Schools could do more to educate the next generation to take litter seriously. Children might then badger their parents to have a better attitude, and people might have more pride in ownership of their areas. That might be a way of tipping the balance.
Gregory Barker: I wholeheartedly agree. I draw the attention of my hon. Friend to the report that the Education for Sustainable Development Sub-Committee of the Environmental Audit Committee is preparing. It is considering ways in which sustainable development can be promoted through education.
As on so many other matters of environmental concern, the Government's record has fallen short of their ambitious rhetoric. I know that the Minister remains personally convinced of the need for action and his sedentary comments this morning have been encouraging. However, he must not be left isolated in a sea of Government indifference, surrounded by those whose interests and commitment lie elsewhere.
10.20 am
Sue Doughty: I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) on proposing this topic for consideration and all hon. Members who have spoken so far on their thoughtful contributions.
Fly tipping is not a nuisance—it is a crime. We have heard a lot about the increasing problem of urban fly tipping and the fact that people do not even seem to be sufficiently ashamed of themselves to do what people used to do, which was to drive into the countryside where they were not seen. Instead, people just drive round the corner and hope that they are not recognised. That creates a big problem.
We have heard a lot of statistics, which I do not propose to repeat just for the sake of their appearing in press releases. However, the figures that the Government issued in connection with an answer that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) received included a table with some significant figures. For instance, 380,000 tonnes of construction and demolition waste were dumped in 2001—we have already discussed same of the problems to do with that—and there were 118,000 tonnes of cars. That is a real problem. Although we are rightly concentrating on remedies, we must also consider causes. There is still a problem with the end of life vehicles directive, whereby people must pay to dispose of their cars. However, the poorest people who own a car at the end of its life are the hardest to trace. Such people may have bought that car in the pub and it might not be registered.
There were also 5,600 tonnes of furniture. That was probably fly-tipped by individuals, because not everyone who buys a bed gets one from the top of the market where people also pay for someone to take the old bed away. If people are short of money, they do not do that. However, the figure represents the equivalent of 82,000 double beds dumped in 2001.
Siobhain McDonsigh: I think that they are all in my constituency.
Sue Doughty: I sincerely hope not.
On white goods, the Minister will be relieved to know that I am not going to use the F-word in this debate and that we have struck out all references to it. However, there is still a problem. There is also the problem of uncleared dumps growing. There is a psychology to the process: people pile on rubbish, and then they continue to pile rubbish on rubbish.
I am concerned that farmers are being increasingly affected in my constituency, which is served by two local authorities. Farmers there make no money whatever, but they have to pay for things to be taken away all the time.
Mr. Jackson: Does the hon. Lady support my proposal, on which I hope the Minister will comment, to change the law, so that if a landowner or private individual has taken reasonable steps to prevent fly tipping on his property, he will not be held responsible for the cost of clearing it up?
Sue Doughty: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point, which I shall come to shortly. It is an important consideration. I am most sympathetic to his thoughts on the matter, because we need to find a solution.

267WH
I wish to repeat something that the Liberal Democrats have said before and with which the Conservative party might agree. We must bear in mind the lack of a coherent waste strategy when considering the underlying causes. Although I am happy to give the Government credit for introducing certain activities to build up the waste strategy, that strategy is still like a jigsaw. We all know what it is like when one tries to do a great big jigsaw without having the picture, especially when one gets to the sky. I am not even sure that there has been any blue-sky thinking—we are just feeling our way and seeing what fits and docs not. Many of the comments that have been made support that view.
I know from written answers that the Government are concerned to get things quickly into place. We need full consultation on important subjects like this. However, when Cabinet Office guidelines for consultation and partial regulatory impact were published on 17 February, only nine days were given to consider the impact of legislation that included consideration of fly tipping. We would usually be given about 12 weeks for that. Given the complexity of the debate, one can understand why we would want the full 12 weeks. After all, if the Government have waited for six years up until now, 12 weeks to ensure that the consultation is conducted reasonably seems fair.
We accept that the current system for dealing with fly tippers is inadequate. Average fines are short of the maximum permitted, although they are increasing. We are also concerned about how magistrates deal with the problem generally. We need the Government to give clear instruction to the courts on imposing strong, punitive fines to overcome the problem of the economic solution to rubbish disposal—that it is cheaper to fly-tip than it is to dispose of the waste in the correct way. As has been mentioned, organised criminals—the only way to refer to such people—quietly take large amounts of money for removing rubbish and then simply dump it.
We are also concerned about the Anti-social Behaviour Bill and what the Government are doing. We do not know the real scale of the problem. We know how much has been measured, but we do not know what the unmeasured scale of the problem is. Some of the Bill will deal with the problem in part, but we are uncertain about the provisions for waste on private land—a problem that many farmers have—and for having to deal with the cost of the waste.
Fly tipping is a blight for farmers. It creates a lot of work for them, costs them a lot of money and often causes damage as fence gates are demolished to accommodate the waste. Livestock are often injured, and hazardous waste and poisonous materials are left lying around. It is important to recognise the costs of clearing and repairing.
We welcome the measures in the Bill to extend the powers available to the Environment Agency and to waste collection authorities. We hope that they will bring some benefit. However, those powers must be backed up by resources. We are concerned about what local authorities are doing, about the role of the police and about funding. We also have concerns about the Environment Agency.
Mr. Jackson: I speak as a member of the Conservative party, so will the hon. Lady comment on my suggestion
268WH
that income from the fines should be used to help to pay for the costs of enforcement? The key issue is enforcement, which requires more expenditure and greater resources.
Sue Doughty: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his idea, which is worth considering and consulting on. Fines are an extra source of income, and ensuring that the facilities were in place to deal with waste would be a very good way of spending them. They would also help to meet the cost of bringing prosecutions and putting the damage right. Much more thought needs to be given to how that can be achieved.
If, as the Government have estimated, local authorities choose to use the powers available to them under the Anti-social Behaviour Bill, the cost could be more than £20 million in the first year. Where will that money come from? Will it come from already hard-pressed Government funds, gradually from fines, or will there be some pump priming first to set up the schemes? Some information would be useful. My fear is that if the problem is left to the council tax payer, especially in the south-east of England where our councils are already hard pressed, it will understandably not become one of the councils' top priorities.
We have a problem with fragmentation and how we deal with individuals or with organisations, how we deal with different sorts of waste and with the roles of the Environment Agency, the police, the local authority and the collection agency. There is a clear need for a coherent strategy; roles and responsibilities should be fully defined and publicised to all concerned, so that there is a simple understanding as to what to do in the case of a given problem. Perhaps we should have a central organisation, such as a national helpline running 24 hours a day, that would give advice as to what to do and whom to contact, or pass on information to the appropriate body.
At the moment, if the rubbish is on public land, one organisation deals with it. However, if it is on private land, the owner deals with it. Parish councils get stuck with it, and parochial church councils get stuck with it when it is in churchyards. They do not have the money to keep on dealing with it. They often rely on volunteer labour, and find such problems insurmountable, especially in rural areas. Fines must be punitive.
We need to think more about landowners, who bear the cost of clearance. Whether somebody collects rubbish from their land or they take it away themselves, it is wrong to expect landowners to pay for disposal when they arrive at a transfer station or landfill site. In such cases, it is easy to establish that they did not cause the problem. If rubbish is sitting in a street, it is easy enough to prove it, to report the problem and to make an appointment to collect it. Farmers do not collect construction waste, and I am sure that the residents of Merton and Morden do not pile up their rubbish immediately outside their backdoors.
Siobhain McDonagh: Some of them do.
Sue Doughty: If they do, they can be dealt with locally. My suggestion is not a loophole for the sinners to get through; it is a way of dealing with a problem.
This is an urgent problem to which we would like the Government to apply joined-up thinking so that we do not—as is the case with so much waste management

269WH
legislation—get a bit of a prod here and a bit of a prod there in response to a directive without considering the underlying causes and the possible remedies. We mentioned fixed penalties earlier, but I am worried about their use under the Anti-social Behaviour Bill. Should they relate to the size of the crime, the nature of the material and the ability to pay? Is it different if a poor person dumps a car or somebody who could afford to pay for it dumps a lot of rubble? I hope that the Minister will consider all the points that have been made. There have been some strong messages about the different activities that could take place. The overwhelming point is that we need an answer that does not pick off little areas, but provides a coherent strategy for the whole problem.
10.32 am
Mr. James Gray: It is a pleasure to reply to this important debate on behalf of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, lest the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) should be under any misapprehension. It is unfortunate that only one Member from her party has been able to attend, and I am glad that five Members representing Her Majesty's loyal Opposition are here, although one had to go off to chair the Environmental Audit Committee, which does such a good job.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) on having done an outstanding job in bringing this important matter to the attention of the House, which is in unanimous agreement on the scale of the problem and how unattractive it is. It affects farming, all our lifestyles and tourism, and it is an aesthetic outrage in many parts of the country. As the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) and others have reminded us, it is not merely a matter for the countryside. It is an aesthetic and environmental offence in many urban and suburban areas.
The National Farmers Union tells me that 67 per cent. of farms on the urban fringe report a fly tipping problem. That compares with 25 per cent, in truly rural areas. The closer one gets to towns, the bigger the problem becomes, for obvious reasons. I am certain that, as one moves into towns, the problem is large, but less obvious—it is hidden in back alleys, as the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden reminded us. We are unanimous about the fact that it is an evil, that it is getting worse and that society and the Government must do something about it. However, we seem to be slightly less unanimous on the causes of fly tipping and the solutions.
We do not know the size of the problem, although anecdotal evidence suggests that 50,000 instances occurred last year. We know that the Environment Agency responded to 3,774 of them, but that resulted in only 300 prosecutions. That shows that 49,700 were not prosecuted, and the latter figure is the more significant. The 300 prosecutions may have been of major cases, but many businesses and all sorts of people are taking part in this distasteful practice, and they are getting away with it scot free. Indeed, in 1991, as much as 556 cu m of household waste was collected, presumably from private householders. That is equivalent to the contents of 2,500 wheelie bins—quite a lot, but none the less a relatively insignificant amount compared with the large
270WH
quantities that we know are to be found in the countryside. People are severely affected by it in all sorts of ways.
Fly tipping comes in different forms. We know about household waste, of which there is quite a lot, and we are becoming increasingly concerned about vehicles and tyres, but the end of life directive will make things a great deal worse. The scrap merchants—an old fashioned expression—say plainly that car dumping will be a much bigger problem than dumped fridges. I apologise for using the F-word, but I shall return to the subject in a moment.
Car dumping will become an extremely large problem as a result of the end of life directive. The British Metals Recycling Association predicts that the number of illegally dumped cars; will triple to about 750,000 a year as a result of the directive. That may be an exaggeration, as the association has to make a case and will want things to sound bad, but when driving around my constituency in Wiltshire, or Gloucestershire or Oxfordshire—my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage is only two stops down the motorway from me, and the Minister knows Gloucestershire well—one sees large numbers of dumped and burned-out cars in the lay-bys.
The problem particularly affects the countryside. We are very concerned about the effect of the end of life directive, but other directives are in the pipeline. We are worried about the ozone depleting substances directive. As the Minister knows, it deals with fridges, which are a huge problem for my constituency. More asbestos regulations will be made soon, but a lot of asbestos is being dumped with builders' rubble, as are soil and supermarket trolleys—"you name it, we dump it." All sorts of people are doing it, and it will get worse.
Those of us in the countryside are extremely concerned about the animal by-products regulations. In Wales, there is evidence of unscrupulous farmers dumping carcases with the ear tags removed, and we may well see more of that unless the Government get their act together. They should set up a sensible system to remove carcases from farms, and bring it into operation quickly.
Leaving aside all those carcases buried on farms or disposed of by knaekermen, hunts alone disposed of 400,000 carcases last year. However, most hunt incinerators are about to become too small, in that they will not achieve the temperature that, from towards the end of the year, will be required by the European Union. The hunts will therefore have real difficulty in dealing with those carcases. What will happen to the 400,000 hunt-collected carcases and the large number of carcases disposed of on the land?
A small number of farmers have signed up to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs scheme for the collection of carcases. Most responsible farmers would not consider so doing, but is there not a risk that irresponsible farmers and traders, as well as some less responsible members of the agricultural community, may be forced to dispose of their carcases improperly?
Gregory Barker rose—
Mr. Gray: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I have only a few moments to respond and I want to deal with a few more points.

271WH
The disposal of carcases is a worry, and the Minister might want to respond on the question. It is a huge problem and we believe that it will get worse. The Government are, of course, doing much to put it right, but we believe that they are not doing sufficient. Some useful suggestions have been made today as to what they might do.
First, the Government must think much more carefully about unwanted and unforeseen side effects of European directives. We have seen that with regard to fridges and cars, and we are seeing it with regard to carcases and animal by-products regulations. All those measures are laudable, but sometimes they have unforeseen side effects, to which the Government pay insufficient attention. This country tends to gold plate European directives, which we must avoid doing. We must not be at the forefront of implementing the directives coming from Europe; we must be somewhere in the middle. We should conform, but not excessively. Sometimes we go a little too far down that track, which has unfortunate side effects.
Secondly, we must think about green taxes. The landfill tax, which the Conservatives introduced, is eminently laudable and sensible. We must reduce landfill, and the tax is a good way to do that. Incidentally, we must also reduce incineration. However, if a landfill tax were increased to a level at which it became truly uneconomic for anyone to use landfill and that had an effect on behaviour—at £35 or £40 a tonne, people would say that they could not afford to use landfill—the effect on fly tipping would be enormous. The Government must recognise that.
A balance has constantly to be struck between the level of the landfill tax and the consequences that it has elsewhere in the countryside. We must not have the equivalent of a fridge mountain in relation to the landfill tax. It is a question of finding a level that dissuades people from dumping things in landfill unnecessarily, but that makes it economically possible to use landfill.
I am concerned that the skip hire price in the UK has doubled this year, which is an enormous increase. People do not use skips because of the cost of the landfill tax. That is good from an environmental standpoint, but people may wonder what is happening to all the stuff that used to go into skips. Most of us in this Chamber know where it is going. Therefore, green taxes must not be counter-productive.
Several Members have referred to the Anti-social Behaviour Bill, which presents the Government with an opportunity to deal with some problems that have been raised in relation to fly tipping. They must do so carefully, however. It would be useful if the Government clarified the muddle over the roles and responsibilities of the Environment Agency and of local authorities, which are not clear. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) said, it is not clear who is responsible for paying for the removal of fly-tipped waste from public or private land, There might be an opportunity to sort out that problem through the Bill.
We like the proposal for a fly tipping abatement taskforce, which was made by the Environmental Audit Committee in particular. It seems to have quite a lot to recommend it and quite a lot of what the Committee
272WH
suggested is sensible, but we would like additional measures to be introduced. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) talked about identifying offenders. Action could be taken, whether through the vehicle licensing authorities or others, to identify vehicles and CCTV could be used, perhaps in urban or suburban areas more than in rural ones. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden talked about that.
In the moment or two remaining, I want to commend a proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage that makes eminently good sense. In Wiltshire, we are making good use of the ability to hypothecate the money from fines resulting from the use of speed cameras. Like it or lump it, Wiltshire will shortly be covered by those yellow boxes, because the county council is to recycle the funds raised from the fines to introduce speed containment measures. As my hon. Friend proposed, the same principle could be applied to fly tipping. If the local authority recycled the fines, that would be a good use of the "polluter pays" principle, as he says, to improve enforcement standards and prevention in the county.
The Government could and should be doing quite a lot of things, but we have concerns about their approach to European directives, which we believe they may be excessively enthusiastic in applying. There are unfortunate side effects to some directives, as the Minister knows to his cost, and the word "fridge" is probably written on his heart. There has been a failure on occasion to spot those inadvertent side effects. That applies to the end of life directive and the animal by-products directive, which could have serious effects on fly tipping. We ask the Government to pay particular attention to them.
Even at this late stage in the legislative year, the Government should consider introducing a new clause on fly tipping to the Anti-social Behaviour Bill. Fly tipping is a huge problem for farming, tourism and all of us who enjoy the countryside. We believe that the Government can do something about it. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage on taking the opportunity to introduce the debate. I hope that the Government have listened very carefully to what he had to say.
10.45 am
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): I entirely agree that it has been an excellent debate. The hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) was absolutely right to raise such a major national issue. He addressed it in a balanced, fair and reasonable way and made many helpful suggestions that I am keen to pursue. My only disagreement is that I fear that the problem is even bigger than some hon. Members believe, and I should like to go further than many suggested.
The Government agree that it is necessary to take further action on a major scale to tackle fly tipping. Litter and fly tipping are major problems. They have undoubtedly got worse in recent years. Such acts are unacceptable and must be stamped out. The principle that the polluter pays is one in which we all believe. That must be done and be seen to be done.
Many changes are being made to how we deal with waste. We need to recycle more and dispose of less. The hon. Gentleman was fair in saying that he agrees with

273WH
much Government policy, but he also said that we need to recognise that directives could have an adverse effect. He is quite right that we must close down as far as possible the unintended side effects of what are otherwise sensible and proper policies.
The hon. Gentleman effectively outlined the problems that fly tipping brings, including the costs. I would add to his list the additional problems it causes of undermining legitimate business activities, creating risks to public health and safety, and damaging the environment. We all agree that it is thoroughly antisocial and unsightly, and that it degrades the countryside and urban areas.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the current lack of national statistics and our plans to remedy that in the Anti-social Behaviour Bill. He asked whether we have any data to illustrate the growing problem, and we do. The Environment Agency is in its second year of recording the incidents with which it deals. It noted a 19 per cent. increase in fly tipping in England and Wales in 2002. Closer inspection of the details shows a 73 per cent. increase in London, where fly tipping is dominated by construction waste, which often contains hazardous material such as asbestos waste. The midlands and the north-east are the other hardest-hit areas. Some local authorities are also recording increases. In 2002, the London borough of Lewisham counted 13,500 incidents of fly tipping, costing more than £500,000 to clear up. That figure was 50 per cent. higher than in 2001, which, in turn, was 50 per cent. higher than in 2000. That is the scale of the problem.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned some of the policies that he believes will lead to an increase in fly tipping. We need to understand more about why people fly-tip. Cost is certainly a factor, as is laziness, ignorance, and the procedures and practices at some civic amenity sites. There is also a hard core of professional criminals in many localities, and for them it is a matter of profit. We need to know more about the incentives, the further pressures and the general policies that have been tried by local authorities and the Environment Agency. Those policies have had some positive effect in reducing the levels, and we plan to carry out research this year that will help us to develop effective policies in future. In 2004, we plan to issue guidance on good practice to local authorities on the measures that they can take.
On the key question of what should be done, the hon. Gentleman made a great deal of the difference between the 50,000 incidents and the 319 convictions resulting from the 3,700 incidents dealt with by the Environment Agency. I agree that that is a stark comparison. The fundamental problem is identification. It is difficult to catch fly tippers, particularly if they are clever and do not leave any tell-tale details behind. Although a great deal of rubbish is dumped during the day, fly tippers also dump rubbish during the hours of darkness, and are therefore difficult to catch unless night cameras are used. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the proposed measures in the Anti-social Behaviour Bill to resolve some of the current deficiencies in legislation. If successful, local authorities will be given the Environment Agency's current power to stop, search and seize vehicles suspected of being used for fly tipping, and to investigate incidents to help them track down and prosecute those responsible for dumping waste. Yesterday I happened to accompany the chair of the
274WH
Environment Agency on a visit to certain landfill sites. He told me about the success of the Environment Agency in using those powers, and the remarkable and criminal activities that were discovered as a result. Giving those powers to local authorities could substantially increase the apprehension of such people.
The Bill will also give the Secretary of State the power to issue statutory directions to the Environment Agency and local authorities on the types of fly-tipping incidents with which they should deal. The Environment Agency will deal with the fly tipping of hazardous waste and serious environmental crime, and local authorities with incidents involving non-hazardous waste. That seems to us a sensible division. Those directions will formalise the current voluntary agreement and will ensure that all local authorities take action. As I mentioned, local authorities and the Environment Agency will also be required to submit annual data returns to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs so that national statistics can be compiled.
I was also asked what further measures we are considering, and I think that the hon. Gentleman asked about the time scale. We are considering responses to the consultation paper, "Living Places—Powers, Rights, Responsibilities". The responses commented on the two options included in that paper and, I am pleased to say, suggested many others. We are also discussing possible measures with the Environment Agency and the Local Government Association, and I have asked the national fly tipping prevention group, which is chaired by the Environment Agency, for its suggestions. I attended a meeting of that group recently and was impressed by the range of ideas and the enthusiasm and determination of its members. Further consideration should be given to many of those suggestions and the costs of each one identified.
During the summer, we plan to consult on the proposals and on any partial regulatory impact assessments. In the autumn, we will publish details of the proposals that we intend to implement. The changes will be made when another legislative opportunity becomes available. In other words, the Anti-social Behaviour Bill is only part of the package. We will also try to address the funding problem in the spending review process because I am fully aware that more resources are needed, particularly for enforcement. Retention of receipts is an important issue, and I should like that practice to be implemented.
The duty of care regulations were recently revised to give waste collection authorities the power to serve a notice on businesses requiring them to furnish the waste collection authority with their duty of care records. Of course, the Environment Agency already has that power. It helps waste collection authority officers to check whether businesses are transferring their waste in accordance with the law. It will also help local authorities to investigate fly-tipping incidents by, for example, finding letterheaded paper in the waste. That requires considerable effort to rummage through the waste, but it is worth it. Waste collection authorities are well placed to do that work as part of their local responsibilities.
I understand that the hon. Gentleman discussed fly tipping with one of the Environment Agency's local officers in the western area of his constituency. The officer offered some personal views on changes that

275WH
could be made, and I shall comment on some of them. People who have failed in their duty of care can be prosecuted under section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and clearance costs can be recovered from the person responsible for fly tipping. I am not sure what extra measures the hon. Gentleman proposes, but I shall be happy to consider the matter further if more details are supplied. There is nothing between us in our determination to stamp down on fly tipping and I will consider anything that will do that positively and effectively.
The changes that we want to make to section 59 of the 1990 Act, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, will make it more useable by applying it to landowners and by amending the current defence that anyone served a clearance notice can say he neither made, nor knowingly permitted, the waste to be deposited. He made a significant point that landowners who assert that they have taken all reasonable measures to prevent fly tipping on their land should not be liable. We are considering that, although implementing such a measure is not as straightforward as it looks.
As disposing of bulky household waste is one of the main types of fly tipping, I can understand why many, including the hon. Gentleman, want householders to be placed under a similar duty of care to that of businesses to ensure that they dispose of their waste legally. We are happy to consider such a proposal, but we must further consider the practical implementation difficulties of introducing such a system given the number of households in an area, how it would be enforced and the potentially huge additional cost involved.
The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) asked about making it easier for enforcement agencies to trace unregistered vehicles. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) referred to that when he could get away from his obsession with the F-word, which he mentioned at least half a dozen times. There used to be problems with unregistered vehicles, but they should be resolved by
276WH
section 22 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002, which require the registered keeper of the vehicle to return the registration document to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency immediately after a sale.
The definition of waste was also raised by the hon. Member for Wantage. I understand that his purpose in doing so was to address the possibility of defendants abusing the current exclusion of agricultural waste from waste management controls. The Government have made clear their commitment to repealing that exclusion. We have also established the agricultural waste stakeholders forum to develop the necessary regulations and plan to consult in the autumn on a draft of those regulations.
On the critical point about penalties, I go further than the hon. Gentleman: I am appalled at how many of the fines are utterly paltry and derisory. It sends the message that it is cheaper, better and easier to evade the law than to obey it, which is the exact opposite of what it should be in a law-abiding society. I have been considering penalties for some time and whether the use of fixed-penalty notices would help to enforce the legislation.
Mr. Jackson: What about hypothecation?
Mr. Meacher: I shall come to that in a moment.
I am keen to have a substantial increase in the level of fines contained in legislation and imposed by magistrates to reinforce the seriousness of these offences, but getting that across to magistrates is often a large part of the problem. We issued guidance to magistrates last year, in which tackling environmental crimes was an important goal, and the agency offers training courses to magistrates. However, I am keen to see a dramatic rise in the average level of the fines that magistrates impose. I like the idea of community service orders, which was mentioned.
Finally, on the retention of receipts from fines, we shall discuss with the Treasury whether that is appropriate for fly-tipping offences, much in the same way as local authorities keep receipts from litter fines.

Shellfish Industry (Devon)
11 am
Richard Younger-Ross: The Minister is well briefed on shellfish today, having attended the centennial of the Shellfish Association of Great Britain at Fishmongers hall last night, as did I and many others. He will have heard an eloquent speech by Captain Phillip Gibbon, who outlined the problems of the shellfish industry over recent years. I noticed that the Minister also spent some time afterwards talking to fishermen, rather than just rushing off, and I compliment him on that. He will have heard directly their concerns and fears about the future of their industry. I spoke to a number of those fishermen, and two or three of them told me to say a special thank you to the Minister—the crab fishermen from south Devon, in particular, were pleased with he has achieved on their behalf.
However, I am not here merely to praise the Minister. The River Teign's problems go back over a number of years, and I shall briefly go through the history. In July 1997, the testing for E. coli in bivalve molluscs recorded two failures over the accepted limit of 4,600 parts. That is not a problem under the current regulation: in a year, from April to April, up to a 10 per cent. failure rate is allowed. However, the following January there was, bizarrely, a spectacular failure. The rate exceeded the limit, going up to 35,000. Everyone in the industry said at the time that that result was a glitch and I still think that it was an error that arose from putting the decimal point in the wrong place. However, whether that result was real or an error, its consequence was that the Teign estuary could no longer be considered as category B. It had failed and had to be downgraded to category C. The Teign estuary was shut down as of 1 September 1998.
In the previous year, 110 tonnes of oysters and mussels had been extracted from the estuary, which employed 40 individuals, some full-time, but mostly part-time. The shutdown devastated the industry. Mussels are not like oysters—the issue mostly concerns mussel production—in that they cannot be picked up and moved, as that is not cost-effective. Many people have left the industry, some almost certainly permanently. In the second year of reopening the beds, those in the industry have managed to extract 25 tonnes. It is a cause of some bitterness to the shell fishermen and watermen of the Teign estuary that it now employs only three individuals.
Mr. Anthony Steen: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising this issue, which is critical to south Devon. I should also like to associate myself with issues concerning the Teign, because there are similar problems in the Dart and the Avon. Does he agree that, in Britain, we are now, perhaps understandably, neurotic about hygiene and food safety? In France, Spain and Italy, people produce all those wonderful fruits of the sea. The public eat them, survive and are healthy. Would he agree that our officials seem to be over the top on many of these issues to the detriment of the public in Britain?
Richard Younger-Ross: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. I will go into slightly more detail as I progress.
278WH
Was the shutdown in 1998 necessary? The fishermen say no, local consumers in Teignmouth, Shaldon and Newton Abbot say no and the environmental health officers for Teignbridge and for South Hams, whose job is to protect the public on matters of food poisoning, also said no. My view is that that is the correct answer. The shutdown was not necessary and it was not justified at that time. As I outlined, the shutdown took place from 1 September 1998. If the January reading of 35,000 was correct, why did it take nine months to shut the river down? If there was a problem then, surely we had a risk of food poisoning for the rest of the season from the continued extraction of the shellfish.
France and the Netherlands follow the same EU directive on the amount of E. coli in bivalve molluscs, but they follow a simple red-light, green-light system. If the test is failed, they stop extraction. When, after extensive testing, they get the all clear, they can extract again. Therefore, when they have good molluscs—good mussels and good oysters—they can sell them. The River Teign has some superb mussels and oysters. If they have a problem, they are not sold. The problem is that, under our system, bad mussels and oysters can be sold because of the delay in the order to stop extraction. The following year perfectly good mussels and oysters can live happily, lying on the riverbed, enjoying the sunshine and not being extracted.
That was the problem that the shell fishermen described to me and to the others who would listen in 1998 and 1999. I spoke to Graham Watson, a Member of the European Parliament, to see whether he could organise a meeting in Westminster. Later that year, he led a delegation to see Baroness Hayman. The delegation also included the then Member of Parliament for Teignbridge, the environmental health officers from the two south Devon districts, fishermen and representatives from the Shellfish Association of Great Britain.
We got a good reception. The noble Lady clearly listened. The civil servants prevaricated and justified the existing situation. However, we left that meeting clearly of the view that the noble Lady had turned to Richard Hardy and said, "Sort this out. Investigate this and let us know what the answer is." This would have made a good episode of ?Yes Minister", because nothing happened. The fishermen waited, and they wrote. The Shellfish Association wrote, but there appeared to be no action for a number of years.
Eventually in 2002, there was public consultation that had to be completed by 6 December 2002. Evidence was gathered to look at the problem and we should have expected an answer by now. But no, we have heard that the Shellfish Association has been told that the Foods Standards Agency is too busy. It does not have enough staff and the earliest that it can begin to review the consultation carried out last year is at the end of this year. Does the Minister believe that that is good enough? I do not. If he does not believe that it is good enough, will he do us and the industry a favour and give the FSA the proverbial kick up the backside? In this instance, it needs it.
There are a couple of other areas in which there are problems with the way in which we administer and test for problems in bivalve molluscs. We should look at instances of diarrhetic shellfish poisoning. The testing

279WH
method is to take a sample of a mollusc, mince it up, inject it into a mouse and observe the mouse for 24 hours. If it dies, one has a problem and stops extraction.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley)indicated assent.
Richard Younger-Ross: The Minister nods. He is clearly familiar with the method. Mice came up at the dinner last night—but only in the conversation. The question that the industry asks is: when the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science at Weymouth carries out the test, why do the mice die? However, when samples from the same beds are sent to the marine laboratory at Aberdeen, why do the mice not die?
When the Shellfish Association has had concerns about the testing methods at Weymouth and has sent samples from the same batch to the national laboratories of France and Holland, which use different testing methods, it has been told that there is no diarrhetic shellfish poisoning. There has to be a question about how CEFAS at Weymouth carries out the tests. I understand that the method is to inject into the gland. If all the mice are dying, are the scientists using a hammer to put the mice to sleep before injecting them? I hope that the Minister will ask his Department to look into the disparity between the test results. If the results come back negative, it has a devastating effect on the beds and on the people trying to make a meagre living—they do not make vast fortunes—out of the growing and extraction of oysters and mussels.
I know that the Minister and his colleagues in most countries in Europe are concerned about the way in which we measure E. coli and whether the present methods are accurate and reliable. I should like to give him a piece of information that was passed to me at the weekend. Last September, there was a problem in the River Teign. The environmental health officer was concerned when he learned about it, but he was not told at the time. Those with such information are at CEFAS in Weymouth, and they sit on it. One of the points made to the Minister last night concerned the remoteness of CEFAS from what is going on. We should consider a system of local control, so that environmental health officers can be told what is going on and can carry out investigations into problems and resolve them.
The Government are keen on decentralisation and on giving powers to local people; we have seen that in many policy areas. I do not believe that decentralisation has, necessarily, been carried out correctly, but the principle is right. On the occasion in question, an investigation was carried out some time after the problem occurred. By chance, one of the harbour commissioners asked when it had occurred, and remembered that 6 September had been the day when some of an excess of sprats had accidentally spilled into the River Teign. The consequence of a large number of dead fish in the river is a large number of seagulls on the estuary. It is more than conceivable that the guano from seagulls caused the problem. However, I understand that the human E. coli is dangerous and that the E. coli from seagulls is not
280WH
a big problem in the minute particles in which it is found in bivalve molluscs. I am happy to take alternative scientific advice, but that is what I am advised.
We have other problems. The River Teign is dredged as the tide is coming in, not when it is going out. Pollutants on the river bed will be disturbed as the tide is rising which will therefore affect the mussel beds. I wonder whether we need greater liaison between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the FSA and the Environment Agency on dredging procedures. Teignmouth has a small port, but many other rivers are dredged.
Finally, the European Union FSA sent a delegation to the United Kingdom last year, between 8 and 17 June. It produced a report on the implementation of directive 91/492/EEC on live bivalve molluscs, and directive 91/ 493/EEC on fishery products. It visited Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. The Minister may not know, because it concerns another Department, but I wonder why it did not visit England. Despite requests, it did not meet people from the industry because it was not permitted to do so. On page 11, the report states:
"Traceability was often not of the required standard. Registration documents were not always received with batches of bivalve molluscs. Dispatch centres did not necessarily maintain the required records."
What will the Minister do to improve traceability and to answer that criticism?
I thank the Minister for what I hope will be a short reply. I say that because, putting it bluntly, the industry does not want a long speech that was prepared by officials. I hope that he will recognise the problems and give us an assurance that they will be resolved. Will he finish the work started by Baroness Hayman? Will he change the system from the lunatic 12-month ban that starts in September to a stop-go, red-light, green-light situation?
Mr. Anthony Steen rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John. McWilliam): Order. Does the hon. Gentleman have the permission of both the Member and the Minister?
11.17am
Mr. Steen: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I shall be brief.
I support the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross). I had similar experiences in my previous constituency of South Hams, where oyster beds and mussel beds were lost because of overzealous enforcement by environmental health officers. The problem is that the Government can never get it wrong, because in matters of health and hygiene and the good management of shellfish, they will always go for the safe option. They will always say that things are not safe unless they have an absolutely green light. That is true of all food.
We now live in a state in which food is so processed and pure that one would expect no illnesses, yet we have more incidents of food poisoning under the new agency for health and hygiene. There is no correlation between the obsession about health and hygiene, and the health of the nation.

281WH
I entirely support what the hon. Gentleman said. I have similar stories, but it is not appropriate to tell them now. I have complete confidence in the Minister's ability to take the matter by the short and curlies—if he so decides. I know that eating shellfish can be dangerous and that the health of the country is important, but the Minister must not go overboard, as the Government often do, on matters of hygiene and safety, because that would eliminate jobs—and a wonderful crop of oysters and mussels.
11.19am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): I congratulate the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) on his introduction of the debate and on asking a number of relevant questions. He is right: I went to the Shellfish Association of Great Britain dinner last night on its 100th anniversary, which was an enjoyable occasion. I was touched to be presented with a special badge by the association, and I listened carefully to the concerns raised by the speakers.
As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, I also took the opportunity to stay on after the dinner to talk with representatives of the shellfish industry. I discussed in more detail their concerns, which are pretty consistent. I understand the importance of the shellfish industry to the hon. Gentleman's constituency—shellfish is a quality product and the sector is successful. We are keen to support and promote the industry and to address its concerns.
It might be useful if I concentrate on the points that have been raised and which I understand—I spent a considerable time talking about them last night. This morning, I had further talks with my officials about how we can address those concerns and what we can do to assist. The issue of classification of waters is important; there is no dispute about that. Shellfish waters have to be classified and the testing of shellfish for toxins is a public health matter that rightly falls in the policy scope of the Food Standards Agency. However, as a Minister at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, I am responsible for the fisheries industry, so it is perfectly legitimate for the industry to raise concerns with me. I am more than happy to raise those concerns with the FSA and to address the points that the hon. Gentleman has made.
One of the hon. Gentleman's points was about the tests, which were again discussed last night. Mice get a hard time in those tests, yet in the 21st century we could and should have a more sensitive and more accurate test than feeding bits of shellfish to unfortunate mice to see whether they keel over. Our laboratories want to move away from such tests involving mice, as there are more modern tests available, such as molecular and DNA tests. I shall raise the matter with our DEFRA chief scientist. The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, for example, is anxious to move away from such tests, and the Home Office is also committed to modernising and reducing the use of animals. More sensitive tests may be helpful here.
I appreciate that Members understand this point, but it is worth emphasising that food safety and the safety of consumers are paramount. The idea behind the FSA is
282WH
addressing what happened to the red meat industry. Consumers lost confidence in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and in the testing procedures in the wake of BSE. The red meat industry suffered devastating consequences from which it has not fully recovered even today. We do not want that to happen to the shellfish sector, which has a good image and sells a quality product. We want to maintain that strength. The idea behind the FSA's independence is to ensure that there is consumer confidence. Consumers can then be reassured that there is neither ministerial interference nor attempts to put industry concerns above consumer protection. That is a strength and success of the FSA.
Despite that, it is not unreasonable to raise some of the points that have been made. I am well aware of the worries about the atypical testing results for diarrhetic shellfish poisoning and the fact that the FSA has, from time to time, closed harvesting areas as a precautionary measure to protect human health. There have been a number of atypical DSP results in Devon. The FSA has assured us that it is, investigating the cause of those results as a priority, and it has a substantial programme of work under way to assess the human health implications.
In the meantime, DEFRA, working with the sea fisheries committees for affected cockle grounds, has been doing what it can, in consultation with the agency, to try to address some problems in relation to management. Where practicable, we can operate zoning arrangements, so that even where there have been positive test results we do not necessarily have to close all the shellfish beds. We can create a zone from the areas where there have been positive results, and allow harvesting from some other areas. We have been doing that in various parts of the country where there has been a problem, and we have had some success.
I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the need for a consistent approach to what is done in Europe and how it addresses this issue. We are prepared to take that up with the FSA, because we would not want our shellfish sector to be unfairly disadvantaged compared with others, and I understand the point about the classification of water quality in shellfish harvesting areas. We are pressing his point on reviewing all those issues.
The FSA is thinking about a longer-term classification—over five years—to improve the stability of area classifications and safeguard public health protection. The industry is interested in that. I also take the point that when there is a positive result on quality— a negative result, in this case—there is an argument for perhaps closing the area and reopening it as soon as there is a better result. I am happy to talk to the FSA about that. In all fairness, the FSA and CEFAS are aware that there are so-called spikes in water quality, particularly when there is a downpour and perhaps sewer flooding and discharge. They understand that, and it is taken into account in their monitoring, but I will certainly raise those points.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are committed to improving our coastal waters—indeed, all our waters. I am glad to say that the trend in water quality is upwards. The Government aim to achieve bacteriological standards that allow all shellfish sites to gain at least category B classification. As part of our

283WH
commitment to implement the shellfish water directive, we have designated 93 shellfish waters in England as category B—an increase of 76 sites since 1998.
We have been talking to the water and sewerage companies, which are one of the principal reasons for waters failing the quality test, about their investment programme. In the Devon area, South West Water is making significant investment to improve sewage treatments. Most of those improvements are under way or planned to be completed by the end of 2005.
Richard Younger-Ross: On that point, South West Water has already carried out a clean sweep of the River Teign. Bizarrely, the failures happened after the cleanup programme. That is what makes them so inexplicable.
Mr. Morley: I may be able to explain. I understand that there has been a problem of intermittent discharges from the sewerage system upstream of the estuary at Newton Abbot. That may be responsible for the downgrading of the waters to category C in 1999. However, I understand that some have been recategorised as category B, so things are clearly going the right way.
We want to consider schemes to help to upgrade some areas from category B to category A in the next periodic review of water price limits in England and Wales. That involves building into the investment programme consideration of water quality generally and taking account of the shellfish industry's needs in particular. We certainly want to take that forward, and CEFAS has contributed to it. It is working with the Shellfish Association of Great Britain to identify priorities for category A waters.
I well understand the points that the hon. Gentleman has made and the shellfish industry's concerns. We must look after consumer interests. No one would disagree that that is in the industry's interests. However, questions have been raised that deserve to be taken seriously, and we will take those up with the FSA. It is important to have local information, and it is a fair point that the Environment Agency should be informed.
It is also important that the industry is involved from the beginning of the process in relation to the assessments and how they are done, and that its views and local knowledge are taken into account within that approach. We will take up those issues with the FSA. I hope that we can address them for the benefit of the industry and water quality.
11.30am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

European Year of Disabled People
2 pm
Mr. Tom Clarke: I welcome this debate, and the inevitable focus on disabled people in both Britain and Europe. In Britain there are 8.6 million people with disabilities, including blindness, deafness, inability to walk or talk, and mental illness. If they were all gathered together, we would not have enough football stadiums to accommodate them. Disability has no boundaries socially or internationally, and it has been estimated that almost 600 million people throughout the world have disabilities.
In the European year of disabled people, the European Union has 37 million disabled people, who are more likely than their fellow citizens to be unemployed and only half as likely to reach further and higher education. Nothing illustrates that discrimination—for that is what it is—better than the recent Scope document, "Ready, Willing and Disabled", which highlighted the predicament of one individual who has 10 GCSEs, two A-levels and one degree, has made 114 job applications, had 24 job interviews, has one disability—but, chillingly, has no job.
The European year of disabled people and the charter for the new millennium offer the opportunity for us to have this debate, which I hope will be open and inclusive. I know that it will be well informed, because of the number of briefings and the amount of advice that I have already received. There is a window of opportunity to discuss what has been happening, what has been achieved, what challenges lie ahead and what discrimination in Britain and Europe still exists and should be removed. I have taken the opportunity to sign early-day motions 1225 on autism awareness and 1269 on the European disability directive.
For the moment, I shall focus my comments on some of the significant developments for people with disabilities. Motability must rank as one of the most important developments ever. Currently, 400,000 people in this country are enjoying mobility in a way that was not thought possible, but that has not been emulated elsewhere in Europe. More generally, under this Government, it must be acknowledged that last year alone, £11 billion was paid to 4 million people to help them to meet some of their needs and to cope with the cost of disability. For example, in 1997, a disabled child drew £21 a week in income support. That has now almost doubled to just over £41 a week. Families with a disabled child have received an increase in average family income of more than one third since 1997, and I warmly welcome that focus on children with disabilities.
There have been positive initiatives on jobs, but employment for disabled people is still one of the major hurdles to be overcome. A disabled person in Britain is seven times more likely to be out of work and on benefits. I am delighted that the Government intend to implement a key employment directive, thus ensuring that even the smallest companies will no longer be able to discriminate against disabled people.
Housing for disabled people is far more accessible than at any time in our history. Of total Housing Corporation expenditure, 13 per cent. is allocated for people with special needs, although I can tell the House

285WH
that I seldom attend a constituency surgery without at least one constituent enquiring about aids and adaptations, which are very important. In Scotland we have a prosthesis clinic in Glasgow that is the most modern in the UK. I want to see more such examples of best practice. We should be proud of many such achievements.
It has not been a journey without obstacles. As far back as 1986, I piloted a private Member's Bill through the House. Nothing has given me more satisfaction than successfully introducing the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. In all humility, let me cite the main features of my Act, which had a modest impact on the lives of many people with disabilities, but which even today has not yet been fully implemented. The Act addressed the importance of services and access to such vital services as transport, housing, leisure and art facilities, and the health service. Those goals could not be delivered properly in the absence of a strategy for that access.
Advocacy was at the heart of the 1986 Act, and remains of the utmost importance. Representation was part of the Bill's title, and the reason for that was clear. When we talk today about people with brain injuries— many of those are young people—and about elderly people with Alzheimer's disease and those with physical disability, it is clear that there is still a role for advocacy, whether that be one individual representing another as we have seen in so many successful cases, or advocacy groups, which exist in many parts of the country and are very effective.
The Act also rightly drew attention to the needs of carers. Of course it was right that there should be assessments of the needs of disabled people and the services that ought to be available, but we are also bearing in mind today, as we did in 1986, the fact that so many carers all over Britain are doing an excellent job 24 hours a day, seven days a week. They, too, are entitled to assessments if that means a couple of afternoons to do a bit of shopping, give them a bit of respite, and allow them to meet friends. Otherwise, we find that relationships break down and two people can end up institutionalised, so that we meet with no degree of success.
When the 1986 Act was going through, the huge number of letters that I received, in one question raised again and again by carers—often elderly people—as their offspring grew and became difficult to handle, was what would happen to their son or daughter after they had gone. I want to be part of a society that is able to answer that question. That is why consultation is important, and if we are to have an inclusive society, carers and advocates should feel that they are part of it. At that time, I had excellent support from two advisers in particular. One was a young man called John Healey, who then became my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth, and is now the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. Given his sensitivities, he will listen very carefully to the growing demands for proper resources, not least from local authorities, and, given his knowledge of disabilities, we can look forward to more funding to deal with the problems of people with learning disabilities, as I believe Lord Rix suggested in another place a few weeks ago. We also admired the support of Peter Mitchell, who worked for Radar and whose drafting abilities were exceptional.
286WH
The 1986 Act and so much of the legislation that followed would not have been possible without the outstanding support of many organisations of and for disabled people, whose sole purpose is producing a better quality of life for people with disabilities. An organisation that I want to mention, and which I know my right hon. and hon. Friends would want me to mention, is the all-party group in this House, which is one of the most influential and effective of its kind.
We have support, too, from organisations outwith the House, such as Enable in Scotland, Mencap, Radar, Mind, the Royal National Institute of the Blind and the Royal National Institute for Deaf People, and, of course, we are supported by the input of local voluntary organisations and disability forums. They constantly remind me to advance the case for proper joint planning, which is nowhere more relevant than in mental health. I find it extremely worrying that, notwithstanding all the legislation and all the commitment to care in the community, there are still mentally ill people who leave long-stay hospitals and find themselves in hostels or, perhaps, even in the streets. We still have what has been described for many years as the revolving-door syndrome, and such people simply do not know where to go.
I feel bound to refer to one very unpleasant aspect of that situation: many mentally ill people and people with learning disabilities are sent to prison in every part of the British isles because the courts simply do not know where to put them. That is unacceptable in the new millennium.
I have referred to the 1986 Act, but since then we have also had the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which was introduced under the previous Conservative Government by the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). It was very much a step in the right direction, but some of us who followed its proceedings said that in many respects, welcome as it was, it was flawed. I hope to refer later to some of the flaws.
That Act dealing with disability discrimination did manage to address the issue of definition. I am glad that that debate continues and that, if the information that I have is right, the Government of today are considering adding HIV/AIDS and cancer to the definition. That would be very welcome.
However, I have a specific question for my hon. Friend the Minister about ME, which was examined in the very significant and well informed Donaldson report. Some of my colleagues may recall that about 15 months ago, on 6 February 2002, I was able to initiate a debate on the report in this Chamber. In responding, the Minister said that the Government were considering taking that report to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and asking it for recommendations. Time has passed. The issue is extremely important, particularly for those who suffer from that draining condition, and I would very much like to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister what the Government's thinking is now.
One of the major defects of the Disability Discrimination Act, to which I referred earlier, was the absence of a disability rights commission. It was not that some of us did not fight for that; we did, and came within 13 votes of getting it. It is to this Government's credit that the Disability Rights Commission does now exist, and I congratulate it on its work. However, I had not

287WH
expected that we would so soon be turning to the proposed single equality body. Three statutory bodies are currently charged with promoting equality, but our concern in today's debate is the Disability Rights Commission, which covers discrimination on the grounds of disability under the Disability Rights Commission Act 1999 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995—the DDA. An advanced debate on the possibility of a single equality body is being driven by an EU employment directive requiring member states to implement legislation banning discrimination.
Many people are concerned, as am I, that the specific problems relating to disability could be lost or marginalised by a single all-embracing body. However, the Government seem to favour such an option, at least in the longer term. From a Government perspective, it is difficult to quarrel with the notion that a statutory commission offering advice, guidance and support principally on equality matters makes sense. However, my friends and colleagues in the Disability Rights Commission naturally view with healthy scepticism the prospect of their organisation being subsumed into a much larger body, particularly as theirs has been operational only since April 2000.
I accept that there is always a danger of becoming bogged down in processes and organisations when what matters most in the end is the outcome for people with disabilities. However, the TUC and organisations such as the RNIB have said that a single body would not work unless there were a single equality Act. We should consider those representations carefully. Whatever the outcome of this process, whatever the final structure, the acid test is neither the process nor the structure but the model that best delivers the most effective outcome.
I return to employment issues of substantial importance to people with disabilities. The Government may wish to consider a few changes, given the priorities set by the Disability Rights Commission. In its document, "Disability Equality: Making it happen", it gives a considered and powerful response to the DDA and how it works. I should like to draw the Chamber's attention to four major points that it makes on employment. The first is:
"Employers should be subject to a duty to anticipate the requirements of potential disabled employees and applicants, and to take reasonable action to remove barriers in advance of individual complaint."
In practical terms, that means that employers should proactively examine their policies and practices to determine whether they inadvertently disadvantage people with disabilities. Although employers are required to make reasonable adjustments, there is a weakness in the DDA, which does not contain an explicit prohibition on indirect discrimination. Implementing that proposal would not create new sources of litigation, but simply improve and encourage best practice among employers, thereby benefiting people with disabilities.
The DRC's second point on employment is that employment inequality
288WH
"on the grounds of disability should only be justifiable where there is a genuine occupational requirement i.e. a person can be shown not to be competent, capable or available to perform the essential functions of the job, even after allowing for reasonable adjustments."
The DRC again points to the weaknesses of the DDA, under which, it claims, it is too easy for employers to evade responsibility for what would otherwise be considered an act of discrimination. It backs that up with an independent case study. In one particular case, Heinz v. Kerick, the employment appeal tribunal stated that the threshold for the justification "is very low". It went on to say:
"This is not a conclusion we reached with any enthusiasm but as the language of the domestic statute is clear, the remedy for the lowness of the threshold, if any is required, lies in the hands of the legislature and not the courts."
I am sure that the Minister is aware of the Disability Rights Commission case between Surrey police and Ms Marshall. Ms Marshall has a first class degree in genetics from the university of St. Andrews, and succeeded at the interview, but was rejected on medical grounds. Clearly, that is not acceptable.
The DRC's third point was that at present tribunals have no power to recommend that employers change their practices, even after it has been demonstrated that a case brought by an individual reveals the employer's shortcomings. An individual, in the main, seeks only a remedy to their complaint. However, the DRC will always work towards a broader solution. That may include getting the employer to change working practices where appropriate. The point is that tribunals have no formal power to make policy recommendations to employers. Perhaps the Minister will consider the representations that have been made by the DRC. I understand that the Commission for Racial Equality has made similar representations.
Fourthly, the DRC states:
"Disability related enquiries before a job is offered should be permitted only in very limited circumstances."
That is one of the most worrying of the DRC's points. In the Department for Work and Pensions research, disabled people identified recruitment as the most common source of discrimination. To be blunt, the Disability Discrimination Act cannot address that problem. Employers are still asking medical questions about applicants' disabilities prior to job interview and selection. Employers who want to discriminate reject disabled applicants at an early stage.
I know only too well that that is difficult to prove. However, let me highlight the problem in another way. In a Mind survey, 39 per cent. of mental health services users felt that they had been denied a job because of their psychiatric history. In the same survey, nearly 70 per cent. of mental health services users had been put off applying for jobs for fear of unfair treatment. We must ask ourselves whether those fears are well founded. In order to test the attitudes of major UK companies towards people with mental health problems, 200 personnel managers were asked to assess the employment prospects of two almost identical candidates. The only difference between the two was that one had had depression and one had had diabetes. I am afraid that the applicant with depression was thought to have significantly reduced chances of employment. Surely that cannot be acceptable.

289WH
Employment for disabled people is the gateway to a fulfilling life, and that is what people with disabilities want—that opportunity, without discrimination. I am sure that the Government agree with that objective.
Lord Rix and I are in the process of forming an all-party group, and we intend to pursue vigorously the aims and objectives of people with learning disabilities.
The Government, of course, have wider and welcome objectives, as we saw in the document, "Valuing People". However, I have some final pleas for them. In the European year of disabled people, let the new disability Bill be radical, comprehensive and practical. Let it not be piecemeal. As Radar and others suggest, let it be subject to scrutiny by a Joint Committee of both Houses. Let it offer a beacon of best practice not only to Europe but to the rest of the world.
2.24 pm
Angela Watkinson: I welcome this afternoon's debate, and congratulate the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) on securing it. I hope that the European year for people with disabilities will be an opportunity to secure funding to solve some of the long-running problems in my constituency, which I am sure are reflected in other constituencies. I am delighted that the terminology has changed over the years and that we are discussing "people with disabilities" rather than defining people by their disabilities. We discuss people who happen to have disabilities rather than, as used to happen years ago, referring to "the disabled" or "the blind".
Mr. Tim Boswell: Does my hon. Friend agree that what has happened in Northamptonshire, where the Northamptonshire Council for Disabled People has been renamed Ability Northants, is even more positive? That modern title stresses what people can do rather than what they cannot do.
Angela Watkinson: My hon. Friend raises an important point. I hope that the European year for people with disabilities will not be limited to raising awareness and that there will be some practical outcomes. People who are not disabled can only imagine the everyday inconveniences and difficulties for people with disabilities and their carers. I was once taken ill on a plane, and was taken off it and through the airport in a wheelchair. It was interesting to see that no one looked at me when I was in a wheelchair. I know that I was not at the same eye level as everybody else, but I felt that I had become a non-person. People who use wheelchairs have to be more assertive than others to gain attention and to participate in the activities going on around them.
I spent many years working in a school for physically handicapped children. Because the school was very small, the staff became familiar not only with the pupils but with the pupils' families, and therefore also became familiar with the difficulties that the families experienced in their everyday lives. I ran a group providing riding for the disabled. It is difficult to get heavily handicapped children into a minibus, to the stables, out of a minibus and mounted on horses. It requires lots of volunteers to make such activities happen—but to see the face of a child who is not mobile
290WH
because they are unable to walk, but is enjoying a ride on a horse and acquiring equestrian skills, is worth every bit of effort. If only such organisations had greater opportunities to raise their profile and get more volunteers—the volunteers also get a lot out of the activity.
My mother was blind, and when her sight was failing, she had difficulties with the simplest things. For example, when we went shopping to buy clothes, I had to describe whether a garment had buttons or pockets, and whether it suited her. The things that we take for granted are enormous hurdles for people who have disabilities. One of my constituents who has an adult son with learning difficulties recently approached me. She is elderly and is concerned about what will happen to her son when she dies, because her property, which she had deliberately chosen to avoid inheritance tax, has risen in value much faster than she anticipated. The property will be subject to inheritance tax when she dies, and she is worried about how it will be paid because she has no surplus savings and the property will be her entire estate. There are all sorts of hidden problems, of which people who do not have disabilities are not even aware. It is important to raise awareness, and we have the opportunity to do so this year, with local authorities and organisations participating in making people aware of the long-term and everyday problems faced by people with disabilities.
I contacted my local authority to find out what it was doing for the European year of people with disabilities. It is launching a range of events and initiatives to raise awareness. I asked whether there was a source of funding that it could tap into, so that by the end of the year there would be some practical improvements. The European Commission allocated £8.5 million, of which the United Kingdom received £500,000. I understand that the Government added another £2 million. However, £2.5 million nationwide is not very much.
Grants are awarded by the national co-ordinating committee. Unfortunately, my authority, the London borough of Havering, was unsuccessful in its application, which was made on behalf of local organisations, in particular the Havering Association for People with Disabilities, which does good work for a range of groups. So here we are in the European year of people with disabilities, raising awareness by using the council's budget, with no additional money to do anything practical, such as ensuring that Upminster station has disabled access by the end of the year. We are confined to making awards. My local authority will award disability awareness awards in a range of categories. However, those awards recognise improvements that groups throughout the constituency and the borough have already put in place. I would have liked more funding to have come from Europe to back up a worthy and well intentioned year.
2.31 pm
Mr. Roger Berry: May I first say that it is a pleasure to contribute to the debate, and may I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) on securing it?

291WH
The overriding objective of the European year of disabled people has been clearly stated. It is, in its organisers' words,
"to drive progress towards achieving equal rights for disabled people".
This debate comes at an interesting time, because it was only a few weeks ago that we celebrated the third birthday of the disability Rights Commission. Also, it was only a few weeks ago—indeed, it may have been on the same occasion—that we received the first review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 by the DRC, in which it pointed out that it had several significant proposals, some of which were referred to by my right hon. Friend, to clarify and strengthen disabled people's rights in legislation.
The Government have given a commitment to introduce a draft disability Bill that will, among other things, plug the final holes in the DDA, because the DDA was a very flawed piece of legislation, with many omissions and ambiguities. The Government should be congratulated on their commitment to introducing a new Bill to put that right.
This debate on disabled people's rights takes place at an exciting time. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston who, throughout his political life, has made the interests of disabled people central to much of what he has done, but particularly in the two years before the 1997 general election, when he was the shadow Minister for disabled persons' rights. He was instrumental—indeed, key—in developing the policy for the incoming Labour Government; that is what shadow Ministers do. That policy included Labour's commitment to having a disability rights taskforce to address issues, and to introduce comprehensive and enforceable civil rights. My right hon. Friend deserves credit for ensuring that when that election victory came in 1997, the incoming Government had a policy in place to establish the foundations for what has happened since then.
I would also like to congratulate the Government on doing more to promote disabled people's rights in six years than anyone has done in the past 60—or, indeed, 600—years. They set up the disability rights taskforce, established the Disability Rights Commission, introduced the Special Educational Needs And Disability Act 2001, published the first learning disabilities White Paper in 30 years, introduced the new deal for disabled people, and put record amounts of funding into access-to-work programmes. The Government deserve our congratulations for what has happened over the past six years.
There were two preconditions for the progress that has been made over the past few years. The first was that disabled people should speak for themselves. Over many years, organisations representing disabled people have campaigned for equal rights, and disabled people have become increasingly effective in expressing their view about their entitlement to equal treatment. Without the lobbying from the disabled community, I am certain that progress would not have been as fast. The second precondition was for there to be a Government who were committed to doing something about the issue, and that is why I believe that the present Government deserve credit.
292WH
The present Minister and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions also deserve credit for what they have done in the short time in which they have been in post. They are both highly respected for what they are doing, not just by their colleagues, but by the wider disabled community. I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that we look forward to the draft disability Bill, which I am sure will be forthcoming very soon. I hope that the consultation on the Bill will take place rapidly, so that its provisions can be included in the next Queen's Speech.
I shall also say some warm words about the Opposition's stance on this issue— I shall not talk about the past, because in politics the future is more interesting than the past. Since the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) has held his present post—and, for all I know, before that—he has been supportive of what the Government and some of us on the Government Back Benches have said about the need for further rapid progress on rights for disabled people.
However, I am sorry to say that last Friday, a Bill that would have given public bodies a duty to promote equal opportunities for disabled people was talked out. That Bill was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice), and had Government support, and I do not understand why it was talked out. I hope that we will return to a position in which the Opposition are broadly supportive of the Government's actions in this respect.
In this European year of disabled people, there must be further significant advances in legislation. I welcome the Government's promise of a draft disability Bill, and I am optimistic that we will see that Bill soon. I would like to refer to some aspects of that future legislation. A range of areas need to be covered. The Disability Rights Commission listed the necessary legislative changes in its report, and other organisations have suggested similar changes.
In the brief time remaining to me, I shall address one or two of those issues. In legislation such as the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, the definition of disability matters. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston said, there is an ongoing debate about who should be included in the definition of a disabled person, in order to secure rights under the DDA, which defines a disabled person as someone who has
"a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his or her ability to carry out day-to-day activities."
There is a powerful case for a fundamentally different definition that reflects the social model of disability rather than the more medically based approach. However, I agree with the Disability Rights Commission that now is not the time to have a new debate about the definition, because we must ensure that we do not delay extending the protection in the DDA.
That said, I am not happy about the definition and I should like to extend it to embrace other people who are currently not covered by the Act. I shall give two examples. My right hon. Friend referred to people with HIV or cancer. It is essential that all progressive conditions be covered under legislation. Currently, people with HIV/AIDS, cancer, multiple sclerosis and so on are not covered by the Act unless they satisfy the

293WH
condition that I read out. To be covered by the legislation, they must have the physical or mental symptoms. However, if it is wrong to discriminate against someone with MS when they have a physical impairment, it is wrong to discriminate against someone with MS when they have been diagnosed with MS but have no physical impairment.
How can it be right for an employer to say, "I can get rid of this employee now, before they fall within the definition under the DDA"? It is manifest nonsense to say that an employer can get rid of someone who has been diagnosed with cancer when they have no symptoms, whereas if they had sufficiently serious symptoms, they would have protection under the DDA. Progressive conditions must be embraced exclusively, or perhaps I should say "inclusively". I am pleased that the Government have indicated sympathy, indeed support, for such an approach.
Let me give the second example of a way in which the legislation is a bit odd. Years ago, a number of us pointed out that under the Americans with Disabilities Act, there was protection for people who had been discriminated against because they were mistakenly perceived to be disabled. Yet in this country, bizarrely, it is perfectly all right for an employer to discriminate against an employee if the employer thinks that that person is disabled but it turns out that they are not. It is perfectly possible for a service provider—a transport company, school or anything else—to discriminate against someone because it believes that they are disabled, so long as it turns out that that perception was wrong. We cannot allow people to be discriminated against because they are perceived as disabled. That needs to be sorted out.
The DDA must also apply to private clubs, as the Race Relations Act does. I think that the Government have made that point, too. The DDA should embrace all the currently excluded occupations, including the armed forces. This is an interesting issue. To their credit, the Government have said that they will extend DDA coverage to police officers, who were excluded under the original Act, and to prison officers, firefighters and so on. However, they will not extend the Act to cover those in the armed forces. I have tried hard to work out what is special about the armed forces that might justify their exclusion from the employment provisions of the DDA, but I have to confess that I have failed to think of any rational reason whatever.
Perhaps that position is based on the notion that disability discrimination legislation is about requiring employers to offer people jobs—but of course it is about nothing of the kind. The DDA allows for recognition of genuine occupational requirements. It is perfectly lawful, as it should be, for a disabled person to receive less favourable treatment in employment if they do not meet the occupational requirements of the job. Of course that is the case, but if we apply that to the prison service and firefighters, why can we not apply it to the armed forces? For the life of me, I cannot understand that. Nor, I believe, can my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. It is no great secret that, in an effective speech at a public meeting in Blackpool last autumn, he pointed out that he would be distressed if a member of the armed forces were automatically kicked out because he had become
294WH
disabled. I have discussed this with my right hon. Friend, and others are lobbying hard. It is nonsense to have any excluded occupations.
The legislation is clear. It is worth repeating that point. The argument is not that people who do not have the necessary skills should get the job, but that people who have those skills should not be denied the right to apply for the job or to apply for promotion. When they apply they should be treated fairly. The Disability Rights Commission has received phone calls from service personnel who claim that they are being discriminated against because they have cancer, diabetes and other conditions. This is a serious matter. All the currently excluded occupations must be brought within the framework of the legislation.
Finally, there is a need to bring disability rights into the mainstream. I am second to none in my praise for what the Government have done with legislation and other matters, but there are difficulties in applying disability equality policies across the board. I will not go into my concerns about the Communications Bill now, but I have made representations about it. There are real issues here for disabled people, which the Government have not yet taken on board.
I shall give another brief example. As a member of the Trade and Industry Committee, I spent most of yesterday hearing evidence on the effects of direct payment of pensions and benefits on post office business. That used to be done by automated credit transfer—ACT—but we now call it direct payment. It is a bit confusing because there is another kind of direct payment. People who have a Post Office card account can now access that account with a piece of plastic and a PIN. The only problem is that PIN pads come in various shapes and forms.
The Select Committee heard how for 12 months or so the Disability Rights Commission, the Royal National Institute of the Blind and other organisations had been warning that the accessibility of the PIN pad was an issue. For example, the figures have to be a decent size for people with sight impairment, and the height should not be fixed, because that would be a problem for wheelchair users. I hope that all those who gave evidence yesterday were wrong, but what I read in the press leads me to believe that they were probably right, and that this has been a bit of a shambles.
Apparently the Post Office simply bought an inaccessible off-the-shelf PIN pad system from Fujitsu, and is now busy trying to work out how to modify it to take the needs of disabled people into account. I use that example to illustrate my point. I do not think that anyone will dispute the point, but it is still worth making. Disability is about mainstreaming those rights, too. We must ensure that the concerns and interests of disabled people are taken into account across the board.
Much has undoubtedly been done. I celebrate all that has been done to make progress along this long journey to equal rights. But we still have a long way to go before disabled people can participate as equal citizens. We must use the opportunity presented by the European year of disabled people to make further progress towards comprehensive and enforceable civil rights for all disabled people. The Government are committed to that. I look forward to the draft Bill—and I also look forward to seeing a Bill in the Queen's Speech in the autumn.
2.49 pm
Annabelle Ewing: I, too, congratulate the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) on securing this timely and important debate. I am well aware of the assiduous way in which he has sought to champion the rights of disabled people during his many years in the House. It is a pleasure to be called to speak in the debate. The European year of disabled people is an excellent initiative, not least because it serves to focus attention on the position of disabled people in our society, and the way in which they are treated by that society—including the Government.
I accept that progress has been made over the years in furthering the rights of disabled people. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned many positive developments. However, like other hon. Members, I agree that much more still needs to be done to ensure that disabled people enjoy the rights that the rest of us take for granted.
One area that has not been dealt with in detail is that of social security benefits. As far as disabled people are concerned, there is a pressing need to review the operation of the disability living allowance. I see that the Minister is looking at me; she will not be surprised that I raise that subject in all sincerity. In my experience as a constituency MP, albeit brief, I have reached the conclusion that the operation of that benefit has been, to put it politely, extremely problematic.
Problems include the complexity of the forms, which is still an issue, notwithstanding improvements; the lack of information available to those seeking to access the benefit; and the curiously high number of applications that are rejected at first but are successful on appeal. We must examine the quality of the state medical examination and report system. Its reports are frequently at odds with the medical reports prepared by the applicant's GP, who presumably has much greater knowledge of the applicant's situation than a third-party stranger. Those issues must be addressed. When an award is reviewed, or a claim assessed, why is no assessment made of the likely effect of removing the benefit or reducing its level? An assessment should look at the effect of such a reduction or change on the applicant's health. That would improve the operation of the disability living allowance.
I turn to another benefit, the winter fuel payment, of which we have heard much recently. The increase announced in the Budget was welcome, but most pensioners, certainly those in Scotland, will not benefit from that because they have not yet reached the age of 80. However, I wonder what thoughts the Minister has on extending that benefit to disabled people, in certain circumstances. It has been suggested by some organisations that an extension could easily be made to those in receipt of the middle or higher-rate care component of the DLA, and to those on the higher rate of the mobility component. The case for such an extension is unarguable, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's thoughts on that.
In many other areas, as has been mentioned, there is an urgent need to make progress. Problems of access are still, regrettably, very much part of everyday life for disabled people. Employment problems have been mentioned by several hon. Members. The right hon.
296WH
Member for Coatbridge and Chryston gave a pertinent account of the problems that disabled people face in securing employment, as well as the problems that they experience in the workplace. He put it very well when he said that employment for disabled people, as for us all, represents a gateway to a fulfilling life. I entirely agree. As I said at the outset, the European year of disabled people should facilitate a refocusing of attention on those issues that are of such importance to disabled people. I am sure that everyone will agree that that can only be a good thing.
I take the opportunity to raise an issue that could benefit from being put under the spotlight again. I speak of the Government's treatment of thalidomide sufferers. In 2002, contrary to the expectation that had been legitimately established over many years by previous Governments, the Chancellor refused to continue a tax concession that had operated with respect to the Thalidomide Trust. In effect, it means that the Treasury is making a profit from the compensation payments paid to thalidomide sufferers.
Surely the money is meant for those suffering disability; it should not go into the Chancellor's coffers. Other European countries do not tax payments made to thalidomide suffers. The question must therefore be asked: why do the Government continue with that shameful policy? On the grand scale of things, the impact of changing the Treasury's policy would be tiny, but the benefit to individual thalidomide sufferers would be enormous. Fairness and basic notions of justice dictate that the Chancellor should reconsider his decision and grant the Thalidomide Trust tax-exempt status.
In conclusion, I know that it is not within the remit of a Minister from the Department for Work and Pensions, but I urge the Minister for Disabled People to impress on the Chancellor and the Treasury the fact that they must change their position on the Thalidomide Trust. I hope that she will stand up for the rights of thalidomide sufferers.
2.57 pm
Paul Holmes: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) on securing this important debate. The European year of disabled people is important for three reasons. First, it sets a marker for future aspirations for equality for disabled people; secondly, it celebrates the achievements of disabled people; and thirdly, it raises awareness of the issue among the wider public.
A great deal has been done by member states to make society more inclusive for people with disabilities. For example, there is a move in some member states, including the UK, to integrate children with disabilities into mainstream education—a welcome development that I took part in as a teacher—and barriers to training are coming down.
Sweden is opening its training programmes to people with disabilities. Finland has reformed its benefits system to allow better access to vocational training. Denmark has introduced a new wage subsidy to encourage more young people with disabilities into the workplace. Luxembourg has modified its payment system better to support the autonomy of young people with disabilities. Progress has been made in making

297WH
public spaces, including the workplace, more accessible. Greece has developed an inclusive approach, designed for all concepts, by removing architectural barriers to make its cities more disability friendly. Austria and Denmark are implementing measures to promote disability-friendly environments in the workplace and in public buildings. Significant commitments have been made on transport for disabled people in Spain, Ireland, Greece and the Netherlands.
Those measures all support the principles behind the European year of disabled people. The UK Government, too, have taken measures in support of the year. They have at last announced their intention to publish a draft disability Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny, a major step in providing a legislative base from which we could continue to build an inclusive society. The Government recently gave legal recognition to British sign language as a minority language, with extra Government support. They have also contributed another £2 million, on top of European funding, for a total of 171 projects.
The theme of the year deserves and has gained widespread support. However, having praised the European year of the disabled and the Government's contribution to it, I risk once again making myself a little unpopular with the Minister by raising some questions. In terms of both raising awareness and setting markers for the future, the Government have missed a golden opportunity this year. The European year of the disabled would have been an ideal time for them to announce the introduction of the long awaited and long promised single equality Act. Discrimination on grounds of disability is still legal in some categories where discrimination on the basis of ethnicity or gender would not be legal. As a result, at least 10 per cent. of the cases taken to the Disability Rights Commission cannot be dealt with.
The Government have announced that, later in the year, they will close some of the loopholes in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, and that they propose to set up a single equality commission. However, that is in part setting the cart before the horse. A single equality Act to unify anti-discriminatory laws is essential first. During its passage through the Lords, Lord Lester's Equality Bill has shown how that can be done. Early-day motion 1217 called for such an Act; the motion was introduced only last Wednesday and in just seven days it has earned the support of 205 Members of Parliament, nearly a third of the House. I hope that the Minister will assure us that the Government intend to introduce such an Act.
It is also necessary to mainstream disability rights by embedding affirmative policies into all legislation. For example, the Royal National Institute of the Blind argues that the Communications Bill will allow exclusion from digital TV, radio and telecommunications to continue and deepen. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill lacks requirements to ensure that developers will work to inclusive design principles from an early stage. The Criminal Justice Bill fails to ensure that hate crimes against disabled people will be tackled effectively. The Railways and Transport Safety Bill could offer opportunities for more joined-up policies to increase the safety of disabled people using public transport.
298WH
Then there is of course the question of money, which at least one other hon. Member has raised today. Events such as the European year of disabled people are excellent awareness raisers. Measures such as the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, the establishment of the Disability Rights Commission and the promised draft disability Bill later this year are all vital steps forward. However, money is needed to turn the new legislation and the changed public attitude to the disabled into real action. I should like to give some examples of that.
In my constituency there is an excellent special school called Ashgate Croft. The school needs a pool because swimming is the only chance for many of the children to get out of a wheelchair and undertake physical activity. It gives those children an enormous boost in self-confidence and has the direct, practical value of preventing their muscles from wasting away. The school had a pool that was paid for by voluntary donations, but it eventually had to be demolished for constructional reasons.
The school is now trying to raise £400,000 for a new pool. Lottery funds could go quite a way towards achieving that, but they come with strings attached, meaning that the pool would be a community pool that the school could use, as opposed to a school pool that the community could use. Wide-ranging community groups across Chesterfield, such as the Sheepbridge cricket club, are undertaking sponsored activities to raise money for the pool. Recently, for example, there was a sponsored walk from Chesterfield to Skegness, and the new mayor of Chesterfield, Councillor June Beckingham, has made the pool the key to her financial appeal for the year.
The appeal for the pool is named for Megan and her friends, and at this mayor's launch last Saturday, Megan's mother, Jane Carver, read out a letter that she had written on behalf of her six-year-old daughter:
"Hello. My name is Megan. I am in the infant class at Ashgate Croft special school. My mummy and daddy dream that one day I might be able to tell you that for myself. But, for now, I can't. I find it hard to talk and I don't understand a lot that is happening.
I don't want much. I don't want lots of toys or dolls or sweeties like most other little girls. I don't know what they are. But there are some special things that I do like: music, television and, best of all, water!—in the bath, the sea, the sink or even puddles! It is great fun but it can be dangerous too because I can't swim.
I would love to have a swimming pool at school so that me and my friends could exercise, learn to swim, feel better and have fun! We used to have one, lots of children in Chesterfield used it, but it had to be pulled down. Some children from my school go to the Queen's Park pool, but many of my friends can't because getting to the pool is difficult in wheelchairs and, often, there are not enough people to help us.
My class doesn't go swimming at all at the moment … swimming is one of the very few things that I can do as well as my two little brothers can. Being in the water makes me happy, gives me a little independence and, if I learned to swim, could save my life.
It will need lots of pennies to build us a pool, but we are hoping that if enough people help us we can get there. So please help us in whatever way you can and make our wish come true."
A second example, also from Chesterfield, but with problems that are experienced across Derbyshire and the rest of the country, is a voluntary project in north Derbyshire, based in Chesterfield, called Fairplay. Its

299WH
project manager wrote to the Prime Minister on 9 April to say, among other things:
"Last year Fairplay was successful in receiving funding for an "Inclusion Support Project" from the Department of Education and Skills. The funding has enabled Fairplay to give support to Early Years settings throughout Derbyshire that work with children with additional needs and disabilities. The support offered by the project has included specialist training and advice on disability, as well as "time limited" support to staff members in individual schools and nurseries. This support has been extremely well received and the training so popular that Fairplay has had to establish a waiting list for the many nurseries and schools wishing to take part in the project.
The funding enabled Fairplay to establish one full-time and two part-time worker posts to meet the demand for the service.
Recently, Fairplay has had its second funding application for £36,000, which would have enabled the project to continue for a further year, turned down by the DfES. The explanation given for this was that the total number of bids received amounted to £6.8 million pounds and that the department had only £2 million pounds to offer organisations. I feel that the very fact so many requests for funding were received by the department indicates that there is a real need for support to be offered to settings working with children that have additional needs and disabilities."
The letter goes on to say that the special educational needs code of practice and the extending requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act will result in an acceleration in such demands from schools and nurseries, although the money to meet them will not be available.
Finally, the National Library for the Blind, based in Stockport, is a charity that began in the late 19th century. It houses Europe's largest collection of tactile books and offers a free postal library service to blind and partially sighted people, providing Braille, tape and large-print guides to available books. The latter guides, ?Read On" and "New Reading", began 18 months ago and are issued quarterly. However, the next quarter's issue, which would cost just £10,000 to produce, cannot go ahead because the money is not available. In the past financial year, the charity's operating income was £1.5 million, of which just £133,000 came from the Government and £62,000 from the lottery. That is approximately 13 per cent, of the total.
Somebody asked why the taxpayer should support such a charitable body. Charities do a lot of fundraising, so why is this one different? Kirsty Frost of the NLB argues that it is a human right to read.
"The taxpayer funds libraries for the sighted, but blind people have to rely largely on charities."
The limits on charitable funds raised mean that only 5 per cent. of published material in this country and others is available to the blind. Hon. Members should look at the bookshelves and filing cabinets in their offices and homes and imagine that 95 per cent, of that material is unavailable.
Inevitably, when arguing for money, we have to ask where it will come from. That is an issue for political parties to raise with the public through their manifestos at election time. The public will often give money to charity but say that they are not prepared to pay it in extra taxes to provide a uniform spend across the board. However, in this European year of disabled people, we should put down a marker. Let us look back to the millennium dome project three years ago. It was a flop;
300WH
it cost £750 million at the time, and it still costs the taxpayer £250,000 a month to keep it open, policed and maintained. How much better that money could have been used for a millennium project providing facilities for disabled people, such as a swimming pool for Megan in Chesterfield, which would continue to be available for many years to come. Such projects would be regarded as far more worthy than the millennium dome.
3.9 pm
Mr. Tim Boswell: I too congratulate the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) on initiating the debate and on bringing to it his characteristic blend of expertise and enthusiasm. I shall continue the tour of the Labour Benches by commending the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), too, as he was personally generous to me. That was greatly appreciated, although perhaps unmerited. I noted the barbs that he imparted at either end of his address, and perhaps I can turn them by saying that I have some sympathy with the Minister. I have been in her position in the past, and I know that considerations such as legislative handling and resources must always inform our debate. However, I hope that they will not take it over in this instance; indeed, I do not think that that was the spirit of the debate.
I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) on the expertise and real passion that she brought to bear in speaking of her concerns and on behalf of her constituents. I have considerable sympathy with the comments of the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing) about the disability living allowance, and I totally sympathise with and endorse what she said about the Thalidomide Trust. Finally, as this is an inclusive speech, I should also mention the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes), who made some powerful points. The examples that he gave demonstrated the practical problems with delivery.
I have no wish to rubbish the European year of disabled people, although I always have some reservations about what one might term emblem policies. It is easy to package things together, to spend a small amount of public money, which is totally dwarfed by the huge amounts spent on benefits, and then to settle down after a year and say, "We'll move on to something else next year." It is important—perhaps the Minister will deal with this—that value be added by what is done this year, as I am sure that it will be. It is also important that there be a determination on her part, and on the part of the Departments involved, to do more next year and not simply stop after the relevant calendar date.
I want to bring to the Minister's attention two specific issues regarding the European year of disabled people. The first, which I am surprised has not been mentioned, is the impact of tourism and cross-border movements in Europe. Those are huge phenomena, which involve many millions of people—including, by definition, many disabled people. I have concerns about conditions outside the UK, which are not easy to control from this country. In that respect, I have corresponded with Ministers, the Disability Rights Commission and the Association of British Travel Agents. Any solution will probably need to involve a concerted effort by Departments, the European Commission and non-governmental organisations abroad.

301WH
I am thinking, for example, of the increasingly familiar problems with access to airline services and damage to wheelchairs in transit. There are also more subtle matters, such as the difficulties in offering travel contracts that include an accessible room. The continental hotelier will not guarantee such a room, and will speak only of his "best endeavours" to provide one. There are other examples. I mean no disrespect to the Greek authorities, which are doing their best—everyone has awoken to that fact—but anyone who has tried to ascend the smart marble steps of a Greek museum will know that it is a lot easier if one is not a wheelchair user.
My second point, which underlines my comments about moving on from this year to next year, is that 2004 will be the crunch year in terms of access to premises under the final implementation of the disability Discrimination Act 1995. I fully understand why the Disability Rights Commission has concentrated on other matters until now—it has been dealing with an important education initiative this year—but it is incumbent on everyone in the field to explore the obligations that will exist next year, so as to increase awareness of an issue that is, sadly, little understood.
I have some concerns, which the Minister may want to relay to her colleagues, about recent announcements by the Department for Education and Skills to the effect that schools could dispose of their capital budgets to shore up their current budgets. That will eat into their provision for special educational needs, and I have considerable doubts about whether it will be possible or practical for many schools to provide the resources for the necessary adjustments that they need to make to their premises. The 2004 deadline does not apply to them—they have a year's grace—but it is very important to get on with that.
I listened carefully to the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston when he introduced the debate. The Opposition are glad that the draft disability Bill is at last coming over the horizon. It had been delayed, but I hope that it will now produce a good outcome. When I read the disability Rights Commission's report "Making it Happen", I found it difficult to find many things to which I could reasonably object. No doubt if I read it again I could make minor objections, but it contained many good points, and I hope that the Minister will take the delay as a platform for embodying in the final draft of the Bill suggestions that might not have appeared in the first draft. There is no point in waiting when waiting is unnecessary. Equally, however, I agree that there is no point in rushing into a new theological definition of what is or is not disability and then losing much custom and practice on the way.
On the single disability body, I have much sympathy with the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston. It is extremely important for the DRC to retain its focus on disability, its credibility for its users and a good representation of disabled people in its work. The DRC has suggested ways in which such an organisation could be incorporated as a strand in an overarching body, which is possible. The question would then arise whether we need separate human rights legislation. However, the body needs careful tuning so that we do not lose something in the process of—dare I say it?—rushing on.
302WH
Two major factors still affect disabled people in their day-to-day lives. The first is their economic situation. It is right to report that there is still real concern about the very low participation of disabled people in employment and the relatively poor performance at school of children who are not mentally disabled and do not have learning difficulties, but who have an impairment, such as deafness, that prevents them from realising their potential so that they have to keep struggling.
All Members will know from their constituency work that they have to struggle constantly with the benefit system. I recently uncovered the great ducks and drakes exercise that starts with income support and moves on to the higher rate of incapacity benefit after 28 weeks— but after 52 weeks people must remember to go back to income support with the disability premium. We might just be able to understand that, but it is asking a lot of constituents, or even welfare rights workers, to get it all right.
There are also real concerns about the transfer of people under the disabled persons tax credit to the new working tax credit. Treasury Ministers have told me that everything is all right, but from my constituency experience, I do not believe that.
Finally, and perhaps more importantly, there is concern about disabled people's access to services. Over the years, Ministers have always claimed credit for developments, innovations and improvements. I thoroughly welcome the recognition of British sign language as a separate language, which was mentioned today. The hon. Member for Chesterfield referred to the possibility that that would trigger additional resources. The Department for Work and Pensions—the Minister's Department—has produced £1 million. I know that because I asked the Department for Education and Skills what it was going to do, and it was clear that it believed that it was unnecessary to provide extra resources to acknowledge the development.
Last week was autism awareness week. There are real difficulties in establishing the case for disabilities other than physical disability. A case was cited of two four-year-old twins, whom I happen to know, whose mother could not receive a blue badge because the children had no physical disability. That is a very difficult situation, which also applies to many other aspects of mental health.
The major problem with physical disability is that it is still very difficult for disabled people to get about. The weakest part of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 concerns transport—in fairness, the Government are consulting on it—as well as access to premises.
On the other side is what might generically be called training and awareness, and the need for staff who deal with the general public to be aware of the particular needs of disabled people and to treat them decently. However much we legislate, let alone however much we talk here, that is a matter for each individual.
There is a lot to do, and there will be a lot to do beyond this year. I do not mind if we return next year to have another go. I am sure that everyone here believes that if the European year of disabled people is to be successful it should function as a powerhouse or engine house for making further improvements, and strengthen our collective resolve to secure an inclusive society for disabled people.
3.20 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): As ever on this subject in this place, we have had an excellent debate and I want to congratulate, in particular, my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) on initiating it. He is well known, as a number of my hon. Friends have made clear, for his interest in the subject and for his expertise. Both showed through strongly in his contribution at the beginning of the debate. For many years he, with others, worked tirelessly to improve the lives of disabled people in this country when it was not fashionable to do so.
The European year of disabled people is about raising awareness among those of us who are not disabled, celebrating the achievements and potential of disabled people, and promoting more participation by disabled people in all aspects of everyday life. It also gives us a chance to take stock of where we are, the progress that we have made and what more we need to do, and to have some exchanges on how to set about doing that.
I shall start by saying a little about legislation. It is easy on occasions such as this to talk about the future, and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) is right to say that the future is always more interesting than the past, but we should also recognise what we have done. Otherwise, we shall look to the future without the context of where we have come from and where we have got to. An enormous amount has been achieved, and legislation is important because it provides a framework around which advances can be made. I am not one of those who think that legislation should follow trends. It should lead and shape trends.
When this Labour Government came to power in 1997, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 was on the statute book—my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston rightly paid tribute to the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who when he was the Minister with responsibility for disabled people, had to fight to get that legislation on the statute book. It was the first major Bill covering disability to be enacted, but it had gaps, faults and flaws, and not all of it was implemented.
As recently as 1997, when we came to office, only the provisions covering direct employment discrimination in firms with more than 20 employees, and direct discrimination in service provision, had been implemented. We must remember that direct discrimination is saying that someone cannot be employed because they are disabled Talking one's way round that was not outlawed. Since then, we have made significant advances in extending the legal rights of disabled people to employment, access to goods and services, education and transport. We have given effect to many of the provisions that had sat on the statute book but had not been activated.
In 1997 we set up the disability rights taskforce to advise us on how best to make advances and secure our manifesto commitment of comprehensive and enforceable civil rights for disabled people. It made 156 recommendations, almost all of which we accepted. In 1998, we extended the employment provision to employers with 15 or more employees, and next October it will apply to all employers, including those with only one member of staff. When the regulations that I laid
304WH
before Parliament on 8 May this year come into force, they will end the small firms exemption and will bring an extra 1 million employers under the employment provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. They will protect an extra 7 million employees, including many in the public sector, and provide protection for 600,000 disabled people already working in those jobs, who currently do not have that protection.
In 1999 we brought further rights of access to goods and services into force, requiring those who provide a service to the public to make "reasonable adjustments" where access is impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled people. When the final changes in access to goods and services provisions are implemented next October, they will build on the serious progress we have already made to ensure that disabled customers can take advantage of the things that others often just take for granted.
We also set up the Disability Rights Commission in 2000, and my right hon. Friend and several other hon. Members have referred to that. That body has just celebrated its third anniversary. It is a typical three-year-old—it did not worry too much about my describing it as such—as it is loud, noisy, often right, and infuriating at times, but it does a very good job. Where would we be without it? That is how I like to regard the Disability Rights Commission. There is no doubt about the fact that it has made an extremely good impact, and has done so particularly well in its relationships with employers.
Given the fact that the duties that I have just described come into force next year, it is particularly important that we take the community of employers with us. I do not want disabled people to have to take people or companies to court to access their rights. Their rights should be granted as a matter of course, without their having to ask. We do not just want to create litigation, we want real social advance. The efforts that the DRC has made in that respect have been tremendously important.
In 2001 the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act received Royal Assent. That plugged a major gap in the DDA; leaving education out was a major problem. The 2001 Act is a huge step forward for disabled pupils, students and adult learners. In due course, as it is fully and properly implemented, the Act will make a massive difference in the medium to long term in disabled people's ability to take their rightful place in all aspects of our society. The Act strengthens the right of children with special educational needs to be educated in mainstream schools, but it does not rule out separate special schools where those are appropriate, and it provides protection against discrimination for disabled students and pupils.
The record needs to be considered alongside the action that we are currently undertaking. I have already referred to the employment directive under article 13 of the treaty of Amsterdam, and the regulations introduced on 8 May. Not only was the UK Government instrumental in shaping the agenda in Europe, but we are implementing the directive two years earlier than the required deadline, and ahead of many of our European colleagues. The directive would bring occupations currently excluded within the scope of the DDA. We want disabled people not only to have better employment opportunities, but to have greater access to

305WH
a wider range of services and activities that others take for granted. That is why we are tackling barriers in other areas of society too.
I am glad to hear from hon. Members of all parties that the draft disability Bill that was announced in January, which will be published some time this year, is so widely welcomed. I look forward to some constructive contributions to the debate when it comes before the House for pre-legislative scrutiny. Tempted though I might be, I cannot go into any great detail about when that will be, and hon. Members will understand why. I have heard what has been said, and their concern that it should happen sooner rather than later. Such things will make a difference.
I should take the opportunity that the debate presents to say—because it was not possible to do so last Friday in the House—that the Government support the Disabled People (Duties of Public Authorities) Bill, which was unfortunately talked out. For the life of me, I cannot understand why. It promised to make a real difference to disabled people's lives by ensuring that a huge range of public sector bodies—Government, local government and smaller organisations—will have to take account of the needs of disabled people. Such measures will make a difference. They will raise awareness and ensure that in future disabled people do not have to fight for their rights, because their rights will simply be there.
We must address prejudice and stereotypes. My right hon. Friend referred to a super-qualified person who was unable to get a job purely on the grounds that she had a disability. Legislation is not sufficient. We also need to ensure that we raise awareness. I was asked what we were doing about that, and I can say that I have set aside £3 million this year and next for awareness-raising activities. We recognise that, as the law is implemented fully next October, we have to ensure that whom we give obligations know what they are and are ready to comply with them. There is no point in changing the law if the changes are not implemented by those who have obligations.
We will be doing a huge amount. This year gives us a great opportunity to raise awareness, and we are doing that. One of the side effects of the European year of disabled people will be the fact that it gives us an opportunity to raise awareness in this respect, which would not have been quite so easy otherwise. We are taking those steps, and I hope that they will have a big impact. I am sure that they will. The latest research shows a higher awareness of the Disability Discrimination Act in society in general than we have ever seen before. There is up to 62 per cent. awareness, and that is an achievement.
3.30 pm
Sitting suspended.

Newcraighall Post Office
3.32 pm
Dr. Gavin Strang: I am pleased to have the opportunity to introduce a debate on the future of Newcraighall post office. The provision of a sustainable and vibrant post office network servicing communities in both urban and rural areas is something that I am sure that everyone supports. I recognise that, to keep up with the times, the network has to adjust to the challenges of an increasingly cashless society, changes in retail habits and the resulting reduction in footfall at local post offices. The closure of Newcraighall post office is being proposed as part of the urban network reinvention programme. I therefore want to focus on that programme this afternoon.
The starting point to a debate on the future of the post office network must surely be the performance and innovation unit report entitled "Counter Revolution— Modernising the Post Office Network". The report, published in June 2000 by the Cabinet Office, set out 24 recommendations that the Government accepted and have since been working to implement. The first eight recommendations in the report set out the steps for retaining the rural post office network. The Government are affording very substantial protection to the rural post office network. Indeed, they have given a commitment that states explicitly that there should be "no avoidable closures".
In order to produce a viable and sustainable network, the PIU, in its recommendations, concentrated on the need for the Post Office to develop its range of services. It rightly stated that the Post Office as a brand was in a unique position to do that. Public trust and awareness of the Post Office as a reliable public institution remains high, and the reach of the network is unique in that every citizen currently has easy access to a post office.
The universal bank, discussed in recommendations 14 to 17, formed the cornerstone of the idea of developing Post Office services, The universal bank had strong support from sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses in the Edinburgh area. The PIU stated:
"The Government should positively support the Universal Bank viewing it as the best means to ensure that benefit recipients can continue to access their entitlements in cash at Post Offices".
It is almost three years since June 2000, when I asked the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers) whether it would be possible for an individual such as myself to open an account with the universal bank. He informed me:
"People who already have bank accounts will be perfectly entitled to join the universal bank and they will be offered the whole range of financial services that the banking sector provides."—[Official Report, 28 June 2000; Vol. 352, c. 918.]
Following discussions with the major high street banks, the universal bank has metamorphosed into the Post Office card account, and difficulties are being encountered by those attempting to open such an account.
My hon. Friend the Minister will have seen early-day motion 572, which has more than 200 signatures, showing that perhaps many hon. Members feel that the option of collecting benefits in cash at the post office has

307WH
not received the wholehearted support of the agencies involved, which in the main are Government agencies. My hon. Friend may wish to comment on that in the debate.
The second area in which the PIU believed that the Post Office could develop the range of services it provided was in acting as Government general practitioners and internet learning and access points, coupled with the idea that post offices could provide information and low-level advice on government issues and become one-stop shops for local and national government. The PIU recognised that the Post Office has the advantages of reach, trust and staff experience to develop that role and many would agree that that is the case. It recommended a series of pilots throughout the UK involving local government and devolved Administrations, which resulted in the "Your Guide" pilot that took place in Leicestershire. The pilot ran from 16 July 2001 to 1 March 2002 and resulted in the publication of a report by the "Your Guide" pilot evaluation team entitled "Evaluation of the pilot of the 'Your Guide' service of post offices as Government general practitioners".
The purpose of the pilot was to develop a role for post offices as Government general practitioners and to contribute to the broad objectives of improving the uptake and accessibility of central and local government information and services; encouraging the uptake of electronic Government information and services; and maintaining the commercial viability of the post office network. The report concluded that
"the pilot yielded little hard evidence that Your Guide would significantly increase the footfall in post offices in a way which would impact positively on existing business".
However, there were some positive findings that were not championed as such. For example, the overall customer satisfaction level was 92 per cent, rating the services as useful or fairly useful and saying that "Your Guide" services had the potential to help the Government to reach some of their target audiences of disadvantaged groups. I was disappointed that a "Your Guide" pilot was not attempted in Scotland.
The "Your Guide" report also documented difficulties in obtaining accurate information regarding customer participation in the scheme due to poor communication between sub-postmasters and the content providers, which in the main are Government agencies. In conclusion, the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters described the "Your Guide" project as "brilliant."
In October last year, my hon. Friend the Minister moved a motion in the House to authorise funding for the urban post office network reinvention programme. He stated in that debate that a key recommendation of the PIU report was that, if the Post Office decided that fewer post offices were needed in some urban areas, the Government should consider providing financial support to the Post Office to ensure that sub-postmasters were adequately compensated for the loss of value of their business.
In the debate my hon. Friend set out the reasons why the Government believe the post office network needs restructuring. He wants the Post Office to end up with an
308WH
urban network that provides for greater profitability, but does he agree that we need to ensure that such a network does not consist of sub-post offices that are based exclusively in relatively affluent areas? Judging by what I have seen in Edinburgh, there is a danger that a disproportionate number of sub-post offices will close in deprived areas. Some of those post offices have been hardest hit by the move to pay benefits directly into bank accounts rather than in cash.
On 22 April, Sandy Stephen, who heads the Scottish area of Post Office Ltd., wrote to me as the local Member of Parliament to say that the Post Office was proposing to close its Newcraighall branch. I am surprised and disappointed that Newcraighall is being considered for closure, for reasons that I shall explain. There is a consultation period, which ends on 27 May. The announcement that Newcraighall was being considered for closure came during the Scottish election campaign. Some of the candidates expressed the view that closure was inevitable and that the consultation was a sham. I do not believe that to be true. I have met Mr. Stephen and I am confident that he takes the consultation process seriously, and my hon. Friend the Minister has made it very clear that the Government's view is that the consultation should be taken very seriously by all concerned.
Referring to the consultation process during a debate in the House, my hon. Friend said that to
"ensure that the needs of all customers have been properly considered—the elderly, disabled people, those on low incomes and others—Post Office Ltd. will, in developing its proposals, take account of factors such as the accessibility and viability of the remaining post offices, transport links, opening hours and numbers of counter positions."—[Official Report, 15 October 2002; Vol. 390, c. 233.]
I believe that we would all support that, and I am sure that that is the objective of the Government and my hon. Friend the Minister.
I now turn to the case for Newcraighall sub-post office, which I believe is a special and compelling one. Newcraighall is a former mining village, as you know very well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on the eastern edge of Edinburgh. In recent years, major new roads have been built linking up with the Edinburgh city bypass. Those roads have hemmed in the village to some extent and made it relatively more isolated from the adjacent Niddrie and Craigmillar areas of Edinburgh.
It is true that people with access to cars have several shopping areas within easy reach, but many of the elderly, in particular, do not have access to a car. There are bus services to other parts of Edinburgh and to Musselburgh, but they have been chopped and changed in the past year and are a source of continuing local concern.
Newcraighall is in the Craigmillar social inclusion partnership area, where two post office branches in Bingham and Greendykes have already closed under the urban post office network reinvention programme. In the consultation letter, the Post Office named two alternative branches that would be suitable for Newcraighall residents if the local post office were closed. Neither is an easy walk—indeed, I cannot imagine any elderly person choosing to walk to either of them. It is accurate to say that the post office in the Jewel Asda superstore is within one mile—just—but the other is 1.4 miles away on foot.

309WH
The post office in the Jewel Asda is closer, but the route on foot involves crossing two major roundabouts that lead on to the slip road of the A1, which is a very dangerous crossing for anyone; passing under a subway below the motorway; crossing the car park of a major retail park; travelling over an unpaved and overgrown footbridge over a goods railway line; and negotiating a set of steep and winding steps that have no hand rail and that lead to a further large car park that one must cross to reach the Asda superstore that houses the sub-post office. As I said, I cannot imagine anyone, certainly not a pensioner or a young mother with children, choosing to walk to what would be their nearest post office if the Newcraighall post office were to close.
A crucial point in the case for keeping the Newcraighall sub-post office open is that it is the only shop in the village. If the post office closes, the shop will close. The village shop issue, combined with Newcraighall's relative isolation, make the post office there comparable to a rural post office. The considerations that have persuaded the Government to prevent avoidable closures of rural post offices should apply in this case. There is a question as to whether, for sub-post office network purposes, Newcraighall village should be treated as a community detached from Edinburgh's population and classified as a rural post office.
Just before I conclude my remarks, I should like to quote Age Concern, which said:
"For many older people the local Post Office is an important lifeline providing a point of access to pensions, benefits as well as other financial services, a general store and a source of information and advice."
That is what we have in Newcraighal
Newcraighall is a small community with a number of elderly people who depend on the local post office not just as a post office but as a local shop. It is open seven days a week, and pensioners go each day for such things as milk and newspapers. The local postmaster, Jim Stewart and his staff provide what is, in practice, a social service. It would be a severe blow if the post office and shop were to close. The community is united in its determination to retain this important amenity. I hope that the Post Office will give careful consideration to the representations that are being made, and I am sure that that is also the wish of my hon. Friend the Minister.
3.44 pm
Mr. Stephen Timms: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) on securing a debate on the future of the Newcraighall post office branch. He has, for a long time, shown a close interest in the issues and challenges facing the post office network. He has shown that again this afternoon and I welcome the opportunity to respond to his points.
First, I shall comment on some of the general points that my right hon. Friend made at the start of the debate. He rightly went to the PIU report as the basis for the Government's policy on the post office network. At one point, he said that the concept of the universal bank has become the Post Office card account. That is not quite right. The universal bank, which is an important development and good news for the Post Office, can be accessed in one of three ways, not only through the Post
310WH
Office card account. That account is one form of access. The second is the bank or building society basic account, now offered by every high street bank and the Nationwide building society. It is for those who are new to banking, who just want to pay money in and get cash out, and perhaps pay bills automatically.
The third way of accessing universal banking services is through an ordinary current account. A very significant development in the past few weeks is that anyone who has an ordinary current account with the Alliance and Leicester building society or Barclays bank—between them, that is about 11 million people—can now get their money using their ordinary cashpoint card over a post office counter. That will be a compelling reason for many people to go into their local post office, which they have not had in the past.
My right hon. Friend mentioned "Your Guide". Very few of the sub-postmasters involved in the pilot reported any increase in sales from the additional footfall generated by "Your Guide". As that was what it was intended to be about, we concluded from our evaluation that it would not represent value for money to roll it out nationally. However, the pilot highlighted a number of ways in which Government Departments might deliver services through post offices in future. We are exploring those. There are also potential alternative commercial options. There is much commercial interest at the moment in placing kiosks in post offices. A commercial kiosk service, including some post offices, has just begun to be piloted in Cornwall. It will be interesting to see what comes of that. The "Your Guide" pilot has helped the Post Office to understand better how it can serve members of the public, and we may well see more on the kiosk idea in future.
I assure my right hon. Friend that the Government are committed, as he commented, to maintaining a viable network of pest offices across the country. He is absolutely right about the importance of sub-post offices as a focal point for local communities, particularly for the elderly and the less mobile. I agree with the point on which he quoted Age Concern. The post office network serves 24 million people every week. It is the largest retail network in Europe and includes half as many branches again as all the banks and building societies put together.
The question is how we take that network forward, given the changes that we have seen in customers' buying habits during the past few years. Some of the reasons for those changes date back more than 20 years. Past under-investment has certainly been a factor in what is now happening, but greater mobility and changes in shopping and financial habits mean that people are simply not using post offices as often as they used to. Customer numbers, as my right hon. Friend acknowledged, have fallen sharply.
The aim of the urban reinvention programme to which my right hon. Friend referred, under which the closure of Newcraighall post office has been proposed, is to restore the urban network to commercial viability, restoring the confidence of sub-postmasters, which we think is very important, and making it possible to attract new investment so that customers can continue to enjoy access to the full range of post office services.
My right hon. Friend is aware of the role of Postwatch—the consumer watchdog for postal services—in the process. It has an important role in the

311WH
implementation of the programme, and it is examining every proposal that has been made. In each case for which Post Office Ltd. makes a closure proposal, it carries out a formal public consultation process, in accordance with the code of practice that has been agreed with Postwatch on branch closures. Post Office Ltd. actively seeks the views of those affected by its proposals, as well as the views of interest groups, councillors and MPs. I have been assured that the company will fully consider all representations before reaching a decision. I emphasise the importance of the role of Postwatch as an independent consumer watchdog.
My right hon. Friend mentioned that the proposal to close Newcraighall sub-post office was made on 23 April, and that the closing date for consultation responses is 27 May. Postwatch Scotland has issued a press release asking for comments on the Newcraighall proposal, so that they can be reflected in its response. Comments to Postwatch Scotland may be sent in writing or made by telephone at a local call rate.
I listened to the points made by my right hon. Friend about whether Newcraighall sub-post office should be regarded as being located in a rural area—or, at least, an area having some of the characteristics of a rural area. Post Office Ltd. has a process of which my right hon. Friend will be aware for determining which branches are urban and which are rural. That determination is made on the basis of whether the post office branch is located in a community of more or less than 10,000 inhabitants. That analysis has been revisited in this case, given the concerns that have been raised. Post Office Ltd. has reached the conclusion that the office is rightly classed as urban. If there are local issues that make that branch particularly important in the local community and alternatives are, for example, difficult to access, that is a consideration that needs to be weighed in considering how to take forward the proposal. Post Office Ltd. will weigh those factors seriously, as will Postwatch.
I understand that there are 12 post offices within a two-mile radius of the Newcraighall office, of which the nearest four are the Jewel—to which my right hon. Friend described a journey on foot—Magdalene drive, Hay drive and Joppa. The Jewel, at the Asda supermarket, has the benefit of being open seven days a week. The Jewel and Hay drive have regular and direct public transport links. A particular issue in this case is that the post office at Newcraighall has seen a 16 per cent, fall in business over the last three years, and the level of custom for the retail side of the business has also fallen significantly. There is a real problem for the sub-postmaster in seeing any viable future for the business. Clearly, the limited level of patronage from the local community is a significant factor in Post Office Ltd.'s proposal, as is the sub-postmaster's perception of the prospects for his business as a going concern. In the great majority of cases currently under consideration for closure under the programme, it is the choice of the sub-postmaster to accept compensation rather than continue with the business that has triggered the process.
The programme to restructure the urban post office network will run for three years. It started at the end of 2002, but there is no predetermined list or number of
312WH
offices that will close, and no arithmetical formula is being applied to determine the number of closures in a given area. About 3,000 sub-postmasters have expressed an interest in closing under the terms of the programme, but those expressions of interest are not binding—not on Post Office Ltd. and not on the sub-postmaster.
We are confident that, even after the changes have been made, 95 per cent, of people in urban areas throughout the country will live within a mile of their nearest branch, and the majority within half a mile. Other than in exceptional circumstances, the scope of the programme will not extend to post offices in the 10 per cent, most deprived urban wards that are more than half a mile from the next post office.
My right hon. Friend expressed particular concern that sub-post offices in the least well-off areas would close. That is absolutely not the outcome that we want, but he was right to ask. That is why the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister have set aside funds to support post office services and the development of associated retail facilities in disadvantaged urban districts. The Scottish Executive have been apportioned funds for their equivalent of the English scheme. Similar funds have been made available in Wales and Northern Ireland.
I think that my right hon. Friend would agree that some form of properly managed urban reinvention programme is preferable to the alternative of unmanaged closures resulting from falling income. The consequence would be that more urban sub-postmasters would shut their businesses, causing much greater disruption and inconvenience to customers.
In the year to the end of March, there were 128 net urban closures outside the urban reinvention programme. If that pattern of unplanned closures continued, some serious gaps would open up in service provision in urban areas. The position is different in rural areas, but urban areas, where there are quite a lot of post offices, do not have the business to sustain so dense a network, given the changes that we have seen.
Much change is needed in the post office network. As my right hon. Friend said, the PIU report not only suggested that the Government should help if the Post Office should find that fewer offices were needed in urban areas, but recommended that we should support the introduction of universal banking. I said at the start that about 11 million current account holders with Barclays and the Alliance and Leicester can go to the post office, hand over their cash card, enter their PIN and obtain cash. I hope that more banks will open their current accounts to post office access in that way. In turn, we shall see many more people wanting and needing to visit the local post office, with consequent benefits to the other parts of the Post Office's business.
Implementation of the recommendation on the introduction of universal banking has been made possible because the Government have made the largest ever investment in the Post Office—£480 million on modern online computer systems for every post office in the country. They were switched on, on time, at the beginning of the present financial year. The ambition is to build on the uniquely trusted ground that the Post Office has—my right hon. Friend was right to point that out—in order to modernise and extend its commercial banking arrangements so that it can become the nation's

313WH
leading provider of access to bank accounts. That is what the concept of a universal bank means, and that is how we see the future role of the post office network. All the high street banks have signed up to deliver their part of the plan, in Scotland as well as in England and Northern Ireland.
There are two strands to universal banking. The first is full access at post offices anywhere in the country lo the basic bank accounts of every major bank and building society. Between them, those institutions account for 99 per cent. of all current accounts in the country. They will offer new basic accounts that are fully accessible at any post office. The second strand is the Post Office card account, which will be solely for benefit recipients. They will be able to use it only at a post office. It will be a simple and problem-free way of obtaining cash for those who particularly want that.
We must restore the urban post office network lo commercial viability and restore the confidence of sub-postmasters. That is critical if we are to attract much-needed new investment to the network. We continue to work towards the implementation of the recommendations in the PIU report to help bring about the accomplishment of its goals, which my right hon. Friend described at the outset.

House Building
4 pm
Tim Loughton: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the important subject of house building in West Sussex. In doing so, I have a sense of déjà-vu, because way back in December 1997, one of the first Adjournment debates in which I spoke after my election was on the subject of the Deputy Prime Minister imposing what was then an extra 12,800 houses on West Sussex. He trampled over the West Sussex structure plan and imposed his extra houses on top of the 37,900 additional houses that we were expected to build over 25 years. We were talking about a number of houses equivalent to two whole new towns in the predominantly rural county of West Sussex.
The deposit structure plan that the Deputy Prime Minister overruled envisaged 54 per cent. of the new houses being built on brownfield sites and 46 per cent, on greenfield sites. The additional houses that were then imposed on the county meant that only 41 per cent. of the houses would be able to be built on brownfield sites, according to the predictions, and 59 per cent.—that is getting on for two thirds—would have to go on greenfield sites.
At that time, I and other hon. Members representing West Sussex constituencies warned against overdevelopment in our county. We do not have green belt and we have a great shortage of suitable building sites anyway, wedged as we are, particularly in the south of the county, between the downs, which stretch the full extent of West Sussex, and the sea to the south. We also lack many infrastructure elements, particularly with regard to transport across the county.
The measures imposed by the Deputy Prime Minister were in stark contrast to the undertakings given before the 1997 election by the Prime Minister. He said:
"We will put concern for the environment at the heart of policy making".
He added:
"Local decision-making should be less constrained by central Government."
That is in sharp contrast to what happened.
When the examination in public produced the structure plan, it said:
"Peripheral development could only be accommodated in the county at the cost of an environmental loss which is significantly greater than has happened in the past. The existing character of the county, which is now at a critical point, would be lost, and that would be regrettable."
In the debate on 17 December 1997, I referred to the Council for the Protection of Rural England, which had commented:
"The draft West Sussex Structure Plan had been agreed by a careful analysis of housing and environmental needs in the county. It stood as a beacon of a more common sense approach to planning new housing development and its housebuilding levels, significantly below those set out in Government planning guidance, received independent official support… The new Government has made an appalling start to meeting the challenge of providing new homes in ways that renew our towns instead of concreting the countryside. This decision is both undemocratic and environmentally damaging."
At the time, in its report on house building levels, the CPRE predicted that the projected levels of new housing development could generate demands for more than 80

315WH
new quarries, extra water resources equivalent to 20 million baths a day and disposal sites for an additional 180,000 dumper trucks of rubbish a year across the country.
Another quote from the time of that report was from the Sussex Wildlife Trust, which stated that the news of the Deputy Prime Minister's action was
"a severe blow against local democracy. The EIP process appears to have been a waste of time and resources. The month of eloquent discussion and the winning of the argument count for nothing against an ill-judged government direction."
How right all those comments turned out to be.
Since 1997, we have had many more debates in the House on the subject of house building, not least that in West Sussex. The West Sussex Gazette and other local papers launched a series of save our countryside campaigns. Tens of thousands of people signed a petition, which they handed in at No. 10 Downing street with me and other hon. Members from the county. Now we see the pigeons coming home to roost. Virtually everything that we have warned about from 1997 onwards is beginning to come true. The target for house building in West Sussex ended up at around 46,500 houses to be built by 2016. On the basis of existing commitments, 13,670 houses have so far been identified, of which just over 4,500—a third—are on brownfield sites. Two thirds, over 9,000 houses, are to be built on greenfield sites, almost the reverse of the equation that the Deputy Prime Minister led us to believe that the Government supported. Government figures show that, nationally, more than 260 sq km of rural land is earmarked for development, while more than 280 sq km of urban land is going to waste and is unused.
In West Sussex, large-scale developments between towns and between towns and small villages are beginning to merge into each other, and the 22 strategic gaps across the county—which are particularly valued—are under threat of further development. Even flood plains, areas that have been judged by the Environment Agency to be at risk from flood, are not exempt from development. There are continuing pressures on the infrastructure with virtually no motorway in the whole of the county and increasing traffic congestion. We in the south-east of England are supposed to continue to be part of the economic powerhouse of the country, but we have heavily oversubscribed schools and some of the longest hospital waiting lists in the country, with enormous pressures on our GPs.
I want to refer particularly to one case in my constituency. That is the planned development for an area in the north of Worthing at the top of Beeches avenue. It is a small site of just under seven acres on the edge of the south downs above the A27. We need to have another debate on another day about the problems on that road. It is marginally outside the area currently identified as an area of outstanding natural beauty and on the edge of what could well become the national park for the south downs. Beeches avenue and the parallel road, Pines avenue, are cul-de-sacs, purely residential roads. To the east of them is the Lyons Farm shopping development, which should never have been built in the first place; it has been a blot on the landscape since the
316WH
1990s. The roads have unspoiled views to the downs, and it is agricultural land, used for public footpaths, grazing and bridleways.
It has always been assumed that that would be the northern fringe of development in Worthing and that the town could not push any further into the downs. Worthing is already the largest town in Sussex. It has grown substantially over the past 20 years—it now has two MPs, such is its size. It is a mix of business and residential use, tourist and retirement use and it is deemed to be the most profitable place in which to do business in the whole country. In the local planning inquiry in 2000–01, the land in Beeches avenue was identified as to be kept as agricultural land. Soon after the draft plan was published, the inspector put his nose in and overturned the decision, saying that that plot of land should be earmarked for development. He said that any development there would be "hardly noticeable", and he largely ignored the infrastructure pressure problems that any development would have there.
In October 2002, I am glad to say that Worthing council unanimously overturned that objection by the inspector. The council was united. Hundreds of letters from local residents objected to the inclusion of the site in the local plan as a development site. An action group was formed for the Beeches avenue residents, the Findon valley society also objected, as did the CPRE and Worthing chamber of commerce. Everybody objected to that plot of land being earmarked for development. It was a victory for local democracy and the local environment, and it was right that we should all have stood up to the inspector's recommendation. The proposal would have ruined the scenery of the downs, and set a bad precedent for further development along the ribbon at the foot of the downs. The extra 90 houses which it was said could have been built there would have brought in an extra 300 people at a time when the local schools are mostly full, and most of the local doctors' surgeries have had to close their lists as they are oversubscribed.
Moreover, in the absence of a Worthing bypass, there is also the notorious problem of the A27. We have wanted such a bypass for the past 30 years, but the Secretary of State for Transport now refuses to see a delegation composed of me and my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) and other local representatives from the town, although he has apparently recently met local environmental groups objecting to such a road. Congestion on the A27 is the worst that it has ever been. Access on to the A27 from Beeches avenue and Pines avenue is already virtually impossible, and the proposed new houses would add 60 to 70 trips an hour. At times, it has taken me five minutes just to get out of those roads—one can only imagine what an extra 60 or 70 trips would do to the traffic on the A27. The A27 also acts as a severance to access from the southern side of that road, where all the schools and amenities are located. There is no major road infrastructure attached to the proposals for development.
Other problems with the development include that of water supply, to which I will return later, and the fact that the area is also archaeologically sensitive. Moreover, in including this area for development in the inspector's recommendation, no regard seems to have been given to the sequential approach to development with other brownfield sites.

317WH
However, if local people thought that that was the end of the matter, they have been lulled into a false sense of security. The Government's pronouncements about the need for higher levels of house building have sent out a green light to builders and emboldened speculative developers. Consequently, earlier this year, Hargreaves, a local developer, put in an application for the building of 90 dwellings on that piece of land. I have nothing against Hargreaves; its job is to make a profit, and to take advantage of vulnerable spots in potential local development sites, and it is not fussy whether those are greenfield or brownfield sites. The Hargreaves application was for a mixture of two-bedroom flats and three, four or five-bedroom houses, arranged around a series of cul-de-sacs. The development would include no affordable housing, contrary to the local planning policy. No transport impact assessment was attached to it, and it therefore conflicts with the policy requirements of TR4.
There were 376 objections to the application. I am glad to say that the Highways Agency, which is responsible for the A27, raised objections and, on 29 April, Worthing council planning committee unanimously rejected the application. However, even before the application had been rejected, Hargreaves had lodged an appeal, which will be heard later in the year.
We now have a big fight on our hands. As with many such planning appeals, the odds are always weighted against local residents, and they will have to dip into their pockets to pay for legal representation to ensure that they can contest the appeal properly. Thus contrary to the plan devised by the local council, and despite the wishes of local people, local councillors and the town's two MPs, the development could go ahead. That flies in the face of the recommendations of Lord Rogers' urban taskforce report, which was so triumphed a few years ago.
Other controversial large-scale housing developments taking place in Worthing and West Durrington, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West, should mean that, by 2006, there will be an extra 700 new dwellings in Worthing, even without Beeches avenue, whereas the local plan assumes that only 400 dwellings will be needed by 2006 to comply with Government targets. That level of building also seriously conflicts with the eighth report of the Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on "Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions". The report says:
"Building more homes is not a panacea and the impact of such a housing programme on the environment could be unsustainable. The impact of developing so many homes in the South East, one of the most densely populated regions in Europe has not been fully assessed."
One of the experts giving evidence to the Committee said:
"I think it is very simple: we are piling far too much activity and too many expectations into South East England, and in terms of environmental capacity it is like a vessel overflowing. We cannot take any more in South East England."
One of the conclusions of the report was:
"The Committee is not convinced that the enlarged house-building programme can be accommodated in the South East without seriously affecting the quality of the environment. Before new house-building targets are approved, the likely impact on the environment must be appraised within the Government?s sustainability criteria."
318WH
I am afraid that all that is happening in Worthing and the rest of West Sussex. Developers who previously took options on land and strategic gaps are now exercising them and buying the land outright. That is not helping to solve the problem of the shortage of affordable housing for key workers in our county. Almost no support money for key workers is coming into the county, and there are fewer police in Sussex than there were in 1997. They are not being helped by the lack of affordable housing. There is a chronic shortage of nurses, doctors and social workers: again, that is not helped by the shortage of affordable housing.
In short, Government policy is promoting the irreversible concreting over of Sussex countryside, to which Lord Rogers' report and the sequential processes are making little difference. It is making houses even less affordable in our part of the country, and is adding to the economic overheating in the south-east, which is always going to benefit from its geographical position, from its proximity to the continent and from the influence of the city of London.
Worst of all, this is part of the systematic destruction of the treasured environment and landscape of West Sussex that can only further tarnish the quality of life for many of my constituents and other residents of West Sussex, who have chosen to make our county their home and want it to remain so. They do not want it to metamorphose into an even more concreted-over and congested urban sprawl.
It is time that the wishes of local people, acting with representatives of their local communities, were respected and responded to, and that they counted for something. I shall stand shoulder to shoulder with my constituents in and around Beeches avenue, north Worthing, in opposing this unreasonable development. It sets a very bad precedent. I hope that the Minister will support that stand if local democracy, or what remains of it under this Government, still counts for anything. I warmly invite him to visit Worthing and the rest of West Sussex to see some of these developments, and to see for himself the strength of feeling.
4.16pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty): I congratulate the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on his success in securing the debate on house-building levels in West Sussex. It is an important matter not only for West Sussex but, as he implied throughout his speech, for the south-east in general.
I start by eschewing his pleasant invitation to visit West Sussex and Beeches avenue in particular, which is the subject of a planning appeal for non-determination. The examination in public has just reported on the West Sussex plan, which may well cross my desk or the desk of someone else in the Department as that process comes to fruition.
I was going to tag on to the end of my speech that I would be more than happy to see a group of people from Worthing or West Sussex to talk through these issues, which are important, or to pop down to Worthing to have a look at some of the developments. So, I may take up the hon. Gentleman's invitation, but not until the assorted processes of planning and inquiry have been

319WH
completed. I know that the hon. Gentleman understands that I cannot comment on the details of specific development proposals or those that are still outstanding from the examination in public.
I regret that a serious issue that causes concern is being treated politically. If I am to believe the hon. Gentleman, everything that the Government have done about it has brought doom, gloom and concrete for the people of West Sussex. I do not share that belief, nor do I share the notion that, by implication, the thrust of the "Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future" statement on 5 February is all about concreting over the south-east. I accept that there are real concerns in West Sussex, as there are in other areas in the south-east and in London, which we are seeking to address, but to caricature it as concreting over the whole countryside is not terribly useful for the purpose of the debate.
The hon. Gentleman knows that West Sussex county council is preparing its replacement structure plan and I thank him for the potted history of the last round in that exercise. I share some of his concerns—not about specific developers on specific sites—about appeal processes, concurrent applications and applications that have not been determined at the local level going straight to appeal to bypass the process. We are seeking to deal with all those issues through our planning reform package.
There are several ways in which we will afford discretion to local authorities to deal with applications that are tantamount to abuses of the systems. For example, some developers make one application to the local democratic planning authority and another to go straight through the appeal process. There is also development by stealth, where an application is made and another one, which has minor modifications, rolls in straight after it. Under the present system, such an application has to be treated as a totally separate process and the process goes appeal, application, determination, appeal, application and determination. It is like a dice game until the developer gets what he wants, which cannot be the right way forward.
I suspect that the eighth report of the Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning and Local Government—this is at my peril because I am appearing before it in a couple of weeks—contains some serious flaws, which we will take up with the Committee. We have made the point in the media that the report was unfair on the substance of the sustainable communities plan. It did not give sufficient weight to the statutory duty in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill to create a sustainable framework that takes full account of the ecological and environmental dimensions of any planned application. Its interpretation of the plan was rather shallow, which is a matter for regret—I am sure that I will regret saying this when I appear before the Committee in two weeks' time in another context.
What goes on outside the four growth areas in London and the south-east and the nine low-demand areas in the north and the midlands is important. For once, we may well be the victims of our successful spin, which is unusual for this Government, rather than the reverse. I sometimes wish that we spun better in that
320WH
much of the focus of the immediate media coverage of the communities plan was on those four growth areas and not on the rest of London and the south-east.
As the hon. Gentleman says, the south-east is a hot spot and it will continue to be so. We cannot turn the country upside down for a decade to allow the northern regions to be in close proximity to the golden triangle from Calais to western Germany. The south-east is an economic hot spot, which means that we must be all the more sensitive to development in the south-east. West Sussex is still on the radar. Through the review of regional planning guidance for the south-east— RPG9—and its successor documents and through the eventual development plan for West Sussex, and indeed Worthing's local borough plan, we will reach a stage at which things can go forward in a measured and sensitive way.
I have no objection to the hon. Gentleman's point that environmental concerns should be paramount. I may have my own opinions on Beeches avenue, but I cannot venture to articulate them. I understand that the particular sensitivities in the south-east are distinct from those in London and its difficulties with an overheated housing market and commensurately high levels of economic activity. We must get to a stage where the debate is about more than either concreting the entirety of the countryside or not allowing any more development. The hon. Gentleman has not said, "No more development", but we must debate the matter in a measured way.
I am pleased that the development target for previously developed land in the plan, which has just finished its examination in public, is 57 per cent, in West Sussex. However, housing completions in the south-east region are too low. They dropped to 22,900 dwellings per annum by 2000, which is 18 per cent, below the figure indicated by regional planning guidance. If one puts all the RPGs together, along with the aspirational figures that we want from the four growth areas, at least 50 per cent, of the growth that we need in London and the south-east is still in areas outside the four growth areas: the Thames gateway, Ashford, the London to Stansted corridor and the south midlands and Milton Keynes district.
The hon. Gentleman also made some interesting points about affordable housing and key workers. The dearth of affordable housing and key worker provision in West Sussex is as serious an issue as it is elsewhere. Public services and the workers who carry them out underpin the communities in West Sussex as much as they do in London or anywhere else. I am not of the opinion that higher degrees of affluence somehow result in public services meaning less to communities.
There has been some progress on key workers in West Sussex. We have put some £4 million into the West Sussex economy specifically for key workers. Much of that benefits health workers and some of it benefits teachers, but my information shows that for some funny reason it covers one social worker in the entire West Sussex area. However, they are a movable feast. We hope that the plan in the document on sustainable communities to regionalise what the Housing Corporation does, which is to make the social housing sector for key workers more responsive and affordable, will assist in the process. When we introduce the planning reforms and the system of planning between

321WH
the local level and the regional level is far more iterative, responsive and flexible than it has been in the past, those sensitivities will be picked up at the plan-led level as well as at the regional housing board level.
Peter Bottomlev: The point about the visit is useful. Although the Minister said that he could not come and talk about Beeches avenue or West Durrington straight away, it would be greatly appreciated if he could come reasonably early and find out about the general issues in our part of West Sussex, in Worthing, Adur and Arun. However, I understand that the Minister may return to that later.
Mr. McNulty: As I said, I would seriously be more than happy to come down. It is fun to get out and about round the country and one cannot beat seeing things on the ground. I am coming to my first birthday as a Minister and much of the low demand and abandonment that I have seen in northern areas is a completely new experience for me as a London MP. Although the problems of West Sussex and other parts of the south-east are starkly different and almost form a mirror image to those difficulties, they are just as real for all that. We are serious when we talk about sustainable communities, whether they are in the north or the south.
Come I shall, but a visit might be better in the context of the examination in public, rather than the non-determination application on Beeches avenue. We can drive past West Durrington and Beeches avenue and say, "There it is," or something like that. I will happily come, because having such experiences and making
322WH
those observations are as important as going to growth areas, low demand areas or anywhere else. That is not least because of what I said about the need for much of the growth and development in London, the south-east and the four growth areas to be sustainable. West Sussex will have its role.
As the hon. Gentleman said, we cannot ignore issues associated with the affordability of housing in the south-east and in West Sussex. I hope that West Sussex gets the plan that it deserves as things unveil on the back of the examination in public—I mean that in the nicest possible way, not otherwise. Worthing borough is coming to the end of its process, which should again reflect local needs and sensitivities. I take seriously what was said about how the hon. Members for East Worthing and Shoreham and for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) both have seats with a certain uniqueness. They are sandwiched between the sea and coast on the one side and the downs on the other, and have huge swathes of natural beauty.
Visit I shall, but that will annoy my officials because every time I stand up I promise to visit someone or have meetings. However, we take the level of house building seriously. Building is not about concreting over the countryside and must be done with sensitivity and in a sustainable fashion. If building is not appropriate, I hope that with our planning reforms we will deal with that through the planning system.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Four o 'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Companies Bill
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she expects to introduce the proposed Companies Bill. [114379]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government are carefully considering the comments made in response to the White Paper 'Modernising Company Law' (Cm 5553), including those in the Trade and Industry Committee's report on the White Paper (HC 439) published last week. A further announcement will be made to Parliament in due course.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many of her staff have taken sick leave due to mental health problems in the last year. [111976]

  Ms Hewitt
  In the financial year 2001–02 164 staff took sick leave attributed to mental health problems.

  Regional Development Agencies (Budgets)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what criteria she has used in determining the budget allocations to individual regional development agencies in 2003–04. [114899]

  Alan Johnson
  The budget for Regional Development Agencies is allocated between RDAs using a formula which takes into account nine weighted indictors of need and opportunity. Provision has also been made to ensure that no RDA will receive less in 2003–04 than in previous years.

  The nine indicators are:
  An allocation for each RDA to cover common administrative overheads;
  Population size;
  Gross Domestic Product per head, where the richest regions get zero;
  Research and development expenditure per head with the weakest regions benefiting most;
  Population in rural areas with low productivity;
  The number of people living in the most deprived 10 per cent. of wards;
  The 100 poorest authorities in terms of unemployment rate;
  The amount of derelict land and pre-used land with planning permission;
  The proportion of the working age population classed a partly skilled or unskilled.

  The three indicators with the highest weightings are unemployment, deprivation and gross domestic product.

TRANSPORT

  Low Cost Airlines
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to encourage the use of spare capacity at regional airports for low cost airlines. [114796]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government support the growth, subject to it being sustainable, of regional airports to meet local demand for air travel and we anticipate low cost airlines will make a major contribution to achieving this. Chapter 3 of our regional consultation documents sets out a range of possible policy mechanisms for delivering our objectives. The consultation closes on 30 June, and we will publish the Air Transport White Paper in late 2003.

  Sizewell
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many aircraft have flown over the power stations since the airspace over Sizewell A and B power stations was invaded 18 months ago. [112883]

  Mr. Spellar
  Aircraft are not permitted to fly within two nautical miles of Sizewell below a height of 2000 ft. There have been no confirmed breaches of this restriction since November 2001.

  Airport Security
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on plans to change overnight security arrangements at UK airports. [113524]

  Mr. Spellar
  The department's aviation security requirements do not differentiate between day time and night time operations. I will draw to the attention of colleagues in the relevant departments the hon. Member's particular concern about late hours coverage at airports by Customs and Immigration staff, so that they may respond direct.

  Crossrail
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many officials within his Department are engaged in examining the Crossrail proposals; when he will announce the Government's preferred option for Crossrail line 1; and if he will make a statement on the Crossrail project. [113719]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Currently, around half a dozen Departmental officials are substantially engaged on Crossrail-related work, among other duties, involving a range of other officials within the Department as necessary. As regards an announcement on Crossrail, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Secretary of State for Transport to the hon. Members for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), and for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), on 13 May 2003,Official Report, column 149.

  Cyclists
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what regulations are in force governing cyclists' conduct when using joint cycle and pedestrian paths;[115044]
  769W
  (2) what requirements there are for cyclists to warn other road users of their presence when using joint cycle and pedestrian paths. [115043]

  Mr. Jamieson
  On cycle tracks, cyclists and pedestrians may be segregated or they may share the same space. Highway authorities use signs and markings from the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 to indicate the part of the route which is allocated for cyclists and for pedestrians. On segregated tracks, cyclists must keep to the side intended for their use.

  The Highway Code advises cyclists to take care when passing pedestrians, especially children, elderly or disabled people on cycle tracks, and allow them plenty of room. The code also advises that cyclists should slow down and stop for pedestrians if necessary. The law applying to dangerous and careless cycling applies on cycle tracks as it does on the road. Under the Road Traffic Act 1991, the two worst cycling offences attract maximum fines of £2,500 (for dangerous cycling) and £1,000 (for careless cycling).

  There are no specific requirements for cyclists to warn other users of their presence on a cycle track. However, the Highway Code advises cyclists that they should be considerate of other road users, particularly blind and partially sighted pedestrians, and to let them know of their presence by ringing their bell. In April this year, the Pedal Bicycles (Safety) Regulations 2003 were published, coming into force on 1 May 2004. These will make it a requirement for a bell to be fitted on a bicycle by manufacturers at the point of sale. The Regulation will enhance the safety of pedestrians sharing space with cyclists, and had been requested for some time by groups representing pedestrians and disabled people.

  Departmental Advertising
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the total expenditure on advertising by the Department was in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03; and what the level of planned expenditure is for (i) 2003–04 and (ii) 2004–05. [114436]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In 2001–02, my Department's total expenditure on advertising was £9.85 million to £8.62 million on the THINK! road safety campaign and £1.22 million to promote the Traveline public transport information line.

  In 2002–03, the total estimated expenditure on advertising was £10.195 million to 9.5 million on the THINK! road safety campaign, £299,000 on the Airports consultation exercise, £274,000 on Traveline and £122,000 on the new Vehicle Identity Checking scheme. These figures are subject to final audit.

  The planned expenditure for 2003–04 and 2004–05 is estimated at £10 million in each year.

  Departmental Underspending
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to reduce his Department's underspend in 2003–04 from that of 2002–03. [112771]
  770W
  Mr. Jamieson
  We will continue to monitor budgets very closely to ensure the most effective use of resources. I expect that, once the figures have been finalised, my Department's outturn for 2002–03 will have been very close to budget.

  Foreign Flag Vessels
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many foreign flag vessels were inspected by the Maritime Coastguard Agency in each of the last five years. [114836]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Maritime Coastguard Agency (MCA) has inspected the following numbers of foreign flag vessels in each of the last five years.

  Year

  Number of foreign flagged vessels inspected under Port State Control

  1998–99

  1,980

  1999–2000

  1,801

  2000–01

  1,803

  2001–02

  1,765

  2002–03

  1,744

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the criteria will be for inspecting foreign flag vessels in UK ports when the port state control directive comes into force. [114837]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The UK will inspect foreign flag vessels in UK ports according to the criteria set out in the new Article 7 of EU Directive 2001/106/EC which comes into force on 22 July 2003. High risk ships posing the greatest threat to the safety of crew and passengers and to the environment will be targeted for inspection.

  The target factor is determined by ship type, Flag, Classification Society, ship age, and previous inspection record. High risk ships, based on type and age, such as oil tankers over 15 years of age with a high target factor, will have a mandatory expanded inspection every 12 months. Any ship with a very high target factor and one month since last inspection will also have a mandatory inspection.

  Motorcycling
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many meetings have been held in each of the last four years of the Government's Advisory Group on Motorcycling; and when a national motorcycling policy will be published. [114067]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Since its inception, the Advisory Group on Motorcycling has met as follows:

  1999–3 times

  2000–3 times

  2001–2 times

  2002–3 times

  2003–2 times so far.

  The next meeting should be in September.

  The Government expect to determine their strategy for motorcycling next year.

  National Museums of Scotland (Concorde)
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding the loan or donation of a Concorde by British Airways to the National Museums of Scotland. [114824]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department has not received any representations in relation to the approach of the National Museums of Scotland to British Airways.

  Number Plates
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many number plate suppliers have registered under the Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001; what checks have been carried out to ensure number plate manufacturers and suppliers are complying with the Act; how many vehicle identity check centres have been established and on what basis their location was decided; how many VIC checks have been completed to date; how many checks resulted in refusal to register a vehicle; and what the most common reasons for refusal to register a vehicle were. [114591]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Both the registration of number plate suppliers and vehicle identity checks (VICs) form part of the Government's programme to reduce vehicle crime. They are specifically designed to combat vehicle ringing and cloning (the practice of disguising the identity of stolen vehicles or vehicles used for unlawful purposes.)

  As of 16 May, 26,445 number plate suppliers representing 31,977 retail outlets were registered with DVLA.

  Since 1 March enforcement powers have rested with the police and local authorities. They have been fully briefed on the legislation. DVLA has received several requests for clarification from these authorities and reports that inspections of premises have been carried out. A DVLA team is being set up to provide support to the police and local authorities for those purposes.

  Since the introduction of the vehicle identity check (VIC) scheme on 7 April. 69 inspections have been carried out in Great Britain and one in Northern Ireland. Two vehicles tested in Great Britain have failed. A total of 54 test sites have been established.

  Pollution (UK Waters)
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the maximum penalty is for the(a) owners and (b) operators of vessels causing pollution in UK waters. [114840]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Pollution in UK waters can be caused by various substances. The following gives the maximum penalties for each different substance.

  Type of pollution

  Maximum penalty on summary conviction (£)

  Maximum penalty on conviction on indictment

  Oil

  250,000 owner and manager

  A fine owner and manager

  Garbage

  25,000 owner and manager

  A fine owner

  Chemical

  25,000 owner

  A fine owner

  772W
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many vessels were prosecuted for pollution incidents in UK waters in each of the last five years. [114838]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Individual harbour authorities prosecute pollution incidents within harbour authority limits, and the Department has no figures regarding the numbers of their prosecutions. Outside of those areas, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) deal with prosecutions. They have conducted the following numbers of prosecutions.

  Number of prosecutions

  1998

  6

  1999

  3

  2000

  2

  2001

  0

  2002

  2

  Rail Subsidies
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what level of subsidy Virgin West Coast Railways will receive over the remaining length of its franchise; and what the level was in the original contract. [113775]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority is currently in the process of re-negotiating the Virgin West Coast franchise. The level of subsidy to be paid to Virgin has not yet been determined.

  Regional Airports Consultation
  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the reason is for the lower age limit of 16 for eligibility to complete the Regional Airports Consultation questionnaire; and if he will make a statement. [114355]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There is no age eligibility criterion for completing the airports' questionnaire. We welcome views from younger consultees, and many have already responded to the consultation in a variety of ways, including letters and petitions.

  School Buses
  Mr. David
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans the Government have to introduce measures to prevent three children, under 14 years of age, sitting on two seats on school buses. [114974]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Three children under the age of 14 sitting on two seats is permitted by the Public Service Vehicles (Carrying Capacity) Regulations 1984. However, as this is a concession and not a requirement I have no plans to abolish this allowance. The use of this concession is declining as the modern interior designs of buses and coaches make it impracticable to use. It is also not permissible where seat belts are fitted.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to ensure that(a) the three-for-two rule on school buses is being enforced

  773W
  and (b) no children over the age of 14 are sharing a seat with two other pupils; and if he will make a statement. [115074]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Three children under the age of 14 sitting on two seats is a concession under the Public Service Vehicles (Carrying Capacity) Regulations 1984. It is the responsibility of the driver of any vehicle carrying schoolchildren to ensure that this concession is not abused. It is, however, becoming redundant. Sharing seats is not an option (no matter what the age of the children) in vehicles fitted with seat belts. All minibuses and coaches carrying schoolchildren must now be fitted with seat belts, except for those that pre-date the legislation and which are gradually disappearing from the road.

  Sponsorships
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which of his Department's projects have received sponsorship in the last financial year; who the sponsor was in each case; what the nature of each project was; what time-period was covered by each project; what the total cost of each project was; how much money was involved in each sponsorship deal; and if he will make a statement. [112398]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department has not received any cash sponsorship support. Many companies, however, have linked with Think!, my Department's road safety campaign and carried road safety messages in their own activities. We have not quantified the value of this supportive activity but we welcome extension of our safety messages by companies. Examples are in my Department's annual report.

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of regional variations in staff turnover in his Department. [112748]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department is yet to undertake an assessment of regional variations in staff turnover. The Regional Co-ordination Unit, as the corporate centre of the Government Office Network, collects data for the Government Offices. This data will be used to make assessments of regional differences in developing the Department's workforce strategies.

  The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the Budget plans to examine relocation of public services with the aim of achieving best value for money. He has asked Sir Michael Lyons—Director of the Institute of Local Government Studies at Birmingham University—to advise on relocation by the next Spending Review.

  Train Safety
  Mr. David
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the Government have plans to introduce measures to oblige train companies to provide seat belts for their passengers. [114990]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are currently no plans to fit seatbelts in passenger trains.

CABINET OFFICE

  Civil Service
  Mr. Thomas
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans he has to reduce the number of civil service posts for which passing the civil service examination is a key requirement; and if he will make a statement. [114280]

  Mr. Alexander
  There is no single "Civil Service exam". With the exception of the Fast Stream, and recruitment to the most senior posts, recruitment to the Civil Service is the responsibility of individual government departments and agencies. In general their systems are based on the competences their businesses require, and their recruitment processes are determined by the needs of the post. Departments are free to choose the selection methods that best demonstrate the competences and skills they are seeking. These can include a variety of tests and exercises, interviews or assessment centres.

  My own Department recruits for the graduate Fast Stream Programme on behalf of Departments and reports annually to Parliament with details of the scheme, including numbers of applicants and successes at each selection stage. The tests, exercises and interviews are designed and validated with the aim of achieving the best possible prediction of suitability for, and success in, the job. The recruitment process for all jobs in the Civil Service must be consistent with the principle of selection on merit on the basis of fair and open competition, in accordance with the requirements of the Civil Service Commissioners' Recruitment Code.

  KPMG
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many contracts his Department has awarded to KPMG since 1997. [113679]

  Mr. Alexander
  Information on the number of contracts awarded by the Cabinet Office to KPMG in financial years 1997–98 to 2000–01 is available only at disproportionate cost. The numbers of contracts awarded in 2001–02 and 2002–03 were 2 and 4 respectively.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Bridleways
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many public inquiries and at what estimated cost are projected due to the applications from the Trail Riders Federation to upgrade bridleways. [114777]

  Alun Michael
  I understand that information on public inquiries on rights of way is not held centrally in a form that makes it easy to provide an estimate of this sort. However I have asked officials to look at the level of applications and appeals and I shall write to my hon. Friend as soon as clearer information is available.
  775W
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received about the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 in relation to the upgrading of bridleways for off road vehicles. [114776]

  Alun Michael
  I have asked officials to look at the level of applications for the upgrading of bridleways for off road vehicles under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Definitive map modification orders, which can amend the status of bridleways to byways open to all traffic, are currently dealt with by local highway authorities, and if an objection is made to a modification order, it is referred to the Planning Inspectorate to decide the case on behalf of the Secretary of State. I will write to the hon. Gentleman once I have the information.

  Departmental Report
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the cost was of the publication of the 2001 Departmental Report. [112811]

  Project

  Consultancy

  Veterinary Medicines—Digitally signed pesticide approvals project

  Fujitsu Services/Consulting

  England and Rural Development programme

  Schlumberger Sema Consulting

  Elan Computing

  Yale Consulting

  Cathedral Consortium

  PA Consulting Group

  Parity Resourcing Solutions

  Sandfield Systems Ltd

  Interlect

  ARC Consulting Group

  PMR Technologies

  Office Government Commerce (OGC)

  The Nesco Group

  Sherwood International

  Spring IT

  Brian Farrington Ltd

  e-Communications programme

  SERCO Usability services

  CEFAS MIS

  W S Atkins

  e-Science -online Research Contracts

  Delta -Sherwood International, Schlumberger Sema Consulting

  Countryside Agency—Open Access: Restrictions and Closures

  Bird & Bird

  WS Atkins

  Office Government Commerce (OGC)

  Countryside Agency E-Business Delivery

  Logica CMG

  Agricultural Census e-forms project

  KC3

  Livestock Identification programme

  Cornwell Management Consultants Plc

  Hedra Ltd

  Accenture

  Cattle Tracing System

  Delta—Sherwood International, Schlumberger Sema Consulting

  Rural Payments Programme:

  Atos KPMG Consulting (AKC)

  Programme Mgmt

  PA Consulting (PA)

  Procurement

  Office Government Commerce (OGC)

  Bird and Bird

  Giga Information Group

  PA Consulting Group

  IACS E forms

  PA Consulting Group

  e-enablement of:

  Delta

  Over Thirty Month Scheme and Data Processing System

  Schlumberger Sema Consulting

  Sherwood International

  Graphical Information Systems/Rural Land Register

  Atos KPMG Consulting (AKC)

  Customer Focus

  Remote Sensing Applications—Consultants Ltd

  Landmark Information Group Ltd

  Handle With Care Ltd

  776W
  Alun Michael
  The Defra annual report for 2001 was produced with the assistance of the Central Office of Information at a cost of £17,887, exclusive of VAT.

  Description

  £ (excluding VAT)

  Proofreading

  3,962

  Design, layout and cover

  13,400

  Production of web version

  525

  Total cost excluding printing

  17,887

  Defra did not incur any of the print production costs. The Stationery Office prints and distributes the annual report as a commercial venture.

  E-government
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list, by project, the consultancies her Department and its non-departmental public bodies have used on e-government projects since 1 January 2001. [112836]

  Alun Michael
  The following table identifies consultancy companies which have assisted Defra (including agencies and non departmental bodies) on major e-government projects since 1 January 2001.
  777W

  Project

  Consultancy

  RPA Change Programme

  Schlumberger Sema Consulting

  PA Consulting Group

  Accenture

  Exotic Disease Control

  Hedra Ltd

  Customer Registration

  Cornwell Management Consultants Delta/Schlumberger Sema

  Consulting

  Atos KPMG Consulting (AKC)

  PA Consulting Group

  MAGIC—Multi Agency

  Landmark Information Group Ltd

  Geographical Information for the Countryside

  ESRI (UK) Ltd

  GeoWise

  Phoenix1—Bird import and registration systems

  Amtec Consulting Group

  Emissions Trading Register

  Delta—Sherwood International, Schlumberger Sema Consulting Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC)

  Environment Agency

  Logica CMG

  Science systems

  British Telecom

  In addition to the above, the following projects were undertaken by the Delta public/private partnership of Defra's IT Directorate/ Schlumberger Sema and Sherwood International. In all cases the consultancy element was in excess of £100,000

  Schlumberger Sema and Sherwood International

  Animal Health Group (AHG): Date Based Exports Scheme

  AHG: Scrapie Control System

  Animal Movements Licensing Scheme

  BSE CENTAUR

  Pig Tracing

  Scoping Study for the new Veterinary Surveillance System

  State Veterinary System (SVS) Generic Disease Control System and other veterinary investigations systems

  SVS:Mobile Computing in the Field

  SVS:Non—BSE Enhancements

  SVS: Vetnet

  FAS project

  Grants and Subsidies Management Project

  Web Based E-Science

  Cattle Tracing System

  Electronic Delivery for the Plant Health Services

  e-Plants Varieties and Seeds

  HTR Datacapture and HMI E-forms

  Arable Area Payment Scheme E-Forms

  Beef Special Premium Scheme Combined Risk Analysis

  Extensification Premium Scheme

  IACS Aggregated penalties

  Monitoring Field Inspections

  Suckler Cow Premium Scheme

  Sheep Annual Premium Scheme

  Sheep Quotas

  Sheep Quotas Purchase Scheme

  Slaughter Premium Scheme

  Note:

  1. The projects shown in this list are Defra's larger e-government projects (total cost £100,000 or more) which contribute towards the central target of making 100 per cent. of central Government services available by 2005.

  2. Under existing arrangements Defra's application development services are normally provided by the 'Delta' public/private partnership involving Schlumberger Sema and Sherwood International.

  3. Other consultancy services will also have been provided under the terms of a framework contract with Fujitsu.

  4. To provide a breakdown of consultancy companies/support by cost, or to provide details for smaller projects, would incur disproportionate cost.

  European Union Directives
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the procedure her Department follows to transpose an EU directive into United Kingdom law. [113770]

  Alun Michael
  Defra's policy is to transpose in such a way as to achieve the objectives of the European measure on time and in accordance with other UK policy goals, including minimising the burdens on business. A Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) is 778W
  started before the Commission formally publishes its proposal, and is then developed as the proposal goes through negotiation and at the transposition stage. A Risk Management approach is used, ensuring that the risks are identified and evaluated for Ministers.

  The normal procedure is that a project plan for transposition is developed, and a draft legal text of implementing regulation is prepared. Collective ministerial agreement for implementing regulations is sought, and the implementing regulations are laid before Parliament. Defra works closely with colleagues

  779W
  in the Devolved Administrations and where applicable, the Government of Gibraltar, to ensure effective and timely transposition of the Directive throughout the UK.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects Lord Haskins to report. [115182]

  Alun Michael
  Lord Haskins expects to submit a full report in the summer. Publication will follow as soon as possible after due consideration by Ministers.

  GM Crops
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with(a) biotechnology companies and (b) health and environmental campaign and voluntary groups regarding the scale and scope of farm scale trials of GM crops. [114025]

  Mr. Meacher
  I announced the programme of farm-scale evaluations of GM herbicide tolerant crops in October 1998. In February 1999, the then Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions consulted stakeholders, including biotechnology companies and health and environmental campaign and voluntary groups, about the proposals for the evaluations, the hypothesis to be tested and scale and scope of the field trials. Following this, in May 1999 the then Secretary of State appointed an independent Scientific Steering Committee to oversee the conduct of the evaluations. This Committee provides on-going advice to Ministers on all aspects of the design and methodology. Their advice is publicly available on the farm-scale evaluations website (www.defra.gov.uk/environment/fse)

  Since the evaluations were set up, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have had various meetings with representatives from biotechnology companies and health and environmental campaign and voluntary groups at which the farm-scale evaluations have been mentioned.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 12 May 2003 to the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker),Official Report, column 6W, on GM field trials, what form the forthcoming public debate on GM field trials will take. [114251]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government are sponsoring a public debate on GM issues, which is being managed by an independent Steering Board at arms' length from Government. The Steering Board will be launching a series of events on 3 June 2003, through which the public will have the opportunity to debate the issues surrounding genetic modification, including those related to the GM field trials. Members of the public can get involved either by attending one of the regional or local meetings or by accessing the website.

  Once the scientific papers reporting the results of the GM field trials are published and in the public domain, there will be a further opportunity to comment on the implications.

  Nappies
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the life-cycle analysis of nappies being carried out by the Environment Agency. [114263]

  Mr. Meacher
  The life cycle analysis will consider the environmental costs and benefits of both disposable and re-usable nappies. The work should be completed in the summer. I look forward to seeing the results of the study and hope it will provide clarity from an independent source on the environmental impacts of both types of nappy.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the Government's budget is for research and development into organic farming; and if she will make a statement. [114852]

  Mr. Meacher
  The budget for research and development on organic farming was £2.029 million in 2002–03, and is £2.229 million for 2003–04. These figures include £200,000 spend via the Organic LINK programme.

  The planned/target Organic LINK spend, which is dependant on successful bids being co-funded from industry, is £400,000 in 2003–04, £700,000 in 2004–05, and then £1.3 million for the next three years—a total of £5 million.

  In addition, the organic farming sector also benefits from much of the other research the Department undertakes, for example, its planned spend of over £12.8 million on biological control techniques, plant health, animal welfare and wildlife conservation on farms this year.

  Performance Targets
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the targets in respect of environmental matters which have been set for her Department. [114265]

  Alun Michael
  The Department has published its environmental Public Service Agreement targets (along with all other Public Service Agreement targets) in the Departmental Report—(ref Cm 5919).

  Environmental targets are also published in Defra's departmental website, which can be viewed at the following address: www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/busplan/sda/sda0306.pdf

  Recycling
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of households she estimates will have doorstep or kerbside collections of recyclable material by 2010. [114253]

  Mr. Meacher
  No estimate has been made of the percentage of households that will have doorstep or kerbside collections of recyclable material by 2010. The proportion of households served by some degree of
  781W
  kerbside recycling collection schemes in England in 2000–01 was estimated at 51 per cent. and I would expect this figure to rise as local authorities introduce arrangements to achieve their statutory recycling targets.

  Waste
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the cost of collection and management of(a) household and (b) municipal waste was in (i) England, (ii) Northern Ireland, (iii) Scotland and (iv) Wales in each year since 1997–98 for which figures are held by her Department. [114790]

  Mr. Meacher
  The following figures show net revenue expenditure on municipal waste collection and disposal in England since 1997–98 to date, and in Scotland and Wales prior to devolution. Data are not available on the separate costs of household and municipal waste. The figures include income received in respect of charges to outside organisations. Data for Northern Ireland are not held centrally.

  Waste collection and disposal

  £million

  England1

  Scotland2

  Wales3

  1997–98

  1,198.9

  149.9

  72.8

  1998–99

  1,281.9

  148

  75.8

  1999–2000

  1,423.3

  —

  —

  2000–01

  1,521.3

  —

  —

  2001–02

  1,653.9

  —

  —

  2002–034

  1,818.9

  —

  —

  11997–98 to 2001–02 outturn figures are taken from local authority returns on expenditure (RO6 forms) and for 2002–03 planned expenditure (RA02 form).

  2 Data provided by SERAD, reported by local authorities.

  3 Data provided by NAWAD, from archive publications.

  4Budget.

DEFENCE

  Aircraft Carriers
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when an announcement will be made on the award of the through-life maintenance contract for the two aircraft carriers to be built under the CVF programme. [114520]

  Mr. Ingram
  The current intention for CVF is to include an option for an Initial Support Period for the carriers, of approximately six years, as part of the main build contract, which is due to be awarded in spring 2004. This will be dependent on the development of a sufficiently mature and acceptable proposal by the CVF alliance.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the allocation of work on the CVF programme between the UK shipyards will be announced. [114521]

  Mr. Ingram
  An initial proposal on the allocation of work will be submitted by BAE Systems and Thales UK at the end of this year as part of their offer for the Demonstration and Manufacture (D&M) phase.782W
  This proposal will be subject to value for money considerations. We aim to place a D&M contract by spring 2004.

  Arms Exports
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made with securing a G8 commitment to implement common standards in arms export controls; and if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Lancaster House conference on arms export control. [113660]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government are committed to raising the effectiveness of export controls internationally, and promote common standards in arms export controls in multilateral fora wherever it is possible and appropriate to do so. Discussions on arms export controls have been taking place between G8 countries in preparation for the summit meeting at Evian, France on 2 to 3 June 2003.

  In response to the question on Lancaster House, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the then International Development Secretary (Clare Short) on 10 March 2003, Official Report, column 39W.

  Cluster Bombs
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to which countries(a) RBL 755 and (b) BL 755 cluster bombs have been exported since 1973. [112483]

  Mr. Ingram
  Since 1997, the Government has published details of export licensing decisions in the Annual Report on Strategic Export Controls, copies of which are available in the Library of the House. However, as the granting of an export licence does not necessarily result in the export of the goods licensed, the information is not held in the form requested and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  In accordance with established practice, we do not publish information on licensing decisions of previous administrations.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Mike Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the Medical Research Council to respond to the approach by the Ministry of Defence's Gulf Veterans' Illnesses Unit, as referred to in his letter of 2 May to Robert G. Wood Smith and Partners. [114862]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Gulf Veterans' Illnesses Unit received advice from the Medical Research Council on 20 May 2003 and will write to Robert G. Wood-Smith and Partners by the end of May 2003.

  HMS Victory
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the annual cost has been of(a) crewing and (b) preserving and maintaining HMS Victory since 2000. [113856]
  783W
  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence's annual costs for(a) crewing and (b) preserving and maintaining HMS Victory since 2000 are:

  Financial Year £ million)

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Crewing

  1,072,000

  1,148,000

  1,137,000

  Ticket Revenue

  1,058,694

  1,018,047

  1,022,025

  Net Crew cost

  13,630

  130,419

  115,211

  Preservation and maintenance

  856,000

  555,000

  631,000

  The crewing costs include all Naval personnel and civilian staff employed by MOD and are offset by revenue for ticket sales. The preservation and maintenance costs include restoration work aimed at improving the material state of the ship.

  Iraq
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he received, from whom and when, between 1 January and 20 April, regarding the threat of looting of antiquities in Iraq; what his Department's response was; and if he will make a statement. [110613]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 1 May 2003]: The Ministry of Defence was forwarded a letter to the Prime Minister on this issue from the All Party Parliamentary Group, dated 11 February. My hon. Friend the Minister of Defence Procurement (Lord Bach) responded to a Parliamentary Question on this subject from Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn on 26 March 2003, Official Report, column WA81. In addition, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Moonie) replied to a letter of 18 February from the British Council of Archaeology regarding the safeguarding of Iraq's cultural heritage.

  Coalition commanders were aware of the risk of looting during the planning and conduct of operations in Iraq. They worked closely to minimise this by restoring law and order as quickly as possible. In addition, the United States and United Kingdom governments have worked together to take steps to help recover any artefacts that have been removed, including a US funded reward scheme for the safe return of antiquities.

  Military Bases
  Albert Owen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British military bases have been sold to the United States in each of the last 10 years; and whether leasehold arrangements are made for military bases. [114595]

  Dr. Moonie
  No British military bases have been sold to the United States, and neither have they been granted a lease to occupy any of the sites.

  Naval Navigational Aids
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list his Department's expenditure on naval navigational aids for each year over the last five years for(a) Northern Ireland, (b) England and Wales, (c) Scotland and (d) each military port in the UK. [114335]
  784W
  Mr. Ingram
  The future provision of Marine Services is the subject of a PPP/PFI Acquisition programme. To divulge details of current expenditure could prejudice the fairness of the competition, and the potential for gaining best value for money. I am therefore withholding this information under Exemption 7 of the Code of Access to Government Information (effective management and operations of the public service).

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what plans he has to review the provision of navigational aids at naval installations in UK waters;[114339]

  (2) what studies have been conducted into the provision of naval navigational aids for (a) military ports and (b) other Ministry of Defence maritime installations in the UK;[114338]

  (3) what discussions he has had with other Departments regarding the provision of naval navigational aids by providers other than the MOD;[114336]

  (4) what consultations he has had with public and private sector bodies regarding the provision of navigational aids for military ports by other providers within the UK. [114337]

  Mr. Ingram
  No reviews are planned and no studies have been conducted into the provision of naval navigational aids. However, an Assessment Phase is currently being undertaken for a long term PPP/PFI Acquisition programme for the future provision of Marine Services. These services are currently provided by Serco Denholm, under a Government Owned-Contractor Operated (GOCO) arrangement and by the Royal Maritime Auxiliary Service (RMAS), part of the Warship Support Agency. The RMAS are currently responsible for the laying/recovery and annual maintenance of some 205 navigational buoys around the coast of the British Isles. Under current plans, the design authority for navigational buoys and the supply of related mooring materials will also be transferred to the successful bidder.

  Discussions took place with the General Lighthouse Authorities (GLA), Non-Departmental Public Bodies sponsored by the Department for Transport, in 2001 to determine whether there was scope for the GLA's to take over the maintenance and upkeep of Ministry of Defence United Kingdom navigational buoys. However, it was subsequently decided not to proceed as such an arrangement would provide little benefit to the MOD. No further discussions on this matter have taken place either with public or private sector bodies.

  NHS Consultants (Compensation)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Ministry of Defence is compensating NHS trusts for consultants now serving in the Gulf. [113900]

  Dr. Moonie
  All employers who have a reservist mobilised for permanent service may apply for financial assistance to cover costs to the business resulting from the call-out. These include the costs of the initial replacement of the employee, any on-going administration, and retraining the employee when he or she returns.

  NHS Employees (Gulf Service)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the contractors of NHS workers serving in the Gulf are being consulted about the length of their service. [113901]

  Dr. Moonie
  Employers are advised, at the time a Reservist is called-out, that they can expect their employee to be absent for a period of between six and eight months. This is obviously subject to operational requirements. Where possible, the Reserve Forces' and Cadets' Associations (RFCAs), in concert with the Regional Chains of Command, keep local employers of Reservists informed of the details.

  Reserve Forces
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions since May 1997 sponsored reserves have been called up; how many were called up each time and for what service; and if he will make a statement. [113252]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Royal Navy and the Army have only called out their sponsored reserves on one occasion, namely last March when 36 members of the Royal Naval sponsored reserves and two members of the Army sponsored reserves were called out to support operations in the Gulf. They all have been, or shortly will be, demobilised. Members of the RAF sponsored reserves have been called out on a regular basis since October 2000 but the exact occasions and numbers have not been recorded centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Currently, 18 members of the RAF sponsored reserves are called out for permanent service.

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the bearing of reserve forces by service against requirement was in each year since 1990; and what the current bearing against requirement is. [113963]

  Dr. Moonie
  The information is set out in the following tables:

  Strength

  Royal Naval Reserve

  Territorial Army

  Royal Auxiliary Air Force

  1990

  7,000

  81,900

  1,722

  1991

  7,000

  82,800

  1,773

  1992

  7,000

  80,300

  1,814

  1993

  5,600

  68,700

  1,765

  1994

  4,600

  65,000

  1,762

  1995

  3,700

  59,900

  1,318

  1996

  3,500

  57,300

  1,188

  1997

  3,600

  57,600

  1,361

  1998

  3,700

  57,000

  1,648

  1999

  3,800

  51,800

  1,724

  2000

  4,100

  44,800

  1,796

  2001

  4,100

  41,500

  1,665

  2002

  4,100

  40,300

  1,582

  2003

  3,183

  39,011

  1,602

  Source:

  DASA (Tri-Service)
  786W

  Establishment

  Royal Naval Reserve

  Territorial Army

  Royal Auxiliary Air Force

  1990

  1—

  89,960

  1—

  1991

  1—

  95,068

  1—

  1992

  1—

  79,600

  1—

  1993

  1—

  79,871

  1—

  1994

  3,500

  75,624

  1—

  1995

  3,500

  63,950

  1—

  1996

  3,500

  59,000

  1—

  1997

  3,580

  72,179

  1—

  1998

  3,580

  65,000

  2,288

  1999

  3,580

  47,200

  2,251

  2000

  3,580

  41,024

  2,235

  2001

  3,580

  41,024

  2,203

  2002

  3,580

  41,024

  2,194

  2003

  3,231

  41,893

  2,224

  1 Not available/applicable

  Separate figures are not available for the Royal Marines Reserve. However, the current strength of the RMR is 852 against an establishment of 990.

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many resignations from the reserve forces there have been since 1 January; and how many there were in each year since 1990. [113964]

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

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what recent assessment has been made of the reasons for Reserve Forces personnel choosing to resign;[113965]

  (2) what measures have been taken to reduce the number of resignations from the Reserve Forces. [113966]

  Dr. Moonie
  Although such information would be held at unit level, there has been no recent centralised assessment of the reasons why Reserve Forces personnel resign. However, there are currently no indications to suggest that the recent call-out of reservists to support Operation TELIC will result in an increased rate of resignation from the Reserve Forces.

  As part of the follow-up work that normally accompanies large scale operations, we will be contacting reservists who served on Operation TELIC to identify any lessons that may be learned from their experience.
  We shall also be reviewing the relevant legislation to ensure that there are appropriate financial safeguards for both reservists and their employers and that job security is provided.

  Returning Troops (Iraq)
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many civilian aircraft have been chartered for the return of British troops from Iraq; how many military aircraft are being used to return troops from Iraq; what the average delay is for troops awaiting transport home from Iraq; and if he will make a statement about transporting troops home from Iraq. [113416]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 19 May 2003]: Between 5 and 16 May 2003 a total of 15 civilian aircraft were chartered for the return of British troops from Iraq.

  787W
  Over a similar period, there have been 153 movements by RAF aircraft in the same role and there are currently no delays for troops awaiting transport home from Iraq.

  Territorial Army Estate
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the sites available for sale previously occupied by the Territorial Army, broken down by constituency; which sites have been sold; at what price; which department was credited with the profits; and if he will make a statement. [113042]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence estate is continuously under review to ensure that it is no larger than required for operational and other essential purposes. Under the Strategic Defence Review (SDR), a total of 87 Territorial Army (TA) sites were identified for disposal. Of these sites, 55 have been sold, 15 are still awaiting disposal and 15 have been withdrawn from the programme. There are two sites at Northumberland, currently held on lease, which will be surrendered when the lease terminates. Details of the sites, broken into counties, are listed in the table. The information on a constituency basis could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Sale progress

  Name

  County

  Awaiting disposal

  TAC Falkirk

  Central

  Awaiting disposal

  TAC Antrim

  County Antrim

  Awaiting disposal

  TAC Plymouth

  Devon

  Awaiting disposal

  TAC Dunfermline

  Fife

  Awaiting disposal

  TAC Greenhithe

  Kent

  Awaiting disposal

  TAC Gillingham

  Kent

  Awaiting disposal

  TAC Kingsbury

  London

  Awaiting disposal

  TAC Dulwich (replaces TAC Hollyhedge)

  London

  Awaiting disposal

  TAC Chesser Crescent

  Lothian

  Awaiting disposal

  TAC Delmemy (replaces TAC East Claremont)

  Lothian

  Awaiting disposal

  TAC Wellingborough

  Northants

  Awaiting disposal

  TAC Stafford

  Staffordshire

  Awaiting disposal

  TAC Cannock

  Staffordshire

  Awaiting disposal

  TAC Pontefract

  West Yorkshire

  Awaiting disposal

  TAC Devizes

  Wiltshire

  Lease termination

  TAC Alnwick

  Northumberland

  Lease termination

  Guildrooms, Alnwick

  Northumberland

  Sold

  TAC Speedwell, Bristol

  Avon

  Sold

  TAC Slough

  Berkshire

  Sold

  TAC Stirling

  Central

  Sold

  TAC Chester

  Cheshire

  Sold

  Ypres Barracks, Macclesfield

  Cheshire

  Sold

  TAC Guisborough

  Cleveland

  Sold

  TAC Falmouth

  Cornwall

  Sold

  TAC Newtonards

  County Down

  Sold

  TAC Buxton

  Derby

  Sold

  TAC Horden

  Durham

  Sold

  Vehicle Park, Llanelli

  Dyfed

  Sold

  Preston Barracks, Brighton

  East Sussex

  Sold

  TAC Cheltenham

  Gloucestershire

  Sold

  TAC Stroud

  Gloucestershire

  Sold

  TAC Oldham

  Greater Manchester

  Sold

  Derby Barracks, Bolton

  Greater Manchester

  Sold

  TAC Cefn Forest

  Gwent

  Sold

  TAC Newport

  Gwent

  Sold

  TAC Bangor

  Gwynedd

  Sold

  TAC Aldershot

  Hants

  Sold

  Martin Lines, Church Crookham

  Hants

  Sold

  TAC St Albans

  Herts

  Sold

  TAC East Ham

  London

  Sold

  TAC Acton

  London

  Sold

  Duke of York's

  London

  Sold

  TAC Finchley

  London

  Sold

  Gilmore Place, Edinburgh

  Lothian

  Sold

  The Grange, Edge Lane, Liverpool

  Merseyside

  Sold

  Forbes House, Liverpool

  Merseyside

  Sold

  TAC Heston

  Middlesex

  Sold

  Lumley Barracks, York

  North Yorkshire

  788W

  Sale progress

  Name

  County

  Sold

  Hungate, York

  North Yorkshire

  Sold

  TAC Worksop

  Notts

  Sold

  Harthill Close, Chilwell

  Notts

  Sold

  TAC Bridgwater

  Somerset

  Sold

  TAC Norbury Hall, Sheffield

  South Yorkshire

  Sold

  Caen House, Tamworth

  Staffordshire

  Sold

  TAC Coatbridge

  Strathclyde

  Sold

  TAC Rutherglen

  Strathclyde

  Sold

  TAC Paisley

  Strathclyde

  Sold

  TAC Clyde Lines

  Strathclyde

  Sold

  TAC Chertsey

  Surrey

  Sold

  TAC Guildford

  Surrey

  Sold

  TAC Cobham

  Surrey

  Sold

  TAC Knightsbridge

  Tyne & Wear

  Sold

  TAC Newcastle

  Tyne & Wear

  Sold

  TAC Frenchmans Fort, South Shields

  Tyne & Wear

  Sold

  Fusilier Armoury, Newcastle- upon-Tyne

  Tyne & Wear

  Sold

  TAC Shirley, Birmingham

  West Midlands

  Sold

  TAC Sulton Coldfield

  West Midlands

  Sold

  TAC Greens Road, Coventry

  West Midlands

  Sold

  TAC Horsham

  West Susses

  Sold

  TAC Dewsbury

  West Yorkshire

  Sold

  TAC Halifax

  West Yorkshire

  Sold

  TAC Trowbridge

  Wiltshire

  The following table shows other TA/RFCA sites currently in the Department's disposal programme of surplus land and property which were not identified as part of SDR.

  Sale progress

  Name

  County

  Awaiting disposal

  RFCA Dunstable

  Bedfordshire

  Awaiting disposal

  TAC Aylesbury

  Buckinghamshire

  Awaiting disposal

  AFC/ATC Longstanton

  Cambs

  Awaiting disposal

  Cadet Centre, St Ives

  Cornwall

  Awaiting disposal

  Cadet Centre, Alvaston

  Derbyshire

  Awaiting disposal

  Drill Hall, St Leonards

  East Sussex

  Awaiting disposal

  Hemel Hempstead (Lease)

  Hertfordshire

  Awaiting disposal

  TAC Faversham

  Kent

  Awaiting disposal

  Cadet Centre, Hinckley

  Leicestershire

  Awaiting disposal

  TAC Kidlington

  Oxford

  Awaiting disposal

  TAC King Street, Wellington

  Shropshire

  Awaiting disposal

  RFCA Newmarket

  Suffolk

  Awaiting disposal

  RFCA Pontefract (Lease)

  West Yorkshire

  Awaiting disposal

  ACF Shoeburyness (pt)

  Essex

  The sale of the sites above has so far realised gross receipts in excess of £153 million, which have been credited to the Ministry of Defence. I am withholding details of sale prices for individual sites in accordance with Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Burma
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had regarding human rights in Burma. [113710]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  On 7 May 2003 I met the Burmese Ambassador to the UK and expressed my concern at the number of political prisoners in Burma. I urged the Burmese authorities to move ahead quickly with the release of all political prisoners. I explained that UK and EU policy would toughen unless there was significant improvement in human rights and progress towards democracy.
  789W
  I remain in close contact with the UN Secretary General's Special Envoy to Burma, Razali Ismail. When I met Razali in March, I expressed my concern over the deteriorating economic, political and human rights situation in Burma.

  The EU decided to strengthen and update the EU Common Position on Burma on 14 April 2003. The Common Position contains a range of measures designed to bring pressure to bear on the military regime to move towards national reconciliation, respect for human rights and democracy in Burma. EU Ministers agreed that unless substantive political progress was made in Burma before 20 October 2003, the Common Position would further strengthen the arms embargo, visa ban and assets freeze.

  Caribbean and Bermuda
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what(a) preparations and (b) discussions have taken place on the agenda for the Caribbean Regional Seminar on Advancing the De-colonisation Process in the Caribbean and Bermuda on 20 May. [113541]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  In October 2002 the Chairman of the UN Special Committee on De-colonisation (C24) sought HMG's agreement to the Committee's annual seminar being held in 2003 in a UK Caribbean Overseas Territory. After consultation with the Territory Government, Anguilla was agreed as the venue. On 28 March officials discussed arrangements for the seminar with the C24 Chairman in New York. There has since been close liaison between the C24 Secretariat, the UK Mission in New York, the FCO and the Government of Anguilla. The agenda for the seminar, which this year will focus on the Caribbean and Bermuda, is set by the C24 and has not been the subject of discussion with HMG.

  Economic Sanctions
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the nations against which the United Kingdom is applying economic sanctions(a) individually and (b) jointly with other EU member states, giving the reason in each case. [112652]

  Mr. Rammell
  As of 12 May 2003, the United Kingdom, along with EU partners, is implementing mandatory UN sanctions, imposed by the UN Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, in relation to Iraq, Liberia, Rwanda (and neighbouring States to prevent the supply of arms to Rwanda), Sierra Leone, Haiti and Somalia. The United Kingdom is also implementing sanctions imposed by the European Union in relation to Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burma, China, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Zimbabwe, Sudan and the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

  In accordance with a decision of the Organisation for the Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the United Kingdom is implementing arms embargoes on Armenia and Azerbaijan. The UK is also imposing unilateral arms embargoes on Iran and Zimbabwe.
  790W
  A list of sanctions regimes and arms embargoes implemented by the UK is in the Library of the House. Annexed to this is a summary of additional UK restrictions on the export of strategic goods. These documents are also available on the FCO website (www.fco.gov.uk/sanctions) and are updated each time there are changes to sanctions regimes implemented by the UK or to UK restrictions on the export of strategic goods. The FCO website also contains full details of the reasons why such sanctions have been imposed (www.fco.gov.uk/country profiles).

  Europe (Core Treaties and Protocols)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list each of the articles of each of the core treaties and related protocols of the European(a) Community and (b) Union in force which were (i) approved as being subject to consequential parliamentary legislative proceedings and (ii) accepted and executed by Crown prerogative following advice from Ministers. [113437]

  Mr. MacShane
  Before the UK acceded to the European Communities in 1973, Parliament passed the European Communities Act 1972 in order that the United Kingdom's obligations under the Communities' founding treaties could be fulfilled. Subsequent amendments to the treaty structure have, in accordance with the treaties themselves, been agreed by the common accord of the governments of the member states. Amendments then enter into force after being ratified by all the member states in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. In the United Kingdom, an amending treaty must be laid before Parliament, and any necessary amendments to the European Communities Act 1972 passed by Parliament, before it can be ratified under the Crown prerogative.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has held with the Chief Minister of Gibraltar. [113477]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has had no recent discussions with the Chief Minister of Gibraltar. I met Mr. Caruana in London on 17 December 2002 and have since spoken with him twice by telephone.

  Guantanamo Bay
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions his Department has had with the Pentagon regarding the proposed release of the child detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; and if he will make a statement. [113570]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  None of the minors concerned are British nationals. Nevertheless, the issue will form part of our regular dialogue with the US about all the detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

  The US has told us that all detainees are being treated humanely and consistently with the principles of the Geneva Convention.
  791W
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many UK citizens are detained by the USA in(a) Guantanamo Bay and (b) Afghanistan; whether any of them are under 18; what legal and consular advice is available to them, whether any have been charged with offences; and if he will make a statement. [113598]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Nine British nationals are detained by the US at Guantanamo Bay, none of whom are under the age of 18. I am told there are no British nationals detained by the US in Afghanistan.

  As Guantanamo Bay is outside a recognised consular district, the US does not consider that we are entitled to formal consular access there. However, British officials have visited on five occasions to check on the identity and welfare of the British nationals and ask questions relating to national security. We were the first country to visit its nationals there. The United States has told us it will treat the detainees humanely and consistently with the principles of the Geneva Conventions.

  None of the British detainees have been charged with offences. Nor have they had access to legal representation. We have told the US that the detainees are entitled to humane treatment, and if prosecuted, a fair trial. We are pressing the US to move forward with the process of determining the detainees' future, and shall continue to do so.

  Human Exploitation and Forced Marriages
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to help the international community eradicate(a) the commercial sexual exploitation of children, (b) trafficking in persons, (c) forced marriages, (d) bonded and forced labour, (e) debt bondage and (f) serfdom. [113703]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Government are working with the International Labour Organisation and other UN bodies, NGOs and governments to combat the diverse forms of contemporary slavery, such as forced or bonded labour, debt bondage and serfdom. The UK has ratified the key international legal instruments that outlaw slavery: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the UN Slavery Convention, and ILO Conventions 29 and 105 on Forced Labour. We are promoting the widest possible ratification and practical implementation of these. We have also signed the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography and intend to ratify once domestic legislation is in place.

  The FCO finances a number of projects to promote the rights of the child and to combat contemporary forms of slavery. This year projects include an Anti-Slavery International initiative to end the use of child camel jockeys, and a project to implement the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in Tajikistan.

  In 2002, the FCO and the National Hi Tech Crime Unit provided 10 countries with equipment and training to investigate on-line child abusers. The project has resulted in a number of convictions and we expect to extend it to another 10 countries this year. UK law enforcement agencies work closely with partners in source, transit and destination countries to detect, prevent and prosecute
  792W
  organised criminal gangs that traffic in humans for the purposes of commercial sexual exploitation. In 2003 the Government provided an additional £60 million to combat organised immigration crime.

  The UK was one of the first signatories to the UN Convention against Transnational Organised Crime and the two associated protocols against the facilitation of illegal immigraticn and for the prevention of trafficking in human beings, especially women and children. This requires signatories to ensure trafficking is a punishable offence, alongside the introduction of prevention, education and support initiatives for victims. We plan to ratify the Convention and the Protocol later this year and are encouraging those countries that have not yet signed the Convention or protocols to do so.

  The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, introduced a new offence of "trafficking a person for the purpose of controlling him or her in prostitution." This ensures there is a serious criminal sanction against traffickers, and is punishable by up to 14 years imprisonment. We wall introduce legislation on new offences covering human trafficking for labour exploitation as soon as parliamentary time allows.

  In 2000, the FCO set up a dedicated unit to tackle the issue of forced marriage. The Unit has handled over 500 cases and repatriated over 100 victims. The Unit works with NGOs, police and judiciary in the UK and overseas. It carries out preventative work in the UK, developing guidelines for the police and social services, increasing public awareness, and achieving wide media coverage.

  Indonesia (Religious Persecution)
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Indonesian Government regarding the persecution of Christians. [113704]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Religious freedom in Indonesia is enshrined in the Constitution and is respected by the Indonesian Government and the majority of Indonesians. Although religious differences were the apparent spark of violence in the provinces of Maluku and Sulawesi, underlying economic factors were at least as important.

  We, along with our European partners, have urged the Indonesian Government to maintain law and order and promote reconciliation in both provinces, and bring to justice extremists responsible for human rights abuses.

  Iraq
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions took place in(a) 2000 and (b) 2001 between the British and Iraqi Governments on (i) the return of weapons inspectors and (ii) the lifting of sanctions; what governments and persons were used as intermediaries in this process; what discussions the British Government had with the governments of (A) France, (B) Russia and (C) the United States on this matter prior to the discussions in 2000 and 2001; and if he will make a statement. [112713]
  793W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  As part of our extensive efforts to resolve the Iraqi disarmament issue following the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 1284, the Government held discussions with a number of other Governments. Our overall objective was to ensure the return of UN weapons inspectors to verify Iraq's disarmament as required under that resolution and, ultimately, the lifting of sanctions.

  These discussions took the form of both direct bilateral exchanges and discussions in multilateral fora. On a number of occasions the Government also encouraged other Governments, both in the region and elsewhere, which enjoyed closer relations with the Iraqi regime to persuade them to co-operate with the United Nations.

  Ministerial Transport
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the cost of(a) ministerial cars and drivers and (b) taxis for his Department was in 2002. [101540]

  Mr. Rammell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Alexander) on 20 May 2003,Official Report, column 663W.

  Most of the FCO's expenditure on taxis in the UK is channelled through three contracts for taxi services. Expenditure under them amounted to £525,026.69 during 2002. There will also have been other expenditure on taxis by our Miss ions overseas. But that is not recorded separately and it would involve disproportionate cost to obtain the total spent by them on taxis during 2002.

  Timber
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to press the European Commission to introduce laws to prevent the import and sale of illegally logged timber and timber products in the European Union; and if he will make a statement. [112939]

  Mr. MacShane
  The UK supports sanctions on Liberian timber exports. We were therefore pleased that on 6 May 2003 the UN Security Council adopted resolution 1478 (2003) unanimously. The resolution renewed and extended sanctions against Liberia. The Council added a new ban on all timber sales from Liberia. This will deprive the Government of Liberia of its revenue used to fund arms purchases. The ban will come into effect on 7 July 2003.

  On 8 May 2003 the EU successfully negotiated a draft Common Position, which will be adopted shortly. A Council regulation will be passed to implement the timber sanctions within the Community.

  The Government support the Africa Forest Law Enforcement and Governance (AFLEG) process, calling on all African Governments and trading partners to take actions to control illegal activities in the logging sector and associated trade.

  We continue to call on all countries to respect the sanctions imposed on Liberia.
  794W
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is on the call for UN sanctions on Liberia to be extended to include timber; and if he will make a statement. [112940]

  Mr. Rammell
  The UK supports sanctions on Liberian timber exports. We were therefore pleased that on 6 May 2003 the UN Security Council adopted resolution 1478 (2003) unanimously. The resolution renewed and extended sanctions against Liberia. The Council added a new ban on all timber sales from Liberia. This will deprive the Government of Liberia of revenue used to fund arms purchases. The ban will come into effect on 7 July 2003.

  We continue to call on all countries to respect the sanctions imposed on Liberia.

  Turkey
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with(a) the Turkish government and (b) the European Union on Turkey's progress on meeting the criteria for EU membership. [113714]

  Mr. MacShane
  On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary I discussed Turkey's EU candidacy with EU foreign ministers in Brussels at the 14–15 April 2003 General Affairs and External Relations Council, where they agreed on a revised Accession Partnership for Turkey, which sets out priorities for meeting the political criteria. The Foreign Secretary also periodically meets with senior members of the Turkish government to review a range of issues including Turkey's progress in meeting the criteria for membership. The last time he met with members of the Turkish government was during the informal meeting of foreign ministers in Rhodes on 2–3 May 2003, which he and Turkish Foreign Minister Gul attended. Discussions on Turkey's progress in meeting the political criteria between the UK and Turkish governments also continue to take place regularly at ministerial and senior official levels.

  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with(a) the Turkish Government and (b) the European Union on human rights violations in Turkey. [113713]

  Mr. MacShane
  EU Foreign Ministers discussed human rights violations in Turkey at the 14–15 April 2003 General Affairs and External Relations Council in Brussels. I attended on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. They agreed on a revised Accession Partnership for Turkey, which sets out priorities for meeting the political criteria for membership of the EU. These priorities cover many aspects of human rights. The Foreign Secretary periodically meets with senior members of the Turkish Government to review a range of issues, including Turkey's progress in meeting the criteria for membership. On 3 December 2002 he held talks with the former Prime Minister and Foreign Minister during a visit to Ankara. FCO officials also frequently discuss human rights violations with the Turkish authorities; the latest round of an ongoing UK-Turkey Human Rights Dialogue took place in London on 26 November 2002.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

  Property Values
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what firm of valuers were used by the National Audit Office to value properties being disposed of in the Inventures sale; and how much the firm cost to employ. [114508]

  Mr. Alan Williams
  NHS Estates, an executive agency of the Department of Health, is in the process of disposing of a portfolio of surplus property together with a property consultancy company called Inventures. The National Audit Office appointed King Sturge Financial Services Limited to advise on aspects of the sale of properties including the valuation methodology. The Comptroller and Auditor General expects to report to Parliament in due course. The cost of the work carried out by King Sturge Financial Services Limited was some £15,000 including VAT.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Iraq
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Solicitor General if the Government will publish the advice tendered by the Attorney General(a) in respect of the legal basis for invading Iraq and (b) the post war reconstruction arrangements in Iraq. [114077]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 20 May 2003]: No. As the hon. Member is aware from my answer to him on the 26 March, by long-standing convention, observed by successive Governments, the fact of and content of Law Officers' advice to the Government is not disclosed outside Government.

  This is reflected in paragraph 24 of the Ministerial Code. The Law Officers' advice to Government is given in confidence.

  Exceptionally, the Attorney provided a written answer to Baroness Ramsey in the House of Lords on 17 March in which he set out his views on the legal basis for the armed conflict against Iraq. I repeated that answer in this House on the same day.

  Hon. Members will also know that the Foreign Secretary submitted a document to the Foreign Affairs Committee on 17 March dealing with the legal basis for the armed conflict against Iraq. Furthermore, on the 22 April in a letter to the Foreign Affairs Committee the Foreign Office set out the scope and authority of an occupying power under international law.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Honours
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many officials in the Department have received honours; and how many honours are held by officials, broken down by category of honour. [111491]
  796W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  We do not routinely keep records of those officials awarded honours before joining the Department or those officials who are awarded honours in recognition of activities outside of their Departmental duties. This information could therefore be collected only at a disproportionate cost.

  However, since 1992, a total of 91 officials have received awards following a recommendation from my Department (information prior to 1992 could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost). Of those officials who have received awards since 1992, 24 are still serving and a breakdown of their awards by category is as follows:

  CB—2

  CBE—4

  OBE—2

  MBE—16

WALES

  Criiminal Offences
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list, broken down by Act, the offences created in legislation sponsored by his Department since 1997. [112857]

  Peter Hain
  My Department came into being on 1 July 1999.

  The National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) Order 2003 (SI 2003/284) created two new offences. These relate to false statements in relation to absent voting procedures (Article 13) and to the publication of exit polls before the close of the election poll (Article 34).

  The same Order also rolled forward a number of preexisting offences from the National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) Order 1999 (51 1999/450) as amended by the National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) (Amendment) order 2002 (SI 2002/834).

  Departmental Invoices
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the reasons underlying the percentage of invoices paid within the target time in 2002–03. [115143]

  Peter Hain
  Wales Office invoices are approved by the Wales Office, following which the payments are processed by the Assembly.

  During 2002–03 my Department paid 88 per cent. of its invoices on time. We continue to look for improvements on that level of performance and in the first month of the current financial year we have achieved 97 per cent.

  Departmental Underspending
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has, to reduce his Department's underspend in 2003–04 from that of 2002–03. [112775]
  797W
  Peter Hain
  Final figures for 2002–03 are not yet available. My Department's objective is to derive maximum benefit from the funds allocated to it in each Spending Review.

  Spending Review
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, which United Kingdom commitments arising from the World Summit on Sustainable Development(a) have been incorporated into the Department's existing delivery plan for Service Delivery Agreements and (b) will be incorporated in its delivery plan for Service Delivery Agreements in advance of the 2004 Spending Review. [113941]

  Peter Hain
  As part of the 2002 Spending Review it was decided that my Department would no longer have a Service Delivery Agreement. Rather it will report its achievements through its annual Departmental Reports, the most recent of which was published in May 2003 as Cm 5928.

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, how many staff have been employed in the Ministerial Correspondence Unit of the Department in each of the last two years. [115876]

  Peter Hain
  The Wales Office Correspondence Unit deals with all incoming internal and external mail. The staffing complement has been three post since November 2001. Prior to that there were two.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Enhanced Pension Take-up
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many wives have received an increased state pension because their husbands have reached 65 in each year since 1997; what estimate he has made of the numbers of wives who have not received this enhancement, broken down by reasons; and how many wives have claimed the increase and failed to receive it in each year since 1997. [113853]

  Maria Eagle
  The information requested is not available.

  Pensions
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the change in value of the state retirement pension in the last 10 years. [113493]

  Maria Eagle
  The level of the basic State Pension is increased each year to ensure that, as a minimum, it retains its value in relation to prices. Since April 2001 we have uprated basic State Pension by more than the annual Retail Prices Index (RPI), and for the future lifetime of this Parliament we are committed to increasing basic State Pension by the higher of 2.5 per cent. and RPI. The change in value is to take account of the increase.
  798W
  Detailed information is contained in table 5.1 of the DWP publication "Abstract of Statistics: 2002 Edition" a copy of which is available in the Library or can be obtained via the DWP website—www.dwp.gov.uk/asd/ asd 1 /abstract/Abstract2002

  Pensions Ombudsman
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what the average time for dealing with a complaint to the Pensions Ombudsman was in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000, (d) 2000–01 and (e) in the current year; [114030]

  (2) how many complaints the Parliamentary Ombudsman received in (a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 2000–01, (d) 2001–02 and (e) this year; [114031]

  (3) how many (a) investigators and (b) solicitors the Pensions Ombudsman has to investigate complaints. [114032]

  Maria Eagle
  The Pensions Ombudsman currently employs 15 investigators of whom five are legally qualified. In addition to this a small number of lawyers are used on a "fee per case" basis.

  The information requested on average clearance times and number of complaints are in the following tables. The information on the year 2002–03 is not available. The Pension Ombudsman's annual 2002–03 report, which will be published later this year, will contain data that assesses performance using different criteria and consequently will not be directly comparable.

  Average time for dealing with a complaint

  Months

  From acceptance to completion

  Once formal investigation begins

  1997–98

  12.7

  7.3

  1998–99

  11.0

  7.3

  1999–2000

  8.8

  6.8

  2000–01

  5.7

  4.7

  2001–02

  8.5

  6.9

  Complaints received

  Inquiries

  Accepted cases

  1997–98

  2,328

  729

  1998–99

  3,067

  719

  1999–2000

  3,269

  627

  2000–01

  3,215

  911

  2001–02

  2,946

  831

  Source:

  Pensions Ombudsman annual reports 1997–2002

  Personal Finance
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what research his Department has conducted to assess the financial literacy of consumers with different income levels. [111439]

  Maria Eagle
  In 2001 the Department published a research report—Pensions 20001—examining public attitudes to pensions and financial planning for retirement. The research asked people to assess their own knowledge of pensions issues and examined

  799W
  variations in knowledge by income levels. Findings from similar research undertaken by my Department last year will be published in early summer.

  The Government recognise the importance of financial literacy in decisions about saving for retirement. Drawing on research evidence from my Department, the Financial Services Authority and elsewhere the Green Paper 'Simplicity, security and choice: working and saving for retirement' (Cm 5677) examined some of the barriers to saving and underlined the need for everyone to understand the financial choices they are faced with in preparing for retirement.
  1Mayhew, V. (2001) Pensions 2000—Public attitudes to Pensions and Planning for Retirement DSS Research Report No. 130, CDS, Leeds

  Secondments
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to the answer of 14 April 2003,Official Report, column 652W, if he will list the organisations to which civil servants in his Department have been seconded since 1997–98 in (a) the private sector, (b) NGOs and (c) sother, stating in each case (i) the dates of the secondments, (ii) the number of civil servants seconded to that organisation and (iii) their grade. [114171]

  Maria Eagle
  The information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions by how much Social Fund loan recoveries are expected to change in value in the current year and for what reason; and whether this increase is related to a change in the rules on loan repayments. [114374]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The discretionary Social Fund plays an important role in the Government's agenda for tackling poverty and social exclusion by helping the poorest and most needy members of society meet the cost of occasional one-off essential items through community care grants, budgeting loans and crisis loans.

  The forecast Social Fund loans recovery for 2003–04 is £519.3 million as opposed to £488.8 million in 2002–03. There has been no change in the rules on loan repayments. The increase in recoveries is due to the fact that the annual national gross loans budget has increased year after year enabling more people to take advantage of the Social Fund loans scheme.

  Tax Credits (Staff Transfers)
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many of his Department's staff have been, or will be, transferred to the Inland Revenue as a result of the introduction of the new tax credits in(a) 2002–03, (b) 2003–04 and (c) 2004–05. [114361]

  Maria Eagle
  There are no plans to transfer staff from DWP to the Inland Revenue as a result of the introduction of new tax credits.
  800W
  While responsibility for administering the Child and Working Tax Credits rests with Inland Revenue, the DWP will continue to deliver a one-stop system of support for working age customers, including transacting their tax credits business.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Joint Declaration
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the Joint Declaration. [113807]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Joint Declaration and accompanying documents set out the agreed way forward on the implementation of the remaining commitments in the Belfast Agreement, and the restoration of stable and inclusive institutions as envisaged in the Agreement. We shall press ahead with implementing some parts of the Joint Declaration, as the Prime Minister and Taoiseach agreed in Dublin two weeks ago. However, some elements, such as full security normalisation, must await the necessary clarity on an end to paramilitarism.

  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what elements of the Joint Declaration can be implemented without acts of completion by the IRA. [113808]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  It is our intention to press ahead with the implementation of a range of recommendations in the Declaration, including on rights and equality and policing and justice. We also intend to introduce legislation on the establishment of an Independent Monitoring Body, as set out in the Agreement between the British and Irish Governments on Monitoring and Compliance.

  Broadband
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action is being taken to increase access to broadband technology in all areas of Northern Ireland. [113809]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Government have committed £290 million to progressively improve broadband access throughout Northern Ireland over the next 10 years. Significant initiatives include the major Classroom 2000 and Electronic Libraries projects. In addition we have introduced a range of complementary supply and demand side initiatives to increase access for business, citizens and communities across Northern Ireland.

  Good Friday Agreement
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further measures will be taken to implement fully the Good Friday agreement and restore the political institutions in Northern Ireland. [113810]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer).

  Decommissioning
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent representations he has received on decommissioning. [113811]

  Jane Kennedy
  I can confirm that the Provisional IRA and the UDA have recently been engaged in talks with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning. However, the Prime Minister stated clearly in his speech on 1 May 2003 that an undertaking is needed that 'all' arms will be put beyond use through the IICD.

  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had with Sinn Fein about meaningful decommissioning of terrorist weapons. [113815]

  Jane Kennedy
  Clarity on the issue of an end to paramilitary activity, including the decommissioning of all arms, has been a central focus of our discussions with the parties—including Sinn Fein—on the restoration of the institutions on a stable and inclusive basis. We have been clear that all paramilitary activity, as specified in paragraph 13 of the Joint Declaration, must come to an end. We call on all paramilitary organisations to engage with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning and put all weapons beyond use.

  Paramilitary Activity
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made towards ending all paramilitary activity. [113812]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Government acknowledge that steps have been made by some groups in terms of paramilitary ceasefires, independent arms inspections and three acts of decommissioning. We now need a clear and unambiguous undertaking that all the activities listed in paragraph 13 of the Joint Declaration will cease completely.

  The Government are determined in their resolve to see a complete and permanent end to all paramilitary activity and will continue to bear down and thwart the efforts of those who still see violence and terror as the way forward.

  Peace Process
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the peace process. [113813]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer).

  Assembly Elections
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the political impact of the cancellation of the Assembly elections on 29 May 2003. [113814]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The decision to postpone the elections was not taken lightly. However, we judged that, in the absence of clarity on an end to paramilitary activity as set out in paragraph 13 of the Joint 802W
  Declaration, the trust and confidence did not exist to permit the restoration of functioning institutions. If we had had elections, we would not have had Government under the Agreement. The Government are now focused on working hard to bring about the restoration of the necessary trust and confidence, with a view to holding elections in the autumn.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many asylum seekers are located in Northern Ireland; at what establishments they are being housed; and what the cost of housing asylum seekers in Northern Ireland was in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [113369]

  Beverley Hughes
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information is not available in the form requested.

  The availability of 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.

  At the end of December 2002, 1701 asylum seekers (including dependents) were being supported in NASS accommodation and 201 asylum seekers (including dependents) were in receipt of subsistence only support in Northern Ireland.

  No information is held centrally on the location of residence of asylum seekers supported by DWP or who support themselves.

  Information in respect of the cost of housing asylum seekers in Northern Ireland is not currently available.

  1Figures have been rounded to the nearest five. The figures exclude cases where support has been ceased.

  Bylaws
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland pursuant to his answer of 29 April 2003,Official Report, column 332W, on bylaws, which local government authorities have applications for bylaws outstanding; how many outstanding applications there are per local government authority; what the content is of outstanding applications received by the Department of Environment from local government authorities requesting permission to invoke new bylaws in the past 10 years; when they were received by the Department of Environment; what action has been taken towards granting permission on each separate application; how many of these applications are within the power of the Department to confirm; and when local government authorities are notified that an application has not been successful. [113573]

  Angela Smith
  In total 12 applications to the Department of Environment from eight district councils for the confirmation of bylaws are currently outstanding. The number of outstanding applications by district council is set out in the table together with the broad content of each application and the date received.
  803W
  Action has been taken on all applications and these have been the subject of extensive correspondence and discussion involving district councils and legal advisers for local and central government. Each application is currently at a different stage of consideration.

  District council

  Number of bylaw applications

  Broad content1

  Date received

  Ards

  4

  Pleasure Grounds, Public Walks and Open Spaces; Seashores, Esplanades and Promenades; Good Rule and Government—Miscellaneous; Good Rule and Government—Car Parks

  16 March 1994

  Carrickfergus

  1

  Pleasure Grounds, Public Walks and Open Spaces

  15 May 2001

  Craigavon

  1

  Pleasure Grounds, Public Walks and Open Spaces

  5 August 1996

  Castlereagh

  1

  Pleasure Grounds, Public Walks and Open Spaces

  28 June 2002

  Coleraine

  1

  Seashores, Esplanades and Promenades

  29 April 1998

  Down

  1

  Seashores, Esplanades and Promenades

  14 September 1998

  Lisburn

  1

  Good Rule and Government

  14 August 2000

  North Down

  2

  Seashores, Esplanades and Promenades

  2 December 1994

  Pleasure Grounds, Public Walks and Open Spaces

  18 January 2002

  TOTAL

  12

  1 There are 8 model sets of Home Office bylaws. The current applications fall within three of the models, as follows:

  "Pleasure Grounds, Public Walks and Open Spaces" includes bylaws for the regulation and management of playgrounds; control of certain sports; protection of flora and fauna; and skateboarding and roller skating.

  "Seashores, Esplanades and Promenades" includes bylaws for the control of public meetings; animals; vehicles; games and entry to public conveniences.

  "Good Rule and Government" includes bylaws for the control of noise; reckless/wilful damage; games near streets and district council car parks.

  804W
  All 12 applications are within the power of the Department to confirm and in four cases joint confirmation with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is required. The Department of Environment has not notified any district council during the period that its application has not been successful.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Africa
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development what support the Government are giving(a) bilaterally and (b) through (i) World bank and (ii) UN agencies, to initiatives to assist African countries to overcome non-tariff barriers to trade by meeting G8 product standards and engaging in international standard setting; and if she will make a statement on G8 members' actions to improve the availability of information on standards and transparency to trade Ministers in developing countries. [113649]

  Hilary Benn
  The Department for International Development (DFID) has undertaken a considerable amount of work in the important area of assisting developing countries, including in Africa, in the areas of standard setting and compliance. Bilateral trade related technical assistance projects in Malawi and Ghana have both provided support to the Standards Bureaus in those countries, to enable them to participate in international standard setting and implement the standards set by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation's Codex Alimentarius Committee. The new Regional Trade Facilitation project in southern Africa, covering the Southern African Development Community (SADC) countries, also has a component to support implementation of international standards that SADC members have signed up to.

  Through its funding of the Trade Policy Development Project of the World bank, DFID has supported the creation of the Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF), which has already undertaken exploratory work in Africa and will be developing projects to enable African countries to meet standards for agricultural exports. The STDF is a partnership of the World bank, World Trade Organisation. the Food and Agriculture Organisation and World Health Organisation, which attempts to strengthen donor coordination in standards related to food safety, and plant and animal health. Between November 1999 and February 2003, reports and action plans were developed in Nigeria, South Africa, Mozambique, Kenya and Uganda, examining the link between trade facilitation, standards and trade.

  DFID is also contributing to a new United Nations Industrial Development Organisation Trust Fund, 'Enabling Developing Countries to Participate in International Trade',which includes African countries in its first wave of projects. The Fund aims to: enhance developing country market accesses through appropriate infrastructure in order to meet and show compliance with export requirements; build capacity in potentially high productivity sectors; and provide support to developing countries that have encountered problems with meeting standards requirements for their exports.

  The G8 will be reporting on their actions to implement the commitments in the Africa Action Plan,
  806W
  including in the area of standards, at the G8 summit in Evian in June 2003. However, the European Commission has already announced the establishment of a 'Help desk' within DG Trade, intended to facilitate developing country exports to the European Union through providing information on the requirements of the European Union market, including product standards. This helpdesk will be accessible through internet or by phone and Commission and member states delegations in countries with poor telecommunications.

  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development what new initiatives her Department has taken since the G8 Kananaskis summit to promote agricultural productivity in Africa. [113617]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID promotes agricultural productivity in Africa through supporting African e 'forts to increase domestic productivity and working to cheat a fair and equitable international trading system. We do not earmark bilateral funds, but support Africa's own priorities defined in national Poverty Reduction Strategy processes, which also seek to address the many constraints that lie outside the agriculture sector. These include issues such as economic policy, trade policy and credit and infrastructure provision. UK resources for Africa will increase by nearly 50 per cent. to around £ 1 billion by 2006.

  The UK supports the development of a fair and equitable international trading system. We believe the G8 process can add significant political momentum to the relevant negotiations. Following Kananaskis, DFID has been supporting progress internationally on CAP reform and WTO agriculture negotiations, the reform and harmonisation of G8 preferential access schemes and multilateral trade related technical assistance to Africa.

  Access to agricultural technology in Africa was highlighted at Kananaskis. Two relevant initiatives are our support for the design of the African Agricultural Technology Foundation (a public-private partnership to enable access to agricultural technology) and provision of £16 million to support agricultural research for Africa in 2002–03.

  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development how many African-based businesses have won contracts funded by his Department in each of the last three years; what the values of those contracts were; and what steps his Department has taken to increase the opportunity for African businesses to bid for such contracts. [113621]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID untied its aid in April 2001, when we opened our contracting to international competition. In 2001–02 DFID headquarters awarded two contracts worth a total value of £0.37 million to African-based businesses. In 2002–03 there were eight such contracts with a total value of £10.64 million. Figures for the period before 2001 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  807W
  We have also developed trained contracting capacity in DFID's overseas offices to allow them to make better use of both local and international suppliers for lower-value contracts. In 2001–02 DFID offices in Africa let contracts worth a total of £11.82 million. In 2002–03, the corresponding figure was £9.41 million. We do not hold a central record of the share of these contracts awarded to local businesses.

  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development what her Department has done to bring United Kingdom companies together with NEPAD. [113624]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID is supporting the Commonwealth Business Council (CBC) to develop private sector engagement in the NEPAD Programme of Action, and stimulate the increased domestic and foreign investment required for NEPAD to succeed. This work is subsumed under the principal private sector initiative in support of NEPAD—the NEPAD Business Group (NBG).

  NBG comprises leading business organisations that have a broad constituency—both inside and outside Africa—and are committed to helping the continent realise its full economic potential. NBG includes the following organisations that count a number of UK businesses amongst their members: CBC; Prince of Wales International Business Leaders Forum; British African Business Association; and the International Chamber of Commerce.

  Access to Medicines
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development what steps have been taken to implement the paper on access to medicine produced by the Government, the United Kingdom pharmaceutical industry and multilateral agencies; and if she will place a copy in the Library. [113614]

  Hilary Benn
  The World Health Organisation (WHO) recognises four key factors that can improve access to medicines for diseases prevalent in poor countries (including AIDS, TB and Malaria): affordable pricing, sustainable financing, reliable health and supply systems, and the rational selection and use of existing drugs.

  The UK Working Group on Increasing Access to Essential Medicines in the Developing World, chaired by the former Secretary of State, reported to the Prime Minister in November 2002. A copy of the report is available in the Library. The Working Group consisted of senior representatives from UK Government, pharmaceutical industry, the UN, EC and other international organisations.

  The UK Working Group was asked to specifically consider:
  ways of improving access to medicines through measures such as facilitating differential pricing arrangements and encouraging appropriate donations; and
  what policies could be pursued by the UK Government that would increase research and development into diseases of poor people.
  808W
  The Group recommended specific action on R&D, and outlined proposals that would encourage voluntary, widespread, sustainable and predictable differential pricing as the operational norm. In the short-term, it recommended gaining significant international commitment to this approach, including through the G8. A team has been established within DFID specifically to take this forward.

  The UK Government are firmly committed to increasing access to medicines and to strengthening health systems in developing countries. DFID has committed over £1.5 billion since 1997 to support health systems, which will help build capacity to deliver medicines to the poor and to make effective choices about the selection of drugs.

  On sustainable financing, we have pledged $200 million to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria (GFATM). This will help pay for increased coverage of proven interventions for the three diseases and some associated health systems strengthening. We have already disbursed $80 million to the Fund.

  The UK is also working through the World Trade Organisation to ensure that a satisfactory conclusion is reached on the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and Public Health agreement that will assist developing countries with insufficient or no drug manufacturing capacity to make effective use of compulsory licensing.

  Tax measures were introduced in the 2002 Budget aimed at encouraging private sector companies to increase investment into the research and development of new treatments for HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria in developing countries, and encouraging responsible donations of medical supplies and equipment to developing countries. Departments across Whitehall will be working together to monitor the impact of these tax initiatives and to explore the potential of other mechanisms to increase investment.

  Departmental Advertising
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development what the total expenditure on advertising by the Department was in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03; and what the level of planned expenditure is for (i) 2003–04 and (ii) 2004–05. [114427]

  Hilary Benn
  In the financial years 2001–02 and 2002–03 respectively, DFID spent £21,880 and £98,334 on advertising to raise development awareness. Planned expenditure for 2003–04 is £70,000. As yet, no budget has been set for 2004–05.

  The total spending on advertising relating to recruitment and contract procurement for 2001–02 was £1,070,357 and for 2002–03 was £1,143,796. On current trends, expenditure on recruitment and contract advertising in 2003–04 and 2004–05 is not anticipated to rise significantly in real terms.
  809W
  Figures are shown net of VAT, and those for 2002–03 are subject to final auditing to take account of any end of year adjustments.

  Child Prostitution
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimate she has made of the number of children being smuggled into Britain for prostitution in the last year for which figures are available. [106927]

  Beverley Hughes
  I have been asked to reply.

  The nature of trafficking means that it is a hidden crime and there are no reliable figures about children being trafficked into or out of the UK. There have been a few high profile instances of children being trafficked into or through the UK, but there is insufficient information to say if this is a growing problem. However, the very nature of the crime demands that it is treated very seriously, which is why the Government have introduced criminal sanctions covering child traffickers and has tasked the Reflex group with coordinating intelligence on the problem.

  The UK is committed to tackling the trafficking of children for sexual exploitation. Our strategy on trafficking is set out in the White Paper "Secure Border Safe Haven" and focuses on strengthening the law through new offences covering trafficking; providing appropriate support to victims of trafficking in the UK; tackling the criminals through intelligence and enforcement operations through the Reflex taskforce; EU co-operation and provention is source and transit countries in partnership with Foreign and Commonwealth (FCO) Department for International Development (DFID). Joint work is also underway between key agencies at principal entry points to identify children at risk, and the Home Office is working closely with the Department of Health on good practice in delivering the best service to children who have been trafficked.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of regional variations in staff turnover in her Department. [112756]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID has two headquarters offices in the United Kingdom: one based in Victoria, London and the other in East Kilbride, Glasgow.

  Details of the starters and leavers in both locations, for the calendar years 2001 and 2002, are as follows:

  Year

  London Starters

  London Leavers

  Total London Staffing (end of year)

  East Kilbride Starters

  East Kilbride Leavers

  Total East Kilbride Staffing (end of year)

  2001

  149

  96

  844

  44

  20

  530

  2002

  115

  64

  895

  25

  17

  538

  Foreign Aid
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development what increased contributions have been made to the Integral Framework for Trade-Related Technical Assistance; whether the framework has been extended to all developing countries; what additional capacity-building support to developing countries for trade has been introduced since June 2002; and if he will make a statement. [113623]

  Hilary Benn
  The UK has contributed £1.5 million to the Integrated Framework Programme (IF) so far. The programme has been extended from the initial five least developed countries to include three pilot countries under the revised programme and a second wave of 11 least developed countries. There are sufficient funds available to complete the IF process in these countries. Further expansion will be considered following the evaluation of the programme this summer. The UK has committed £51 million to trade related capacity building since June 2000.

  The Integrated Framework aims to support least developed countries mainstream trade priorities into their development programmes, usually framed in the country's poverty reduction strategy. The process includes a Diagnostic Trade Integration Study (DTIS) which recommends policy measures and a matrix of technical assistance and capacity building support needs. The process is country led and the DTIS team comprises both international and local experts. The priorities will be funded through the existing mechanisms for support from bilateral and multilateral partners. In response to the call from participating countries and the World bank, a further trust fund is envisaged to support modest, priority, quick win projects to bridge the period between the DTIS and access to development assistance through the established consultative groups, roundtables and programme support. Its terms of reference were agreed on 16 May 2003. The UK plans to contribute shortly.

  Global Health Fund
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the UK Government are(a) encouraging their G8 partners and (b) pledging themselves fully to fund the Global Health Fund at the forthcoming G8 summit; and if he will make a statement. [111568]

  Hilary Benn
  I have been asked to reply.

  The UK fully supports the Global Fund for HIV, TB and Malaria. We have been actively engaged from the outset, which is why we made a five year pledge of $200 million from the beginning. $80 million of this has already been disbursed to the Fund. We believe that the Fund adds value through its ability to deliver donor coherence and to purchase drugs and commodities in bulk and establish reliability of supply.
  811W
  We welcome the French proposal to hold a conference in Paris (Post Evian G8) with the objective to put the fund on a firm footing and a sound financing framework.

  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development what contributions have been made by each G8 country to the global health fund; and what proportion of the global health fund's requirement is currently funded. [113616]

  Hilary Benn
  The UK fully supports the Global Fund for HIV, TB and Malaria. We have been actively and positively engaged from the outset, which is why we made a five year pledge of $200 million from the beginning. $80 million of this has already been disbursed to the Fund. We believe that the Fund adds value through its ability to deliver donor coherence and to purchase drugs and commodities in bulk and establish reliability of supply.

  We welcome the French proposal to hold a conference in Paris (Post Evian G8) with the objective to put the fund on a firm footing and a sound financing framework.

  The following table highlights the pledges made by each of the G8 members:

  Total pledges to date

  Donors

  Pledge in original currency

  Pledge value in USD

  Period of pledge

  GFATM Trust account1

  United States

  —

  1,650,000,000

  2001–08

  Germany

  EUR 200,000,000

  218,361,830

  2002

  United Kingdom

  GBP 138,000,000

  218,342,667

  2001–05

  Italy

  —

  200,000,000

  2002–03

  Japan

  —

  200,000,000

  2002–04

  France

  EUR 150,000,000

  164,534,226

  2002–04

  Canada

  —

  100,000,000

  2002–05

  Russia

  —

  20,000,000

  2002–06

  Total via World Bank

  —

  2,771,238,723

  —

  1At World Bank

  HIV/AIDS
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development what action the Department is taking to(a) combat HIV/AIDS and (b) promote sexual health in Southern Africa. [113726]

  Hilary Benn
  HIV/AIDS represents a major development challenge in Southern Africa, and is a priority for DFID's funding in the region. Because good sexual health is essential for the prevention of HIV/ AIDS, much of DFID's support for sexual health is now included in our response to HIV/AIDS. DFID has supported major programmes to combat HIV/AIDS and promote sexual health in South Africa, Malawi, Mozambique, Zambia and Zimbabwe. In addition, DFID supports a South African Development Community (SADC) HIV/AIDS programme covering Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia and Swaziland. Also DFID has recently approved a programme that will work across Africa to support connections between on-going regional work, and fund some new regional initiatives such as working with Orphans and Vulnerable Children. In addition to direct support for HIV/AIDS programmes, DFID is increasingly mainstreaming efforts to combat HIV/AIDS into all development programmes.
  812W
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development what recent assessment he has made of the scale of HIV/AIDS in southern Africa. [113727]

  Hilary Benn
  Southern Africa is the region worst affected by HIV and AIDS. In its 2002 report, the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) estimated that 29.4 million people in sub-saharan Africa live with HIV/AIDS, and that 8.8 per cent. of the adult (15–49 years) population is affected.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development what assessment he has made of the use of cluster bombs in the war with Iraq on the long-term humanitarian situation in the country. [113738]

  Hilary Benn
  We recognise that unexploded ordnance (UXO) is a matter of grave humanitarian concern. The UK is fully committed to facilitating the clearance of unexploded ordnance as part of the post-conflict reconstruction of Iraq. De-mining organisations funded by DFID, the UN Mines Advisory Service (£4 million) and the Mines Advisory Group (£81,000) are working with local organisations and the coalition military to plot the locations of all unexploded ordnance and to carry out disposals.

  Cluster bombs were used in a number of locations by the coalition during the war. As with all other weapons. they were used by UK forces consistent with obligations under international law.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development what action he is taking to provide short term housing for the Palestinian refugees displaced in Baghdad. [114282]

  Hilary Benn
  The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has made available emergency supplies for up to 2,000 people, including 400 tents, 1,200 mattresses and 2,000 blankets as well as stoves, jerry cans and soap to help newly-displaced Palestinian refugees in Baghdad. DFID has contributed £1.75 million to UNHCR's Flash Appeal.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development what steps are being taken to stabilise mains power supply for use by water plants in Baghdad. [114287]

  Hilary Benn
  Maintaining clean water supplies in Iraq has been an immediate concern. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and others, including the UK military, have worked hard to repair water stations and to supply water by alternative means in the interim. In Baghdad power and water are now reaching 80 per cent. of the urban population on an intermittent basis.

  International agencies including the ICRC and the UN Development Programme (UNDP) are now supporting local municipality and electricity board work teams to improve the mains power supply in Iraq,

  813W
  including Baghdad. DFID has committed £16.5 million to ICRC for their work, which includes electricity infrastructure repair. DFID has also provided £7 million to UN DP for its emergency assistance programme in the electricity sector, focusing on central and southern Iraq.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development what assessment he has made of the recent levels of hospital admissions for diarrhoea and the corresponding risk of water related diseases in Iraq. [114288]

  Hilary Benn
  It is difficult to establish an accurate picture of disease trends in Iraq, as the former Iraqi disease surveillance system is no longer functioning. The reactivation of this system is a priority for the World Health Organisation (WHO).

  Recent weeks have shown a steady increase in the number of reported cases of water- related disease in many locations. This is due to a combination of normal seasonal trends including the start of the hot season, inadequate supply of safe water, and poor sanitation. The Iraqi Ministry of Health, WHO, UNICEF and NGOs are currently conducting assessments, and drawing up an action plan to deal with outbreaks of water-related diseases. UNICEF has prepositioned an extra 200,000 sachets of oral rehydration salts, in the region to deal with diarrhoeal disease outbreaks. DFID is donating cholera kits, sufficient to treat 11,000 people, and emergency health kits, sufficient for 10,000 people for three months, to WHO to assist their response as and when required.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development, how many containers for the collection and storage of water have been made available to Iraqi civilians since the end of military action; and whether these supplies have been sufficient to meet requirements. [114289]

  Hilary Benn
  This information is not available. However, DFID funding to UNICEF and NGOs has included provision to cover items such as water containers should they be needed, for example for refugees or internally displaced people.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development what volume of water treatment chemicals are required per week for use by humanitarian agencies in Iraq; what impact shortages in stocks of water treatment chemicals are having on humanitarian efforts in Iraq; and what efforts the Department is taking to overcome these shortages. [114290]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID is not aware of any reliable consolidated estimates of the requirement for water treatment chemicals in Iraq. Water disinfection normally involves treatment using chlorine, and reduction of turbidity using Aluminium Sulphate. One metric tonne of chlorine gas is sufficient to treat water for one million people for one day. The quantity of Aluminium Sulphate required depends on the turbidity 814W
  of the water. Some shortfalls of stocks have been identified in Iraq, which the International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC), UNICEF and the Coalition have taken steps to meet from outside the country. DFID has provided funding to ICRC and to UNICEF for water and sanitation activities including the distribution of water treatment chemicals.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development what recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of the contingency plans which were put in place before the commencement of military action in Iraq, for the reconstruction of water treatment facilities in(a) Baghdad and (b) Basra. [114305]

  Hilary Benn
  Detailed planning for the reconstruction of water treatment facilities was not possible prior to the conflict in Iraq as it could not be known what condition the infrastructure would be in at the end of military action. DFID did however undertake a desk study review of all the reports on infrastructure in Iraq that were available at that time.

  Maintaining clean water supplies in Iraq has been an immediate concern. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and others, including the UK military, have worked hard to repair water stations and supply water by alternative means In Basra the quantity of water being supplied now exceeds pre-conflict levels. In Baghdad power and water are now reaching 80 per cent. of the urban population on an intermittent basis.

  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development if he will make a statement on the work done by his Department in providing humanitarian assistance to Iraq since the end of the conflict. [114419]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID is providing funding and other support to the UN agencies, Red Cross / Red Crescent and NGOs to enable them to provide humanitarian assistance where it is needed. DFID has committed £l15m to support work by humanitarian agencies in the current crisis and has set aside a further £95 million to support emerging humanitarian needs. The attached table shows the detailed allocation of the funding. Supporting such agencies as part of a co-ordinated international response is more effective than running separate national relief operations. DFID looks to the UN to coordinate this humanitarian effort. DFID has also seconded staff to the Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Affairs, the UN, and UK forces to advise on humanitarian relief activities.

  Now that major combat operations are complete, international staff from UN agencies and NGO's have begun returning to Iraq. On 2 May, the UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq, Ramiro Lopes da Silva, arrived in Baghdad with senior representatives of the World Food Programme, United Nations Development Programme, World Health Organisation and UNICEF to re-establish a permanent presence. The UN's presence is now expanding rapidly, co-ordinated through five regional teams based in Baghdad, central Iraq, the north and in the upper and lower south.

  815W

  Agreed DFID Emergency Funding for Iraq

  (£s)

  Red Cross

  International Federation of the Red Cross

  15,500,000

  Support to pre-positioning stocks, deployment of delegates, as well as disaster preparedness/response activities of the relevant National Societies.

  International Committee of the Red Cross

  16,500,000

  Support to pre-positioning stocks, deployment of delegates, emergency medical support, water and sanitation, protection and assistance activities.

  Total Red Cross

  32,000

  UN Pre-Conflict Preparedness

  World Food Programme

  8,000,000

  Food pre-positioning for 250,000 for ten weeks. Upgrading logistics and communications capacity. Activating UN Joint Logistics Centre (UNJLC) and UN Humanitarian Air Service (UNHAS)

  United Nations Children's Fund

  2,000,000

  Pre-positioning supplies (health kits, birthing kits, therapeutic milk, high protein biscuits, hygiene supplies and mobile water purification units, school in a box, and NFIs. Developing campaign for mine awareness. Enhance capacity of field offices.

  United Nations High Commission for Refugees

  1,750,000

  Winter kits for 350,000. Procurement of remaining kits for target caseload of 600,000. Site identification and deployment of additional emergency officers.

  World Health Organisation

  1,000,000

  24 emergency health kits pre-positioned. Training on communicable diseases and awareness for CBW. Need to preposition 76 additional health kits and 20 surgical kits. Strengthen field operations, logistics, communications.

  Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Assistance

  150,000

  Deployment of personnel to Country Teams and Larnaca. Deploy IRIN officers to Cyprus, Turkey, and Jordan. Develop public information capacity.

  Office of the United Nations Security Co-ordinator

  100,000

  Enhance current security structure with 1 Regional Security Coordination Officer, 6 Field Security Officers, oversight and training.

  UN Inter Agency Flash Appeal

  1,500,000

  Food and Agriculture Organisation

  Support to agricultural and poultry production in war-affected areas of southern Iraq to boost food security and contribute to improving the nutritional status of project beneficiaries in areas targeted.

  World Food Programme

  25,000,000

  Support to enable the procurement, transport and distribution of foodstuffs, including operational and logistical support. Support to the provision of the United Nations Humanitarian Air Service and the United Nations Joint Logistics Centre.

  World Health Organisation

  5,000,000

  Support to the implementation of policy and the operation of the health system, in close cooperation with new national and local authorities, including assessing overall health needs as well as the overall capacity of the Iraqi health structures

  United Nations Development Programme

  7,035,100

  Emergency assistance in the electricity sector focusing on Central and Southern Iraq. Work includes assessments and rapid rehabilitation of facilities.

  United Nations Children's Fund

  7,000,000

  Support to key activities in water and emergency sanitation, routine immunisation and mine risk education throughout Iraq.

  United Nations Mines Advisory

  4,000,000

  Service Support to mine clearance activities and mine action co-ordination throughout Iraq.

  Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Assistance

  750,000

  Support of information, coordination and technology in Iraq and the region.

  Office of the United Nations Security Co-ordinator

  500,000

  Provide an interim security capability in Iraq. Develop a UN security management structure, capacity to monitor security; provide security advice, develop security structures and procedures.

  Total funding to UN Agencies:

  63,785,100

  NGO

  Merlin

  265,000

  Emergency health, mobile units, rapid health assessments

  International Medical Corps

  220,000

  Emergency Trauma care, primary care for under 5s and pregnant woman and obstetric care

  Save the Children UK

  500,000

  Health, non-food items and tracing

  HelpAge International

  150,000

  Non-food items, shelter to elderly IDPs and their dependents

  Non-food items, shelter to elderly IDPs and their dependents

  305,834

  Assistance and Primary Health Care to southern Iraq

  BBC World Service Trust

  390,600

  Emergency radio programme and media audit BBC WST second grant agreed—additional £76,259 for a media audit.

  War Child

  613,133

  Emergency bakeries programme

  MedAir

  295,565

  Assistance to IDPs in northern Iraq

  816W

  817W

  Agreed DFID Emergency Funding for Iraq

  (£s)

  Mines Advisory

  80,883

  Group Mine action preparedness, mine marking and deployment of coordinators to centre/south Iraq 4RS

  105,673

  Assistance to vulnerable women in northern Iraq

  Total NGOs

  2,926,688

  Grand Total Funding Agreed

  98,711,788

  (Total Funding Committed)

  115,000,000

  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development what estimate has been made of the cost of additional funding for United Nations aid agencies required to meet humanitarian needs in Iraq; and what additional amount the Government will be contributing to the UN for these purposes. [114420]

  Hilary Benn
  On 28 March the UN launched a Flash Appeal for $2.2 billion to which the UK has so far committed £65 million. The Flash Appeal is currently being revised in line with UN humanitarian needs assessments. We will consider further support to UN agencies once the results of these assessments are available and a revised appeal has been made.

  Ministerial Transport
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development what her estimate is of the cost of(a) ministerial cars and drivers and (b) taxis for her Department in 2002. [101850]

  Hilary Benn
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 20 May by the hon. Member for Paisley South (Mr. Alexander)Official Report, column 663W, ref. 101541 on the estimated cost of ministerial cars and drivers.

  DFID currently has two taxi contracts. Their combined cost for the year 2002 was £108,211. We do not hold central records of taxi costs, agreed by departments, paid to other companies and claimed for by individual members of staff.

  North Korea
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development if she will make a statement on aid to North Korea. [113463]

  Hilary Benn
  The UK's policy towards engagement with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea has resulted in limited but carefully targeted humanitarian contributions. There are many constraints to humanitarian agencies operating in North Korea, including problems of access. The Government of North Korea generally refuses to allow international organisations free and open access to rural areas and forbids post-distribution monitoring and evaluation.

  The UK stands ready to provide humanitarian assistance in response to any new sudden humanitarian crisis. DFID contributed just over £2 million to humanitarian assistance projects in 2001–02. This support was channelled through UNICEF for essential drugs, immunisation and water and sanitation activities and through the British Red Cross for disaster preparedness and flood relief.
  818W
  DFID is also providing support through the European Community's programme. In 2002, the European Community allocated nearly 6 million Euros (£4,244,000). DFID contributes around 20 per cent. of the European Community's budget.

  Palestine
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development what assessment the Department has made of the level of poverty of the Palestinian people; and what strategy he is pursuing to alleviate it. [113951]

  Hilary Benn
  Poverty in the West Bank and Gaza has increased dramatically since the intifada started in September 2000. According to a recent World Bank assessment, some 60 per cent. of Palestinians are now living on less than $2 a day. Unemployment stands at 53 per cent. and many families are now dependent on food aid. A study by UNICEF has also found the incidence of acute malnutrition in Gaza (13.3 per cent.) is comparable to levels in Zimbabwe (13 per cent.) and the Democratic Republic of Congo (13.9 per cent.). Palestinian refugees in neighbouring countries also live in unacceptable circumstances.

  The key element of any strategy to reduce poverty sustainably is a successful peaceprocess leading to the establishment of a viable Palestinian state living in peacealongside a secure Israel. Our programme in the West Bank and Gaza provides support for the peace process; capacity building and institutional development; improvements to basic services, and a range of emergency programmes arising from the current conflict.

  Secondments
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development pursuant to the answer of 30 April 2003,Official Report, column 394W, on secondments, if he will list the organisations to which civil servants in his Department have been seconded since 1997–98 in (a) the private sector, (b) NGOs and (c) other, stating in each case the dates of the secondments, the number of civil servants seconded to that organisation and their grade. [114143]

  Hilary Benn
  The following statistics relate to secondments started in each financial year. Information on location is not available for years 1998–99 to 2000–01. The statistics for this period are based on annual returns to Cabinet Office.
  819W

  Seconded from DFID

  Number

  1997–98

  Grade

  Band A

  2

  Total

  2

  1998–99

  Grade

  Band A

  9

  Band B

  1

  Total

  10

  1999–2000

  Grade

  SCS

  2

  Band A

  8

  Total

  10

  2000–01

  Grade

  SCS

  4

  Band A

  10

  Band B

  2

  Total

  16

  2001–02

  NGO

  Christian Aid

  1

  Band A

  Other

  Other Government Department

  Band A

  1

  Band B

  2

  Total

  3

  International Institutions

  SCS

  2

  Band A

  20

  Total

  22

  Academic

  SCS

  1

  Band A

  1

  Total

  2

  Grade

  SCS

  3

  Band A

  23

  Band B

  2

  Total

  28

  2002–03

  Private Sector

  Timber Trade Federation

  1

  Band A

  Other Government Department

  SCS

  3

  Band B

  3

  Band C

  2

  Total

  8

  International Institutions

  SCS

  2

  Band A

  21

  Band B

  3

  Total

  26

  Local Authority

  SCS

  1

  Band A

  2

  Band B

  1

  Total

  4

  Academic

  SCS

  1

  Total

  1

  820W

  Seconded from DFID

  Number

  Grades

  SCS

  7

  Band A

  24

  Band B

  7

  Band C

  2

  Total

  40

  2003–04

  Other

  Other Government Department

  Band A

  1

  Band B

  1

  Total

  2

  International Institutions

  Band A

  1

  Total

  1

  Grades

  Band A

  2

  Band B

  1

  Total

  3

  Notes:

  Band A = SEO-G6

  Band B = EO/HEO

  Band C = AA/AO

  Tanzania
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development what assessment he has Other made of food insecurity due to lack of rain in the Singida region of Tanzania; and what assistance the Department will provide. [114549]

  Hilary Benn
  Most parts of Tanzania have experienced exceptionally low rainfall during the current season. Its effects on the June harvest are still unclear. The Government of Tanzania carried out an initial food and crop assessment in May. This will be followed in July by a further assessment to identify particularly vulnerable areas following the June harvest. We await the results of these. DFID is ready to respond to any request the Government of Tanzania may make at that time.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  BBC
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent representations she has received(a) supporting and (b) opposing advertising on the BBC. [114096]

  Dr. Howells
  DCMS has received a number of representations from members of the public and Members of this House on advertising. However, information on correspondence is not held in such a way as to permit a detailed breakdown of individual topics or views expressed.

  Criminal Offences
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, if she will list, broken down by Act, the Criminal offences created in legislation sponsored by her Department since 1997. [111788]
  821W
  Dr. Howells
  [pursuant to his answer, 12 May 2003, Official Report, c.28W]: This answer has been amended to include one offence created by an item of secondary legislation. The number of offences created under the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Act 2000 has also been revised from one to two.

  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has enacted three measures since 1997 which created new criminal offences (one of which was created by secondary legislation). These are the Royal Parks (Trading) Act 2000 which created one offence, the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Act 2000 which created two offences, and the Regulatory Reform (Special Occasions Licensing) Order 2001 (IS 2001/3937) which created one offence. The last mentioned Order has been amended on two occasions (by SI 2002/1062 and SI 2002/3205).

  Departmental Advertising
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the total expenditure on advertising by the Department was in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03; and what the level of planned expenditure is for (i) 2003–04 and (ii) 2004–05. [114437]

  Dr. Howells
  No advertising campaigns were undertaken by the Department between 2001–03 and, to date, there are no plans for any advertising campaigns between 2003–05.

  Departmental Underspending
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to reduce her Department's underspend in 2003–04 from that of 2002–03. [112770]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department is currently estimating an underspend of £74 million in 2002–03, which is 5.7 per cent. of the total provision. The underspend relates to lower than expected take up of grants under schemes that are essentially demand led. Planned spending for 2003–04 is set out in the Departmental Report CM5920.

  Digital Television
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps her Department is taking to ensure that people who are blind are able to enjoy digital television. [114192]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government fully recognise the importance of access to television services for people with sensory impairments. Digital technology has huge potential for improving services and we are extremely keen that all groups benefit.

  The Communications Bill currently before Parliament strengthens the requirements for audio description on television. The Bill sets targets of 10 per cent. of programmes to be audio described for the blind, extending these requirements to digital cable and satellite broadcasters for the first time.

  The Government have also been raising awareness among manufacturers about the opportunities in the market for equipment for disabled people. For example
  822W
  the Government are encouraging manufacturers to use design for all principles to produce better designed new equipment both for those with disabilities and those without.

  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to raise the target for audio description for digital television programmes. [114193]

  Dr. Howells
  The 10 per cent. target for audio description was considered as part of the Review of the Statutory Requirements for the Provision of Subtitling, Signing and Audio Description, the report of which was published In January 2001. Having considered all the issues, during the review, we concluded that the 10 per cent. target should be maintained. We believe that this target is challenging but achievable.

  This decision recognised the unresolved production and distribution difficulties with the audio description modules needed to receive the service. The Government have been working with the RNIB, broadcasters and manufacturers to help identify possible solutions to these problems and we are disappointed that the current problems have not yet been solved.

  The Communications Bill, currently in Parliament, allows the Secretary of State, following consultation with OFCOM, to vary the target percentage for audio description, by order. So even though the target is currently 10 per cent. it means that if there were significant advances in the current technology, and more widespread take-up of the modules, targets could he increased.

  English Heritage
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the potential impact of road charges on UK tourism. [112717]

  Dr. Howells
  DCMS recognises that transport is a key issue for UK tourism and officials from DCMS and the Department for Transport are in regular contact on transport issues. The Government do not consider that the M6 toll road will have a significant impact on tourism. The revenues raised from local authority congestion charging schemes must be reinvested into local transport improvements and can help deliver a quality transport system that will benefit all sectors of the economy, including tourism.

  Entertainments Licences
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what estimate she has made of the number of premises that will apply for an entertainments licence following passage of the Licensing Bill;[114132]

  (2) what steps she is taking to increase the opportunities to hear live music in the UK;[114131]

  (3) what representations she has received from musicians' organisations about the Licensing Bill. [114064]

  Dr. Howells
  DCMS has received a great deal of correspondence from organisations representing musicians and other performers about the Licensing
  823W
  Bill, most of whom have been concerned that it will restrict their activities. The vast majority of their concerns have been unfounded and based on a misinterpretation of the Bill's provisions. Where we believed that the Bill could be improved, however, we have listened to the concerns expressed to us and have made appropriate amendments, for instance by exempting places of public religious worship from the licensing regime as it relates to the provision of entertainment and entertainment facilities and by accepting the spirit of an amendment which exempts incidental live music in certain circumstances.

  Under the provisions of the Bill there will be no separate licence for the provision of regulated entertainment. Permission to carry on any of the activities licensable under the Bill will be covered by a single premises licence. It will cost no more to apply at the same time for a licence permitting the sale of alcohol and the provision of entertainment than it would to apply for one permitting the sale of alcohol only. I therefore believe that the Bill will make it more affordable than now for venues to put on live performance in the vast majority of cases and increase opportunities for musicians and other artists to perform.

  The Regulatory Impact Assessment that was published alongside the Licensing Bill states that just over 9,000 on-licensed premises and registered members clubs hold permanent public entertainment licences or certificates of suitability. An estimated 37,000 temporary public entertainment licences are also issued each year. The Government have made no estimate of the number of premises that will apply for permission to provide regulated entertainment under the new licensing regime. We expect, however, that the removal of the cost deterrent in applying for permission to provide such entertainment, along with the provision of a less bureaucratic system and measures to prevent unnecessary conditions being attached to licences by licensing authorities will encourage many more in respect of their premises to take the opportunity to provide public entertainment.

  Fitness for Purpose Initiative
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the Fitness for Purpose Initiative. [113717]

  Dr. Howells
  The Fitness for Purpose initiative was launched in the autumn 2001 by my Department in conjunction with the Local Government Association. The initiative promotes better inspection and regulation of hotels, guesthouses and bed and breakfast accommodation which are failing to meet minimum legal requirements on health and safety, food hygiene, trading standards and fire safety, in order to help them improve. Further details can be found at www.culture.gov.uk/tourism.

  From April this year, leading local authorities have been carrying out pilot studies of the initiative in major English tourist destinations. The lessons from these pilots will form the basis of a full set of proposals which DCMS and the Local Government Association will produce next year. We then hope to see Fitness for Purpose adopted across England from 2004.

  Gambling
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what studies have been undertaken by her Department regarding a link between liberalised gambling laws and addictiveness; and if she could place copies in the Library. [114779]

  Mr. Caborn
  We have not carried out such studies ourselves, but are aware of and have taken into account the available research evidence on problem gambling. This evidence was listed in the bibliographies to the reports of the Gambling Review Body (Cm 5206, a copy of which is already in the Library) and of consultants appointed by the Gambling Industry Charitable Trust (which was published earlier this month and is available on the Trust's website at www.gict.org.uk).

  OFCOM
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what guidance she has given to OFCOM on its duties in respect of the regulation of the content of broadcast material. [114099]

  Dr. Howells
  The principles and objectives for regulation of the content of Broadcast material by OFCOM are set out in the Communications Bill. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has given no further guidance to OFCOM on this matter. OFCOM will regulate content standards by way of a statutory code or codes, with regard to the specific provisions laid down in the Communications Bill. These codes will be developed on the basis of evidence and research.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps the Department has taken to publicise its Public Service Agreement targets; and at what cost to public funds. [114451]

  Dr. Howells
  A progress report of the Department's Public Service Agreement targets was published as a Command Paper in November 2002 at a cost of £2,293. The targets have also been published on our website and are referred to in the Department's Annual Report, Strategic and Business Plans, all at negligible additional cost.

  School Premises
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on regulations on future entertainments on school premises. [114865]

  Dr. Howells
  Entertainment provided by a school or college to which the public are admitted is currently licensable and will continue to be licensable under the provisions of the Licensing Bill. This is primarily because the public safety issues involved would be the same as for any other venue. although the promotion of the other licensing objectives, such as the protection of children from harm and the prevention of public nuisance are also important.

  A concert or other performance in a school or college which takes place for parents and students without payment will, however, be exempt from the new regime.

  825W
  Similarly, if the school charges parents and students but does so only to cover its costs, no licence would be required. This would mean that the school nativity play in the form that we all know would not need a licence. Any performance of music, dancing, etc that is being performed for students as part of their education would also be exempt as it would not be provided for the purpose of entertainment.

  The Government have also made a commitment to exempt schools and sixth form colleges from the fees associated with the provision of regulated entertainment under the licensing regime which the Bill will introduce where the entertainment is provided by the school. Under the existing legislation a reduction in or waiver of fee may be granted by a local authority outside Greater London if they consider the entertainment is
  "of an educational or other like character".

  Serviced Accommodation
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the review of the National Quality Assurance Standards Scheme for serviced accommodation. [114466]

  Dr. Howells
  Quality is the foundation of a successful tourism industry. The industry must provide good quality accommodation that meets visitor expectations. We want to ensure that the National Quality Assurance Standards (NQAS) schemes are easily understood by visitors, and that it is a scheme that owners of hotels and guest-houses want to be part of.

  A two-part review of the (NQAS) schemes for serviced accommodation is now under way. It will involve consultation with relevant stakeholders including the AA and RAC, relevant national and regional tourism bodies, trade organisations, and a range of commercial operators.

  The first part is examining the differences that exist between the schemes in England, Scotland and Wales. The main aim is to reach a view on whether common schemes are feasible. This part of the review is being led jointly by the three National Tourist Boards. The second part will relate to England only, and is being led by VisitBritain. It will look at the management of the schemes, covering issues such as assessment, administration, recruitment of businesses, and promotion to consumers.

  Sports Lottery Funding
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the regional distribution of sports lottery funding in 2002–03. [114827]

  Mr. Caborn
  The information requested is set out in the following table.

  Region

  £

  East Midlands

  29,690,294

  Eastern

  16,659,090

  London

  19,724,738

  North East

  8,754,156

  NorthWest

  15,977,795

  826W

  Region

  £

  South East

  17,592,480

  South West

  22,620,288

  West Midlands

  12,100,410

  Yorkshire

  9,282,712

  National

  389,162

  Total

  152,791,125

  The table does not include £4 million lottery funding contribution towards the School Sports Coordinators initiative, for which a regional breakdown is not available.

  Subtitling
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps she is taking to encourage subtitling on(a) television, (b) videos, (c) DVDs and (d) other audiovisual media. [113768]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 19 May 2003]: The Communications Bill currently before Parliament strengthens the requirements for subtitling on television. The Bill sets subtitling targets of 90 per cent. of programmes on Channels 3 and 4, and 80 per cent. of programmes on all other channels, extending these requirements to digital cable and satellite broadcasters for the first time.

  The Government is working with a range of organisations in the audiovisual sector-such as the Broadcasters Disability Network, film distributors, trade organisations and companies providing subtitling—to promote awareness of subtitling issues on DVD and video. We try to ensure that the views of people with sensory impairments are taken into account, and work is taken forward in liaison with organisations representing these groups.

  Promotion of awareness of subtitling issues in cinema is primarily through the Film Council as the national body responsible for film strategy, but we also liase with other interested organisations in the sector such as PACT and the Film Distributors Association.

  I am working closely with colleagues at the Department for Work and Pensions which has the lead on disability issues on making Government services and functions more accessible to disabled people. That work includes an inter-Governmental group working on web accessibility and accreditation in partnership with industry and facilitated by the Office of the e-Envoy.

  Television Licence Fee
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has for the future of the television licence fee. [114098]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government intend that the television licence fee will remain as the main source of BBC funding at least until the expiry of the BBC's current Royal Charter at the end of 2006. The arrangements for funding the Corporation after that date will need to be considered as part of the Charter review process.

  Tourist Boards
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proposals she has to expand the number of English regional tourist boards so that their boundaries are co-terminators with those of the English Regions; how many(a) UK and (b) foreign tourists (i) there were in each of the four ERTBs in each of the last five years and (ii) there are predicted to be over the next three years; how much Government funding each of the ERTBs will receive in 2003–04; and whether funding is adjusted according to local authority spending on tourism. [114018]

  Dr. Howells
  The Regional Tourist Boards (RTBs) are not Government organisations and their geographical boundaries are for them to decide in consultation with their membership. They are the natural partners of the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) for the development and implementation of Regional Sustainable Tourism Strategies. The question of the coterminousness of RTB and RDA boundaries

  £

  Development agency

  Amount

  Tourist board

  East of England Development Agency

  543,000

  Covering East of England RTB

  Advantage West Midlands

  252,000

  50 per cent. contribution to Visit Heart of England RTB

  East Midlands Development Agency

  252,000

  50 per cent. contribution to Visit Heart of England RTB

  One North East

  333,000

  Covering Northumbria RTB

  South East England Development Agency

  744,000

  Covering Southern and South East RTB

  South West England Regional Development Agency

  403,000

  Covering South West RTB

  Yorkshire Forward

  360,000

  Covering Yorkshire Tourist Board

  North West Regional Development Agency

  713,000

  337,000 for Cumbria RTB and 376,000 for North West RTB)

  Figures for UK and overseas visitors to the regions (including London) are as follows:

  Number of visits by UK and Overseas tourists to each RTB area in each of the last three years1

  millions

  UK residents—trips

  Overseas residents—visits

  RTB Area

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Cumbria

  5.0

  4.5

  4.3

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  Northumbria

  5.6

  4.3

  4.8

  0.4

  0.4

  0.5

  North West

  14.8

  13.7

  14.5

  1.3

  1.3

  1.3

  Yorkshire

  13.1

  11.0

  12.2

  0.9

  0.8

  0.9

  Heart of England

  23.4

  22.2

  24.6

  2.3

  2.0

  2.5

  East of England

  13.2

  13.0

  14.5

  1.8

  1.4

  1.6

  London

  18.5

  16.9

  16.1

  13.1

  11.5

  11.6

  South West

  18.6

  19.8

  21.0

  1.6

  1.4

  1.4

  Southern2

  14.7

  13.3

  14.6

  2.1

  1.9

  1.3

  South East2

  12.1

  12.6

  10.9

  2.1

  2.0

  2.0

  1 Data taken from the UK tourism survey for domestic tourism and the International Passenger Survey for visits from overseas residents.

  2 Merged with effect from 1 April 2003.

  It is not possible to compare regional data before 2000 with data from 2000 onwards because of changes in the UK Tourism Survey methodology and regional boundary changes, both of which affected survey results.

  Regional breakdowns of estimates of future visitor numbers are not available and cannot be provided except at disproportionate cost.
  828W
  can be considered during the process of formulating those strategies, in consultation with RTBs and other RDAs as appropriate. Five of the regions already have coterminous boundaries.

  Government funding for the RTBs, to be distributed via the RDAs single pot for three years from 2003–04, is a continuation of the funding the RTBs received from the former English Tourism Council in 2002–03 in respect of regional projects. It is guaranteed for three years at the same level as in 2002–03 and does not take into account individual local authority spending on tourism, some of which may comprise membership subscriptions to RTBs. There are separate arrangements for London and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport funds the Greater London Authority (GLA) towards meeting its tourism responsibilities. Most of this funding flows to the London Development Agency, which in turn uses the London Tourist Board as a key delivery agent. The amounts for RDAs to pass on to RTBs in 2003–04 are as follows:

  TV Food Advertisements
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on her policy on the(a) prohibition and (b) regulation of televised food advertisement aimed at children. [113889]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government's policy is that television advertising should be undertaken responsibly and its regulation should be directed at ensuring the prevention of harm to vulnerable groups including children. To this end, television is regulated by the Independent Television Commission (ITC), which establishes codes covering all television advertising and sponsorship. Broadcasters must comply with these codes and sanctions are available for non-compliance. In relation to food advertising, the codes include provisions to prevent harm notably from advertisements which mislead, make unsubstantiated health claims, disparage good dietary practice or encourage excessive consumption. The ITC keeps the effectiveness of the codes under review and they can be amended, after appropriate consultation, if they are found to be inadequate in preventing harm. The Communications Bill provides for OFCOM to take on the responsibility for ensuring that standards are maintained. The Government believe that these arrangements provide for the effective regulation of television advertising and that at present there is no case for further Government action, such as entirely prohibiting the advertising of food during children's programming.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Connexions
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether young people are involved in the decision-making boards of Connexions partners; and what plans he has to increase such involvement. [109731]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Young people are at the heart of the Connexions Service. It is their commitment and support which has helped build an innovative service for young people.

  Many young people have been involved in the governance of Connexions Partnerships as Board members, on Local Management Committees and as Youth or Shadow Board Members. Over 50 young people worked with the Connexions Service National Unit to produce guidance to Connexions Partnerships on involving young people in governance.

  Young people are making a valuable contribution to the decisions made by Partnerships and local management committees. They are involved in helping to define the measures against which the organisation will be judged, in decisions about strategic direction and in helping to develop Business Plans. Young people are involved in assessing bids from potential contractors and in the selection of key personnel including Partnership Chief Executives and the Deputy Chief Executive of the Connexions Service National Unit.

  We will continue to promote the active involvement of young people in all aspects of the Connnexions Service including in governance. Ofsted inspections of Partnerships include inspecting the involvement of young people and their impact on Partnerships. We are supporting Partnerships to ensure that any issues on the involvement of young people in decision-making highlighted by Ofsted inspections are addressed.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills for what reasons the connexions card is not available for all students in Staffordshire. [112615]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Connexions Card is available to all 16–19 year olds in England. 3,220 young people in Staffordshire currently have a Connexions Card.

  The Connexions Card team is actively working with schools, colleges, work based training organisations and the Connexions Partnership in Staffordshire to increase the number of young people who have the Card.

  Creationism
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to ensure that the new Thame Grammar School does not teach creationism in science lessons when it becomes a city academy. [112872]

  Mr. Miliband
  In order to secure a funding agreement with the Secretary of State, the sponsors of an Academy must demonstrate that the Academy will offer a broad and balanced curriculum and teach the core subjects of the national curriculum, including science. Moreover,830W
  a11 pupils are required to study science and be prepared for external examinations in science, which will ensure that an appropriate curriculum is followed.

  Departmental Pay
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his Answer of 14 April 2003,Official Report, column 553W, on departmental pay, if he will submit an action plan to the Cabinet Office on the subject and place a copy in the Library. [112320]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  My Department has submitted a report on Gender Pay Equality, which includes a Departmental action plan, to the Cabinet Office. Once discussions with Cabinet Office are concluded, we will place a copy of the report in the Library of the House.

  Early Excellence Centre (Wycombe)
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to establish an early excellence centre in the Wycombe constituency. [113006]

  Maria Eagle
  [holding answer 13 May 2003]: We have recently designated our final tranche of Early Excellence Centre (EEC), which brings our total to 107 EECs operating in 80 local authority areas in England. We will riot be designating any further EECs. Instead, we will be aiming to establish a children's centre in every one of the 20 per cent. most disadvantaged wards, building where possible on existing services including Sure Start local programmes, Neighbourhood Nurseries and EECs. Buckinghamshire will receive a small amount of money to develop children's centre services to serve the Booker and Castlefield ward in Wycombe that falls within in the 20 per cent. most disadvantaged category.

  Education Funding (Suffolk)
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much funding has been allocated to Suffolk local education authority for the provision of pupil referral units in each of the last five years. [114550]

  Mr. Miliband
  Local education authorities (LEAs) have flexibility in the use of funding allocated for work on preventing and managing exclusions including support for Pupil Referral Units (PRUs). Provisional figures from the January census show that Suffolk LEA had eight PRUs which were catering for 237 pupils.
  Suffolk LEA has not received capital funding specifically for PRUs in the last five years. The Department currently allocates most capital funding for schools and PRUs to LEAs by needs-related formulae, and it is for authorities to assess and prioritise the capital needs of their school and PRU buildings through their asset management planning process, in consultation with local schools. Individual LEAs will therefore hold information on how much capital investment is being directed towards the provision of PRUs.

  Education Leeds
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the contractual period of
  831W
  appointment is for (a) the Chairman and (b) the Director of Education Leeds; and if he will make a statement. [114358]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Chairman has been appointed for five years. I understand from Education Leeds that the company does not have a Director of Education, but has a Chief Executive who was appointed for five years by the company's Board of Directors. There are four directors on the company's Board in addition to the Chairman: two of them have appointments which end when the partnership agreement between the council, Education Leeds and Capita terminates; the other two appointments are not time-limited.

  Enterprise Initiatives
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the Enterprise Promotion Fund and Enterprise Advisers; and how these initiatives will benefit pupils in Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland. [114299]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Enterprise advisers will work with secondary schools in disadvantaged areas, advising and helping on the delivery of enterprise education, improving schools' links with business, and encouraging the use of enterprise techniques in school management. We intend the first advisers to be in place from September 2003, working closely with the enterprise education pilot projects for which we have recently invited applications from schools and others. We hope to announce the locations of the pilot projects and the enterprise advisers later in the summer.

  The Enterprise Promotion Fund is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  GCSE Point Scores
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average GCSE point score for pupils in(a) specialist schools, (b) non-specialist comprehensive schools, (c) secondary modern schools and (d) grammar schools was in the last year for which figures are available. [113722]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested for 2002 results is as follows.

  2002

  Average capped1 GCSE/ GNVQ point score2

  Specialist schools3

  36.1

  Non-specialist comprehensive schools3

  34.1

  Secondary modern schools

  30.6

  Grammar schools

  52.5

  1Average capped GCSE/GNVQ point scores are calculated using the best eight GCSE/GNVQ results.

  2 GCSE/GNVQ point scores are calculated as follows:

  GCSE grades A*-G count as 8 to 1 point respectively, GCSE Short Courses grades A*-G count as 4 to ½ respectively. The GNVQ grades D, M and P count as 7½, 6 and 5 points respectively at Intermediate level, and 4, 3 and 1½ points respectively at Foundation level. These points need to be multiplied by two for GNVQ Part One and by four for Full GNVQs.

  832W
  3 All maintained schools designated as specialist/non-specialist as at September 2001 (excludes special schools). Includes grammar and secondary modern schools, which are specialist/non-specialist schools. These schools may also be included in the figures for grammar and secondary modern schools.

  GCSE Pupils
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to ensure equal access to subject choice for GCSE pupils of differing abilities in the London Borough of Havering; and if he will make a statement on subject choice for GCSE pupils in the borough. [113471]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Government's policies on subject choice for 14 to 16-year-olds were set out in our strategy document 14–19 Opportunity and Excellence published in January this year. The specific subject choices made available are a matter for local determination.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the cost of(a) ministerial cars and drivers and (b) taxis for his Department was in 2002. [101545]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Ministerial transport is provided by the Government Car Service. For information on the cost of ministerial cars and drivers, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend, the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, (Mr. Alexander) on 20 May 2003,Official Report, column 663W.

  The cost of taxis, for the Department in 2002, can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Part-time Students
  Dr. Francis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether part-time students will be able to delay payment of fees until they have completed their courses. [R][113229]

  Margaret Hodge
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) on 14 April 2003,Official Report, column 562W, on our plans for improving the financial support offered to part-time students.

  Physical Activity
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many school sports co-ordinators were in post in England on 1 April 2003;[114688]

  (2) if he will estimate what percentage of children in (a) primary and (b) secondary schools are receiving two hours of physical activity per week. [114689]

  Mr. Miliband
  There were 765 school sports co-ordinators in post in April 2003 working in 149 school sports co- ordinator partnerships with 3,525 primary or special school link teachers.

  The Department for Education and Skills does not collect information on the amount of time school children spend on physical activity. Information is collected on progress towards ensuring school children spend at least two hours a week on high quality physical education and school sport within and beyond the

  833W
  curriculum. An ambitious Public Service Agreement target has been set to enhance the take up of sporting opportunities for 5 to 16-year-olds by increasing the percentage of school children who spend at least two hours a week on PE and school sport to 75 per cent. by 2006. Currently, about a quarter of schools provide this entitlement at Key Stage 1, two fifths at Key Stage 2 and a third at Key Stages 3 and 4.

  Positive Activities for Young People
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the role of medium sized voluntary youth organisations in activity schemes for young people, with particular reference to Positive Activities for Young People. [114200]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Voluntary youth organisations are key to the successful delivery of youth work programmes. The sector supported the design of the new Positive Activities for Young People programme. As a result the programme has been designed to encourage voluntary sector involvement at the local level.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the administrative costs incurred as a result of using Connexions as the delivery agent for Positive Activities for Young People. [114201]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department for Education and Skills provides a maximum of 10 per cent. of regional allocation to support administrative costs for Positive Activities for Young People (PAYP) Lead Delivery Agents, many of whom are Connexions Partnerships. These costs include local marketing of the programme, staff resource to support the development of plans and the costs of implementing the programme. Evidence from the regions suggests that these administration costs are much less than this (e.g.6 per cent. in the Wirral). A separate top slice of £2.6 million has been set aside to fund the national evaluation, national management information system, brand development and national support service.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the role of the voluntary sector within the Positive Activities for Young People scheme. [114203]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Government Offices (GOs) and Lead Delivery Agents (LDAs) have been advised to work with a variety of local partners including voluntary and community sector organisations to deliver Positive Activities for Young People. This sector has a very important role to play in the delivery of the programme and is able to reach the most disadvantaged young people. Very often community organisations have the best knowledge about the local needs of an area. This knowledge is being drawn on to inform the targeting of the programme in many areas.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to what extent(a) health, (b) underachievement and (c) exclusion are taken into account when targeting young people to participate in the Positive Activities for Young People scheme. [114205]
  834W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Positive Activities for Young People programme is aimed at diverting and developing those young people most at risk of social exclusion and committing crime, encouraging engagement in the community, and through voluntary activity programmes, contributing to the promotion of strong and active communities.Government Offices, Lead Delivery Agents and Connexions Partnerships are working closely with other key local partners such as the Youth Offending Teams, Children's Fund Partnerships and Behaviour and Improvement Schools. Together these agencies identify the young people to be targeted to receive intensive key worker support. The factors that are considered include truancy rates, involvement in crime, family background and academic achievement.

  Post-16 Education
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what methodology was used to calculate the number of full-time equivalent students studying in(a) sixth form colleges and (b) further education colleges in each year since 1997. [112852]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 12 May 2003]: The latest published figures on full-time equivalent students are contained within the Departmental Annual Report (DAR) 2003, published on Wednesday 14 May 2003.

  The methodology for calculating full-time equivalent students is the same for both sixth form colleges and further education colleges and has remained unchanged since 1997.

  The Individualised Student Record (ISR), and now the Individualised Learner Record (ILR), contains information on each student's 'guided learning hours' depending on the number and type of qualifications they are studying for in the further education sector. Guided learning hours are described as 'all times when a member of staff is present to give specific guidance towards the qualification or module being studied on a programme'.

  Students with total guided learning hours of 450 or more are classified as one full-time equivalent. Students with less than 450 guided learning hours are counted as a fraction of one full-time equivalent student. This fraction is calculated by dividing the student's guided learning hours by the median guided learning hours for students with a total of 450 or more guided learning hours. The median for students with a total of 450 or more guided learning hours is re-calculated each year.

  Pupil Participation
  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) which organisations his Department has consulted in drafting the guidance for schools on pupil participation;[113015]

  (2) when he will launch the public consultation on the draft guidance for schools on pupil participation. [113016]
  835W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department has involved two advisory groups, working in parallel in developing draft guidance; a group of adults and one of young people. The organisations represented on the adult group include: the National Youth Agency (NYA), National Children's Bureau (NCB), Save the Children, CYPU, QCA and Ofsted. Representatives of the teaching unions, LEAs and National Association of Governors and Managers (NAGM) also sit on the group. 12 young people sit on the young people's group.

  We plan to launch the public consultation process before the summer recess.

  Skills Training
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations he has received regarding making skills training and its funding more flexible in meeting the requirements of employers; and if he will make a statement. [113918]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Government are consulting a wide range of external organisations and employers in the development of the National Skills Strategy. The process has included a series of regional Skill Summits and a monthly Stakeholder Group meeting. On 26 March the Department published a Progress Report, "Developing a National Skills Strategy and Delivery Plan", which invited comments from recipients. At the same time, the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) published a consultation document on funding adult learning. Each local LSC is holding consultation events with employers and learning providers in their area. Responses are currently being considered. A summary of responses will be set out in the National Skills Strategy White Paper to be published in June. Throughout the process, a key message from employers has been the need to make adult skills training and funding more responsive to their needs.

  Specific and targeted grant funding allocated by DfES to Stoke-on-Trent LEA

  £ million

  Grant

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  12003–04

  Standard Spending Assessment/Education Formula Spending

  99.5

  104.2

  107.6

  110.6

  122.4

  DfES Grant

  9.3

  25.0

  27.0

  27.6

  29.4

  Total

  108.8

  129.2

  134.6

  138.2

  151.8

  1 Estimated

  Notes:

  1. Education Formula Spending (EFS):

  a. The figure for 2002–03 does not include funding for sixth forms transferred to the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) from 2002–2003 and is not fully comparable with the earlier figures.

  b. The figure for 2003–2004 is not fully comparable with 2002–2003 and the earlier figures. It does not include funding for sixth forms transferred to the LSC. But it does include funding transferred into EFS from grant and to take account of the increase in contributions to the Teachers' Pension Scheme

  2. From 2003–04 the Class Size Grant and the Nursery Education Grant were distributed via EFS.

  Teachers
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teacher vacancies there were in each subject in(a) primary schools, (b) secondary schools, (c) special schools and (d) all schools in each year since 1997, broken down by local education authority; and what these figures represent as a percentage of all teachers. [110114]

  Specialist Schools
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what direct investment is made into the relevant subject specialism of a school with specialist status; and if he will make a statement. [114216]

  Mr. Miliband
  Specialist schools receive a one-off capital grant of £100,000 (together with £50,000 raised from private sector sponsorship) and additional annual funding of £123 per pupil. This funding is to support the achievement of the objectives and targets set out in the specialist school development plan, which is focused on the specialism of the school. We expect specialist schools to allocate one third of their specialist school annual grant to implementing the community element of the development plan.

  Sponsorship
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which of his Department's projects have received sponsorship in the last financial year; who the sponsor was in each case; what the nature of each project was; what time-period was covered by each project; what the total cost of each project was; how much money was involved in each sponsorship deal; and if she will make a statement. [112397]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Details of individual amounts of sponsorship valued at more than £5,000 are published in my Department's Annual Report. The 2003 Annual Report was published on 14 May. Copies are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Stoke-on-Trent LEA
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what resources have been allocated to Stoke-on-Trent LEA in the last five years. [112979]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table shows the resources allocated to Stoke-on-Trent Local Education Authority since 1999–2000.

  Mr. Miliband
  A table showing the number of teacher vacancies in maintained secondary schools in England has been placed in the Library. Vacancies by subject are available only for secondary schools. The most recent data available at local education authority level are for January 2002. Vacancy rates are not available because data for the denominator (teacher numbers by subject) are not available at LEA level.
  837W
  The most recent data available at local authority level is for January 2002. Recently published provisional vacancy information at national level shows that vacancies in maintained schools decreased from 4,540 in 2002 to 3,400 in 2003. The vacancy rate reduced from 1.2 per cent. in 2002 to 0.9 per cent. in 2003.

  Vacancies are recorded for posts which have been advertised for full-time appointments of at least one term's duration, that exist on the 618G survey date of the third Thursday in January. These are posts which the Local Education Authority/school intends to fill, including those for which they have unsuccessfully attempted to make an appointment, or for which an appointment has been made but the appointee has not taken up the post. A post which has been filled by a temporary appointment of less than one term, pending the finding of a more permanent appointee, is regarded as a vacancy. A post would not be recorded as a vacancy if someone appointed to that post on a full-time contract of one term or more has filled the post.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many vacant teacher posts there were in(a) primary schools, (b) secondary schools, (c) special schools and (d) all schools, as a percentage of the total number of teachers, in each year since 1997, broken down by local education authority. [110132]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested has been placed in the Libraries.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many vacant(a) head teacher posts, (b) deputy head teacher and (c) teacher posts there were in (i) primary schools, (ii) secondary schools and (iii) special schools in each year since 1997, broken down by local education authority. [110133]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested has been placed in the Libraries.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many vacant deputy head teacher posts there were in(a) primary schools, (b) secondary schools, (c) special schools and (d) all schools as a percentage of the total number of deputy head teachers, in each year since 1997, broken down by local education authority. [110147]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested has been placed in the Libraries.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions he has had with(a) local authorities and (b) trade unions on the subject of early retirement. [114939]

  Mr. Miliband
  We have not had any specific discussions with either local authorities or teacher unions about early retirement. There are provisions within the Teachers' Pension Scheme under which employers can award premature retirement to teachers over the age of 50. The decision on whether an individual teacher should be granted early retirement is for the employer to take having regard to cost and the circumstances of each case.
  838W
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the state of the Teachers' Superannuation Fund. [114942]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Teachers' Pension Scheme is unfunded. It is, however, subject to periodic valuations by the Government Actuary. The most recent valuation, covering the five years up to March 2001, was published in March of this year. A copy of the valuation report has been placed in the Library.

  Textile Industry
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action his Department is taking to support training in the clothing and textiles industry to follow up the Strategic Training in Apparel and Textiles programme. [113392]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  DfES in partnership with the Learning and Skills Council, Department of Trade and Industry, Small Business Service and Skillfast-UK (the Sector Skills Council for the industry), have developed FAST Forward a business support and training pilot that gives apparel, footwear and textiles manufacturers direct access to skills training to support strategic business change.

  The aim of the 12 month pilot will be to develop a sustainable approach to business support and training provision for the industry. It opens up the potential for employers to work with the Learning and Skills Council to develop the range of specialist sector training provision available.

  FAST Forward was launched on 26 March and will build on the successful experience of Strategic Training for Apparel and Textiles (STAT).

TREASURY

  Census Forms
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 10 February 2003,Official Report, column 603W, on census forms, how many households received census forms; what assessment he has made of the impact of households returning forms (a) early and (b) late; and if he will make a statement. [114607]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated May 2003:
  As National Statistician and Registrar General for England and Wales I have been asked to reply to your recent further question concerning the 1991 Census.(114607)
  The delivery of census forms for the 1991 Census took place between 12 and 18 April 1991, although in some areas, particularly inner cities, forms were being delivered up to Census day—21 April 1991.
  In the 1991 Census, forms were collected by enumerators during the collection round between 22 and 25 April. However it was anticipated that a number of forms would be posted back direct and measures had been put in place to deal with direct postal returns. Just over 1,000 forms were returned prior to Census day

  839W
  and these were transferred to the processing office for inclusion in processing. The early receipt of these forms had no impact on the 1991 Census.
  During the collection round, the timing of which was originally extended until 29 April in inner city areas, enumerators checked the forms briefly for any omissions, and issued further forms where contact had not been established or where there was some uncertainty about the occupation of the accommodation. Where households were absent a form was left asking the householders to complete and return the form to the local field staff. Due to the large number of uncollected forms, mainly from non-contacts and in inner cities, the collection period was extended into May in some areas and specially targeted postal facilities were introduced in the very worst areas to allow forms to be returned direct to OPCS (now ONS). Forms continued to be received in this way until early July.
  A processing order of Counties and Regions had been agreed in advance, and the late returns did cause some problems, particularly for Inner London and counties early in the processing order, because it was necessary to insert the forms into their correct position prior to processing. Information about those households known to be present but for which no form was received in time to be included in the processing was imputed.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intends to reply to the letter of 5 March 2003 from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan regarding climate change levy which was transferred to his Department for answer from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 19 March 2003 (ref. 180356/AP). [115188]

  John Healey
  I have done so.

  Enterprise Areas
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the benefits of the new enterprise areas; how many areas will be eligible in each Government office region; and what benefits they will bring to the Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland constituency. [114303]

  John Healey
  A key element of the Government's enterprise policy is the recognition that social attitudes, the business environment and specific market failures can present significantly higher barriers to enterprise within the UK's disadvantaged communities. Moreover it is in these communities that the benefits of enterprise are likely to have the greatest social impact through promoting increased economic activity and the creation of jobs. The Government is therefore concentrating particular efforts on the needs of the Enterprise Areas, the most deprived communities across the UK, with the intention of increasing the amount of enterprise in these communities.

  In England the Enterprise Areas are defined at electoral ward level. The following numbers of wards are eligible in each region.

  East Midlands—128

  East of England—55

  London—233

  North East—208

  North West—284

  South East—60

  South West—55

  West Midlands—116

  Yorkshire and Humberside—123

  840W
  The Inland Revenue website contains a postcode search tool for the Enterprise Areas at www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/so/pcode_search.htm.

  Particular measures that will benefit businesses in the Enterprise Areas, including those in Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland, include the exemption from stamp duty of all non-residential property transactions, which will reduce the costs to business of locating and investing in disadvantaged areas, and the introduction of the community investment tax relief, which is intended to increase the amount of investment in disadvantaged communities.

  The Government is also putting in place measures to improve planning flexibility in these areas such as the introduction of Business Planning Zones in the current Planning Bill—these are areas in which there will be no requirement to apply for planning permission where predetermined criteria are met—and taking steps to help local authorities ensure that the planning system is transparent, accessible and affordable for businesses in these areas. These are set out in Budget 2003.

  The Enterprise Areas were designated in the Pre-Budget Report in November 2002. Evaluation is being or will be conducted on a number of the policy measures, though no results are yet available. An evaluation of the fiscal measures introduced to stimulate the regeneration of deprived urban areas, including exemptions from stamp duty, is being commissioned by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

  EU Accession Referendums
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his Answer of 29 April 2003,Official Report, column 105W, on EU Accession Referendums, if he will list, by accession country, the funds available to support (a) the provision of information and (b) information centres; if he will list (i) the projects supported over the past 12 months and (ii) the projects to be supported in the immediate future; what publications have been supported; and if he will make a statement on the nature of scrutiny by the Government of compliance with guidelines on impartiality with regard to the services and funding provided. [114467]

  John Healey
  Commission funding for information and information centres concerning accession and the EU comes from the PHARE1 pre-accession programme for accession states and candidate countries, as well as from the separate pre-accession programmes for Turkey, Malta and Cyprus. Commission funding is also available from the Priority Information Programme for European Citizens (PRINCE) in the case of existing member states. According to Commission figures, the financial commitments for centralised and decentralised programmes can be summarised as follows (in millions of Euros):

  Decentralised funds

  2001

  2002

  20031

  Slovakia

  0.65

  0.66

  Slovenia

  0.72

  0.87

  Hungary

  1.00

  1.17

  Czech Republic

  0.90

  1.10

  Latvia

  0.67

  0.55

  Lithuania

  0.68

  0.70

  841W

  Decentralised funds

  2001

  2002

  20031

  Estonia

  0.61

  0.56

  Poland

  1.56

  1.70

  Cyprus

  0.20

  0.20

  Malta

  0.20

  0.20

  Romania

  0.85

  0.95

  Bulgaria

  0.55

  0.62

  Turkey

  0.60

  0.70

  Total

  9.19

  9.98

  11.5

  PRINCE

  5.4

  9.75

  13.0

  Centralised funds

  PHARE regulation

  2.50

  2.50

  2.50

  PRINCE

  1.20

  2.20

  2.20

  Total

  3.70

  4.70

  4.70

  Centralised and decentralised funds

  Total

  18.29

  24.43

  29.2

  1 an individual country breakdown is not currently available for 2003

  The Commission does not publish figures which distinguish between spending on general information and funding for information centres.
  1PHARE originally stood for 'Poland and Hungary Assistance for Restructuring the Economy'—however, this programme has since been expanded beyond the two original participants to cover all of the Candidate Countries.

  The Information and Communication Programme is a unified programme which does not split into individual projects. The publications produced are of a general nature and explain the implications of EU membership. Further information concerning details of the Commission's communication strategy, including publications and information on current and future projects, can be found on the Commission's Enlargement website at: europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/communication/index.htm.

  The Commission's May 2002 Communication Strategy for Enlargement sets out general guidelines for its information activities. These guidelines include a commitment that "… The emphasis [of the Communication strategy] will be on providing objective information, with the Commission eschewing any messages which could be misconstrued as 'propaganda'. It is the Commission's responsibility to manage specific programmes and ensure that activities, including those of its delegations, conform with agreed programme guidelines. In addition, all Commission employees and representatives are bound by a "Code of Good Administrative Behaviour", and any citizen who considers they have not been treated according to this code has the right to make a complaint.

  Euro
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much has been spent on the Euro changeover plan; and if he will estimate planned expenditure over the next three years. [115299]

  Mr. Boateng
  Details of expenditure on changeover planning were included in the Sixth Report on Euro Preparations, published on 18 July 2002. Copies of the report are in the Library of the House.

  Financial Advisers
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the companies providing independent 842W
  financial advice that the Financial Services Authority has required to cease regulated activities because they have been unable to secure professional indemnity insurance. [114650]

  Mr. Boateng
  I am advised by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) that three independent financial adviser (IFA) firms have had their authorisations to conduct regulated business cancelled, in circumstances where the absence of professional indemnity insurance (PII) was wholly, or in part, an issue. There are about 3,500 IFA firms in the UK.

  The FSA continues to work closely with independent financial adviser firms who are experiencing difficulty obtaining PII. A firm will not necessarily be required to cease regulated activities where it cannot obtain PII cover.

  Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices includes(a) housing costs and (b) council tax. [113578]

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

  Letter from L. Cook to Mr. A. Flook, dated May 2003:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking whether the Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices (HICP) includes (a) housing costs and (b) council tax.(113578)
  The HICP does not include council tax and certain costs faced by owner occupiers including mortgage interest payments, house depreciation and buildings insurance. Housing costs included in the HICP are rentals paid by tenants and minor repairs and maintenance charges typically paid by both tenants and owner occupiers alike.

  Illegal Meat Imports
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what additional funds have been provided for the new responsibilities of HM Customs and Excise to tackle illegal meat imports; and how these funds are broken down for each major port of entry into the UK. [114525]

  John Healey
  Of the £25million that the Government are investing over three years in its action plan to deter illegal meat imports, Customs has been allocated £4 million for 2003–04. Allocations for the next two years are yet to be determined. Customs is allocating these funds on the basis of activities such as mobile detection strike force and dog teams, who will be deployed at any port or airport according to risk.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if samples are taken from all seizures of illegal meats made by HM Customs and Excise(a) in terminals and (b) inside cargo sheds. [114526]

  John Healey
  It is not Customs' practice to take samples from illegal meat seized under the Products of Animal Origin (Third Country Imports) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2003. Customs does, however, sometimes take samples from consignments of imported goods and is currently sampling consignments of chicken for liability to Customs duty.
  843W
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how illegal meat seizures made by HM Customs and Excise at each of the country's main ports of entry are(a) contained upon seizure and (b) destroyed. [114527]

  John Healey
  Seizures of illegal meat are sealed and held under Customs control in suitable refrigerated or freezer storage until they go for disposal, go to a local incinerator, they are collected frequently by contractors in accordance with EU Regulations.

  Rafidain Bank
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements have been made to compensate British nationals who were denied payments following the sequestration of the Rafidain bank after the Gulf War of 1991; and when they will be paid in full their outstanding moneys, including the accrued interest. [114507]

  Mr. Boateng
  The court placed the London branch of the Rafidain bank in provisional liquidation in 1991. The funds remain under the control of the court and, as a matter of law, must be used towards the general obligations of the bank. The Government do not compensate individuals for losses suffered or contracts broken as a result of the implementation of United Nations sanctions policies.

  Research and Development Tax Credit
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the impact of the new research and development tax credit on companies(a) in the UK and (b) in Teesside. [114311]

  John Healey
  Research and Development (R&D) tax credits were introduced for small and medium companies in 2000. They were extended to all companies in 2002 and further improvements are being made in the Finance Bill. No specific figures are available for Teesside, but the credits helped some 3000 small and medium-sized innovative companies nationally last year, delivering £150 million of support for UK R&D.

  Small Business
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the measures he has introduced since 1997, including programme names and funding allocations, to support and promote small businesses in England. [114310]

  John Healey
  The Government's approach to promoting small business and entrepreneurship was set out in detail in "Enterprise Britain: a modern approach to meeting the enterprise challenge", published alongside the 2002 Pre-Budget Report.

  Broad estimates of spending on schemes and initiatives for small business operated at a national level are contained in the Cross-cutting review of government services for small business, published last September For many services, small businesses are one of a number of customers, so a more detailed breakdown of spending is not currently available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  State Retirement Pension
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to include average annual increase in council tax and utility bills rather than the retail prices index as a basis for assessing the annual increase in the state retirement pension; and if he will make a statement. [114858]

  Maria Eagle
  I have been asked to reply

  The Retail Prices Index (RPI) is representative of consumer spending patterns. The items in the RPI are kept under review and already include average council tax bills for households in Great Britain and average rates bills in Northern Ireland. Also included are amounts for utilities including water, sewerage and environmental charges, telephone charges, electricity, gas, coal and solid fuels and oil and other fuels.

  The full list of items can be found on the National Statistics website: www.statistics.gov.uk

  However, we increased the basic state pension by more than RPI in the last three years.

  Valuation Office Agency (Liverpool)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the quality of performance of the Valuation Office Agency in Liverpool. [114821]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Valuation Office Agency (VOA) operates 22 Group Valuation Offices throughout England and Wales. The VOA has recently introduced a range of different indicators of performance covering customer services, people management and key business results, both financial and non-financial. Final audited figures for 2002–03 are not available, but the initial figures show the Liverpool Group in the upper quartile.

HEALTH

  Sexual Health
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to make advice leaflets on sexual health available in more languages. [113729]

  Ms Blears
  Primary care trusts are responsible for providing sexual health services and information which is accessible and appropriate to local needs.

  The Department of Health will shortly publish practical guidance for those undertaking sexual health promotion and HIV prevention locally. It will emphasise the importance of providing information in community languages relevant to local needs, including interpretation services where appropriate.

  The Department funds HIV information resources for African communities in English and French. A pilot African AIDS Helpline is currently available in English, French and three other African languages. The national sexual health information line is available to non-English speakers through use of the Language Line translation service.

  Agenda for Change
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) proportion of the NHS pay bill and (b) cash amount will be available to pay weighting to staff in high cost areas under Agenda for Change. [113528]

  Mr. Hutton
  Under the proposed Agenda for Change agreement, an additional £110 million in the first full year of national implementation will be invested in a new system of high cost area payments for National Health Service staff working in London and the fringe areas. For 2005–06, this will mean total expenditure of around £700 million on high cost area payments, including on-costs, in London and the fringe, or around 3 per cent, of the NHS pay bill excluding medical and dental staff. The proposed agreement provides scope for high cost area payments to be applied in other areas in future, where appropriate and for NHS organisations to pay recruitment and retention premia locally subject to certain criteria.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the expected cost to the Exchequer is of(a) the pay element of Agenda for Change in (i) cash terms and (ii) real terms and (b) the administration costs of the Agenda for Change process. [113529]

  Mr. Hutton
  By 2005–06, the first full year of national implementation, the expected cost of the pay element of Agenda for Change proposals will be around £950 million in England. This includes provision for the costs associated with the proposals for additional annual leave and changes to working hours. The figure does not include annual uplifts in pay awards for the cost of living, which have been set at 3.225 per cent. as part of the "Agenda for Change" package. It is not possible to give a firm estimate of the projected administrative costs associated with implementing "Agenda for Change", but we anticipate that these costs will be outweighed by the longer-term savings resulting from harmonisation and rationalisation of current pay systems in the national health service.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on whether there should be a second ballot of the the workforce in 2004 on Agenda for Change. [113530]

  Mr. Hutton
  It is a matter for the National Health Service trades unions and staff organisations involved to decide when and on what questions they conduct ballots of their members. The proposed "Agenda for Change" agreement includes a partnership agreement setting out the intended benefits of pay reform for NHS patients and NHS staff and the success criteria that will be used, subject to the outcome of the unions' current consultation process, to measure progress during the "early implementation' phase. The Department is committed to working in partnership with NHS staff organisations and NHS employers to ensure that the appropriate action is taken in the event that these criteria are not sufficiently met.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for which NHS job profiles he expects an increase in the length of the working week under Agenda for Change. [113583]
  846W
  Mr. Hutton
  Under the Agenda for Change proposals, there is no automatic connection between a job evaluation profile and any change in the length of the working week for a post covered by that profile. The proposals include a harmonised working week of 371 hours for full-time national health service staff covered by Agenda for Change, including provisions to phase in these arrangements for staff who currently have longer or shorter hours. In broad terms, the proposals involve a phased increase in the working week for the Whitley groupings of professions allied to medicine, administrative and clerical, professional and technical staff B and speech and language therapists' assistants. A number of staff groups work unconditioned hours and there are national provisions for working hours to be determined locally for a number of staff groups. All of these will move over time to 37½ hours under the proposed agreement.

  The implications for staff currently on local contracts will depend on the terms of their individual contracts.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the pay bands are for the(a) clinical coders, (b) medical secretaries, (c) medical records clerks and (d) maintenance fitters (support services); and what the proposed pay bands are under Agenda for Change. [113584]

  Mr. Hutton
  There are currently no nationally agreed payscales specifically for clinical coders, medical secretaries, medical records clerks or maintenance fitters (support services). Pay is determined either by reference to the national pay and grade structures for national health service administrative and clerical staff and maintenance staff or by reference to locally designed pay and grading structures.

  Under the Agenda for Change proposals, there is no automatic fit between current job title and new pay band. NHS posts will, where possible, be matched against national job evaluation profiles by comparing the duties and responsibilities of the post with those described in the national profiles.

  The table shows profiles that have been agreed for some medical secretary jobs, medical records clerk jobs and maintenance support worker jobs, but these profiles do not purport to cover the full range of jobs currently undertaken by staff with these job titles and further job profiles are likely to be agreed in some of these cases. A profile for a clinical coder is being produced.

  The table also shows the value of the corresponding basic pay bands under the Agenda for Change proposals at 2002–03 pay levels, before taking into account the proposed 3.225 per cent. pay uplifts in 2003–04, 2004–05 and 2005–06. This excludes any additional pay that staff in these jobs may receive by virtue of recruitment and retention premia.

  Job profile

  Proposed basic pay range for 2002–03

  Medical Secretary

  £12,450 to £14,900

  Medical Records Clerk

  £10,100 to £11,100

  Maintenance Support Worker Lower Level

  £10,100 to £11,100

  Maintenance Support Worker Higher Level

  £10,800 to £13,400

  847W
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS employees he estimates will require pay protection under Agenda for Change; and what proportion of the workforce this represents. [113585]

  Mr. Hutton
  Assuming no changes in the deployment of staff, we estimate that around 8 per cent. of staff covered by the Agenda for Change proposals would require pay protection. The proposed agreement includes provisions to ensure that, as soon as possible during the period of protection, there would be a review to explore whether the staff concerned could be reassigned to a higher weighted job or offered development and training to fit them for a higher weighted job.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the average annual increase above inflation which NHS employees will receive over the first three years if Agenda for Change is implemented. [113586]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Agenda for Change proposals include a 10 per cent. uplift to basic pay over the three years from April 2003 to March 2006, or 3.225 per cent. in each year. The most recent estimate of annual growth in the Retail Price Index is 3.1 per cent. We estimate that the Agenda for Change proposals, if approved following consultation by staff organisations, will result in an additional increase in basic pay of 2.5 per cent. on average over the first three years, rising to 5.9 per cent. in the longer term.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how long the Government have been preparing the job evaluation profiles under Agenda for Change; and for which categories these are yet to be completed. [113587]

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Children adopted from local council care in England during the year ending 31 March

  2,100

  2,200

  2,700

  3,100

  3,400

  (as a percentage of all children looked after by local councils in England at 31 March)

  (4)

  (4)

  (5)

  (5)

  (6)

  Children looked after by local councils in England at 31 March1

  53,300

  55,500

  58,100

  58,900

  59,700

  1 Excludes children looked after under a series of short-term placements.

  Note:

  All figures rounded to the nearest 100.

  Mr. Paul Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the numbers of(a) foster carers and (b) adoptive families; and what steps his Department is taking to encourage more adoptive and foster families to come forward. [113377]

  Jacqui SmithM
  The number of children in foster placements at 31 March 2002 was 39,200. The numbers of foster carers are not collected centrally. However, the Choice Protects review is considering ways to collect this information in the future. The review is also looking at a number of issues that affect the recruitment and retention of foster carers, including role and status, training, support and rewards.

  The Department has also worked closely with both the Inland Revenue and the Department for Work and Pensions to introduce an appropriate tax threshold for foster carers and extend Home Responsibilities Protection to foster carers. Both changes were recently announced at the beginning of April 2003 and should encourage recruitment and retention of foster carers.
  848W
  Mr. Hutton
  The preparation of job evaluation profiles, as an integral part of the development of the new national health service job evaluation scheme, has been conducted jointly between the United Kingdom health departments, NHS staff organisations and NHS employer representatives. The process of jointly agreeing draft profiles for publication began in November 2002 when negotiations on the proposed new pay system were concluded. There is no set target for the number and categories of profiles to be produced.

  Adolescent Wards
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals operate single sex adolescent wards(a) in total and (b) as a percentage of all adolescent wards. [109942]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not available in this format as compliance with single sex accommodation guidelines is measured on a trust by trust basis and not at individual ward level.

  Adolescent wards are expected to meet the same single sex accommodation standards advised for adult areas.

  Adoption/Fostering
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many looked after children there were in each of the last five years; and how many children were adopted in each year. [113376]

  Jacqui Smith
  The numbers of looked after children and number of children who were adopted in each of the last five years in England are shown in the table.

  We do not collect data centrally on the numbers of adoptive families. On 16 May 2003, the Adoption Register for England and Wales included 1,068 families who were approved as suitable to adopt and waiting to be matched with children.

  The Adoption and Children Act 2002 overhauls the legal framework for adoption. Adoption support services are a key part of the Act and should encourage more people to adopt looked after children. The Government is determined to deliver early improvements in the provision of adoption support and recently announced an extra £70 million over three years for local authorities to develop their adoption support services.

  The Department of Health is committed to supporting local and national recruitment activity, through support of National Adoption Week. The Department made a further £60,000 available to support National Adoption Week in 2002, following a grant of £50,000 in 2001.
  849W
  The Department has also developed an "Adopter Recruitment" Toolkit and an information video for use by adoption agencies in preparing adopters.

  Anti-depressants
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department has policies in place that encourage that anti-depressive drugs, which are used to treat depression in women, are tested on women during the drug qualification process. [114583]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), on behalf of the Licensing Authority, grants marketing authorisations for medicinal products provided that satisfactory quality, safety and efficacy data have been submitted for the medicinal product for use in the proposed indication and that the risk benefit is deemed favourable. Part of the assessment process involves ensuring that the target population to be treated has been adequately represented in the clinical trials submitted in support of the application.

  Bioterrorism
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many analytical laboratories across the UK have the(a) equipment and (b) expertise to provide a testing service for (i) anthrax, (ii) botulism, (iii) staphylococcus enterotoxin B, (iv) ricin, (v) plague and (vi) smallpox. [109287]

  Mr. Hutton
  Most of the clinical microbiology laboratories within national health service trust hospitals and the Health Protection Agency (HPA) have the equipment and expertise to undertake initial testing for anthrax, botulism and plague. Subsequent confirmation and specialist tests are carried out only by a small number of specialist laboratories.

  Smallpox is categorised as a Hazard Group 4 pathogen and consequently testing for smallpox can only be undertaken in laboratories that are designated as suitable for handling this Hazard Group. Only two laboratories in the United Kingdom, both within the HPA, are fully equipped to test human specimens for smallpox.

  Testing for staphylococcus enterotoxin B is carried out at the HPA's Food Hygiene Reference Laboratory.

  Testing for ricin is carried out by the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down.

  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what methods are recommended by his Department and its agencies to routinely test for(a) anthrax, (b) botulism, (c) ricin, (d) staphylococcus enterotoxin B, (e) plague and (f) smallpox. [109289]

  Mr. Hutton
  Guidance on the laboratory handling and testing of diagnostic samples for anthrax, botulism, plague, staphylococcal enterotoxin and smallpox and is available on the Health Protection Agency website at http://www.phls.org.uk.

  Testing for ricin is not routinely undertaken and there are currently no laboratories in the health service that can test for ricin. This service is provided by the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to issue statutory guidance to local authorities requiring them to enter into contract with care home providers which fully protect residents' Article 8 rights. [112377]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 13 May 2003]: The Department currently has no plans to provide guidance on standard contractual terms in areas that might be affected by case law on Article 8 rights. We would expect local authorities to have proper regard to the Human Rights Act, including in cases where they enter into arrangements with others for the provision of services. In any cases of difficulty, local authorities can call upon their own legal advisers.

  Care Standards
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the timetable is for drawing up standards for day centres. [114746]

  Jacqui Smith
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) on 10 February 2003,Official Report, columns 589–90W.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements his Department has made to ensure that health care assistants working in care settings registered under Part II of the Care Standards Act 2000 are registered with the General Social Care Council or Nursing and Midwifery Council. [114747]

  Jacqui Smith
  The General Social Care Council opened the Social Care Register on 1 April 2003. The first part of the register to open is for qualified social workers. The register will be open to other groups of social care workers once this initial part is established.

  The Government plan to launch shortly a consultation document with proposals for regulating health care support workers.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on how many occasions the National Care Standards Commission and Commission for Health Improvement have agreed for the other body to undertake their functions as provided for by the Care Standards Act 2000. [114750]

  Jacqui Smith
  There have been no occasions on which the National Care Standards Commission and the Commission for Health Improvement have agreed to undertake one another's functions, as provided for in the Care Standards Act 2000.

  Carers
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to enhance the position of carers under the age of 16. [114738]

  Jacqui Smith
  We are taking a number of steps to help young carers. We are providing funding through the Carers Special Grant. The grant is worth £100 million in 2003–04, of which 20 per cent. is earmarked for children's services, including young carers, which enable young carers to have a break.
  851W
  We are also funding The Children's Society to undertake a three-year project, the Young Carers Initiative. This has involved direct consultation with young carers, leading to the publication last November, with the Princess Royal Trust for Carers, of "Making it Work, Good Practice with Young Carers and Their Families".

  The initiative supports more than 250 projects or groups across the country working with young carers, where they can go for advice, information and support or leisure. The initiative has just entered its final year and is concentrating on developing standards for work with young carers.

  Further, we are ensuring that young carers' needs are taken into account in developing work such as the national service framework for children.

  Child Protection
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether all social services departments have received the new, shorter guidance on aspects of child protection. [114725]

  Jacqui Smith
  "What To Do If You're Worried A Child Is Being Abused" was published on 19 May 2003. It is available on the Department of Health's website at: www.doh.gov.uk/safeguardingchildren/ and distribution of hard copies has now begun, including to local authority chief executives, and directors of social services to pass on to their staff. Copies are available in the Library.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in ensuring that children in custody are protected by the Children Act 1989. [114734]

  Jacqui Smith
  The duties of councils with social services responsibilities towards children, including those in prisons, are set out in the Children Act 1989 and its associated regulations and guidance.

  The Department of Health is working with the Home Office, the Youth Justice Board and the Prison Service to consider the implications of Mr. Justice Munby's judgment in the recent judicial review case brought by the Howard League, together with Recommendation 2.8 of the Joint Chief Inspectors' report, "Safeguarding Children" (October 2002), which states that:
  "The Home Office and Youth Justice Board should:
  Issue revised guidance to the prison service and the ACPC member organisations on the requirements and arrangements to safeguard children in prisons and Young Offender Institutions."

  Note:

  ACPC—Area Child Protection Committee.

  Children's National Service Framework
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether targets to improve the treatment of specific common conditions will be included in the Children's National Service Framework. [114765]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Children's National Service Framework will set out standards for a wide range of children's and young people's services. Rather than 852W
  address specific conditions and related targets, the standards are likely to outline what support should be available to children and their parents in managing a range of conditions and problems. This will emphasise the promotion of evidence-based clinical guidelines and will provide examples of good practice.

  Continuing Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his Answer of 8 May 2003,Official Report, column 867W, on continuing care funding, what the procedure is for estimating the numbers of people who may have been wrongly denied continuing care; what the estimates are for each area; and what estimate he has made of the cost of the care which was wrongly denied. [113352]

  Jacqui Smith
  The procedure is based on local information about the nursing home population. The estimate of numbers and costs have not yet been completed.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 8 May 2003,Official Report, column 867W, on continuing care funding, how many strategic health authorities were contacted by his Department to seek out further information regarding their continuing care guidance; and if he will make a statement. [113414]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 15 May 2003]: The Department contacted all strategic health authorities.

  Criminal Offences
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new criminal offences have been created in legislation drawn up by his Department since 1997. [109537]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department of Health has created 74 criminal offences in legislation passed since 1997, of which 26 criminal offences replace those contained in earlier legislation. A list of the legislation and the offences has been placed in the Library.

  Departmental Underspending
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to reduce his Department's underspend in 2003–04 from that of 2002–03. [112772]

  Mr. Hutton
  The 2003 Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses, published on Tuesday 6 May, shows a current estimated underspend of £227 million in 2002–03, this is less than 0.4 per cent, of total provision. Planned spending for 2003–04 will be published in the departmental report.

  Enuresis
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which standards in the Children's National Service Framework will cover improving the treatment of enuresis and paediatric continence. [114766]

  Jacqui Smith
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on 28 April 2003,Official Report, column 87W.

  European Working Groups
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress with achieving transparency in respect of the European working groups for which his Department is responsible. [105741]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Government have long been committed to greater openness in European Union institutions. This was a key theme of the United Kingdom's presidencies in 1992 and 1998. Making it easier to gain access to non-sensitive documents is crucial to this. The Government welcomed Regulation 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents. As a result, more documents are released to the public, while genuinely sensitive documents are given the protection they need.

  Accountability and transparency of council business to Parliament are ensured by the scrutiny process, to which the Government are also firmly committed.

  We strongly supported the measures agreed at the Seville European Council to make the Council more open when in legislating mode. We remain committed to increasing transparency. The Future of Europe Convention is also looking at ways to make the EU more open.

  Foundation Hospitals
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether foundation hospitals will provide services unavailable in normally-funded hospitals. [114005]

  Mr. Hutton
  National Health Service foundation trusts will be established with the principal purpose of providing NHS services to NHS patients. Services in NHS foundation trusts will, as now, be commissioned by primary care trusts.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals he estimates will have Foundation Status by April 2004. [114869]

  Mr. Hutton
  Subject to legislation, the first wave of national health service foundation trusts will be established in April 2004. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced in his written statement on 14 May 2003,Official Report, columns 9–10WS, 29 NHS trusts are entering the preparatory stage for NHS foundation trust status. Each application for NHS foundation trust status will need the support of the Secretary of State. The applications will be submitted by autumn 2003.

  Framework Convention for Tobacco Control
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the state of negotiations over the Framework Convention for Tobacco Control, and his policy on it. [112841]

  Ms Blears
  Negotiations first began on the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in 2000 and the final negotiating round concluded on 1 March 2003 with the production of a draft text for transmission to the World Health Assembly. The text is due to be agreed by consensus at the World Health Assembly. The Government indicated its support for this World Health 854W
  Organisation initiative in the 1998 White Paper, Smoking Kills. Since then, the Government has been firmly committed to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control and the Government intends to support its adoption.

  Fresh Air Charter
  Mr. Mike Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will meet the British Asthma Society to discuss the Breath of Fresh Air Charter; and if he will make a statement. [111112]

  Mr. Tim Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has responded to the National Asthma Campaign's Ten Point Charter for asthma sufferers. [110659]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 6 May 2003]: The charter was launched by the National Asthma Campaign on 6 May and sets out ten rights that a person with asthma might expect from the National Health Service. During an adjournment debate on the same day I welcomed the publication of the charter and outlined progress on developing asthma care.

  Health Indicators
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to address the impact of health indicators on differences in life expectancy between different London boroughs. [113910]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Government has a Public Service Agreement target to reduce inequalities in health outcomes by 10 per cent., as measured by infant mortality and life expectancy at birth. In order to track progress towards this high level target, local indicators can be used to assess the effect of action on geographical health inequalities. The process of developing the London Health Strategy included identifying a set of 10 such indicators that would be used to measure changes over time and to monitor progress towards reducing health inequalities. This includes an indicator on life expectancy at birth.

  The indicators can be used to contribute to a picture of inequalities in health across London's population, including variations between London boroughs and to establish whether action taken is having the desired effect.

  Health Service Finance
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 6 March 2003,Official Report, column 1210W, on health service finance, what the deficit was for each NHS trust in England at the beginning of the current financial year; and what his most recent estimate is of the deficit of each of the trusts by the end of the financial year. [102989]

  Mr. Hutton
  At the beginning of the current financial year, all national health service trusts planned a breakeven or better position, except Royal United Bath NHS trust (£15 million deficit) and United Bristol Healthcare NHS trust (£9.4 million deficit).
  855W
  The audited information in respect of the 2002–03 financial performance of all NHS trusts will be published in their individual annual accounts. The audited information will be available centrally in autumn 2003. We have no plans to publish national, in year, unaudited financial information. These figures are considered to be exempt under Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Health Service Ombudsman
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which strategic health authorities are seeking legal advice regarding the health service ombudsman report on continuing care; and what estimate his Department has made of the number of people that may have been forced to sell their homes to pay for care. [113413]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 15 May 2003]: All strategic health authorities have been advised to take legal advice when drawing up new criteria for continuing care.

  The Department has made no estimate of the number of people who may have sold their homes following a decision that the national health service would not fully finance continuing care.

  Hospital Smoking Areas
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in which hospitals smoking rooms or areas for(a) patients and (b) staff have been built in each year since 1997; and what the cost of building work was in each case. [114501]

  Mr. Hutton
  These data are not collected centrally.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the number of people with learning disabilities who may lose entitlement to housing benefit as a result of their accommodation being registered as a care home by the National Care Standards Commission. [113968]

  Jacqui Smith
  There was no intention through the Care Standards Act to widen the scope of regulation to new types of accommodation that had not previously been required to register as care homes. The type of care provided in a home, which will trigger registration is fundamentally unchanged. We have not, therefore, made an assessment.

  Whether a particular establishment needs to register as a care home is a matter for the National Care Standards Commission (NCSC). Statutory guidance was issued to the NCSC in August 2002 explaining in broad terms where registration as a care home is required and how to distinguish care homes from supported housing of various kinds. Proprietors can appeal against decisions they don't agree with.

  Long-term Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to publicise the Health Service Ombudsman Report on NHS funding for Long Term Care to the public. [113032]
  856W
  Jacqui Smith
  All strategic health authorities have been advised by the Department to take appropriate measures to make local people aware that a review of enquires arising from the Ombudsman's report is taking place.

  ME/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how the funding announced on 12 May for service development for people with myalgic encephalomyelitis and chronic fatigue syndrome will be distributed;[113655]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the level and range of service provision for people with myalgic encephalomyelitis and chronic fatigue syndrome. [113534]

  Jacqui Smith
  We have made no formal assessment of the level and range of service provision for people with myalgic encephalomyelitis and chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS/ME). Part of the process of developing the independent working group's report on CFS/ME was to look at the level of service provision. We have also given Action for ME £66,000 from Section 64 funding for their Statutory Service Models project that will undertake a mapping exercise to identify existing services.

  The funding of £8.5 million, announced on May 12, will be used to develop services for people with CFS/ME. In July, health organisations will be invited to bid for development funds to set up centres of expertise to develop clinical care, support clinical research and expand education and training programmes for health care professionals. The first phase of development will commence in April 2004.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has commissioned to assess how far(a) inadequate treatment and (b) misdiagnosis based on a rigid biomedical diagnostic framework leads to (i) mental anguish, (ii) suicide and (iii) illegal drug use. [114322]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department has not commissioned any such research.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what specific training(a) there is and (b) is planned for health practitioners which highlights gender differences in mental illness; what the training consists of; and when it is offered. [114534]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information on what specific training there is for health practitioners which highlights gender differences in mental illness, what the training consists of and when it is offered is not held centrally. The forthcoming implementation guidance for the women's mental health strategy will make recommendations that will assist services to develop local training initiatives. As part of developing an implementation programme to support this, we will need to work with the workforce development confederations to consider what the education and training needs are of the mental health workforce around gender and gender differences.
  857W
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to amend the mental health national service framework to reflect gender specific recommendations. [114536]

  Jacqui Smith
  There are no plans to amend the mental health national service framework to reflect gender specific recommendations. The forthcoming implementation guidance for the women's mental health strategy focuses on the mainstreaming of gender and women's mental health and forms part of the Department's commitment to address inequalities in the delivery of mental health services and to tackle discrimination and disadvantage.

  Midwives
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list maternity units in England, indicating(a) the number of whole-time equivalent midwives needed to meet the Birthrate Plus standard, (b) the number of WTE midwife posts funded in 2002–03 and (c) the number of WTE midwives in post in 2002–03. [113133]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 19 May 2003]: The maternity records collected through the hospital episodes statistics (HES) system are only identified to a trust level, rather than to any specific unit within the trust. The information requested on maternity units is therefore not available.

  Birthrate Plus is a tool for assessing work force requirements in maternity units. Work done for the maternity and neonatal work force group, using Birthrate Plus data for a range of different type of maternity unit, suggests that, by 2005, the projected future supply of trained midwives at least meets future demand.

  Information on the number of midwifery posts by unit is not collected centrally. As at September 2001, the latest available data, there were 23,080 qualified midwives employed in the national health service in England. As at March 2002, there were 530 vacancies lasting three months or more for midwives.

  NHS Funding
  Mr. Paul Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 6 May,Official Report, columns 657–8W, on eligibility criteria, when he expects to be in a position to estimate (a) the number of people, (b) the estimated costs and (c) the number of continuing care criteria that have been needed to be changed since the publication of the second report of the Health Service Ombudsman, on NHS funding for long-term care of older and disabled people, HC399, ession 2002–03; and what steps he will take to inform honourable Members of these estimates. [112906]

  Jacqui Smith
  We expect to be in a position to estimate the number of people entitled to receive compensation and the estimated cost of this compensation later this year.

  All strategic health authorities (SHAs) were asked in August 2002, to agree with local councils one set of criteria for continuing care for each SHA area, in line with the guidance issued by the Department of Health in
  858W
  June 2001. This process was already underway at the time of the publication of the second report of the Health Service Ombudsman.

  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the operating surplus or deficit was of each NHS hospital trust in the last year for which figures are available. [111539]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information on operating surplus or deficit for each National Health Service hospital trust in 2001–03, the last year for which figures are available, has been placed in the Library.

  NHS Pay
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures will be put in place to ensure that low-paid NHS workers(a) have a wage floor and (b) earn an adequate wage; and if he will make a statement on the support available. [112831]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Government is committed to tackling low pay in the National Health Service. As part of NHS pay awards for 2002–03, extra resources were targeted to give proportionally greater pay increases to the lowest paid National Health Service staff. From 1 April 2002, all non-medical staff groups received an increase of either 3.6 per cent., or 400 if greater. There was also a range of targeted action focused on the lower paid. This gave a new national minimum hourly rate for staff directly employed by the NHS of £4.47 from 1 April 2002.

  The minimum national adult rate, excluding trainees, has increased since 1997 from £3.46 an hour to £4.47 an hour; an increase of 29 per cent. in cash terms for staff directly employed in the NHS.

  A proposed agreement on pay modernisation for NHS non-medical staff, Agenda for Change, was published on 3 March.2003 Staff organisations are currently consulting their members on the proposed agreement. If ratified, the agreement will, when implemented, provide a new minimum wage for directly employed staff of £10,100 (at 2002–03 pay levels), equivalent to £5.16 an hour. This will represent an 11 per cent, increase in basic starting salary for the lowest paid. Subject to the outcome of consultation, the proposed agreement will be implemented in a number of "early implementer' sites from June 2003 and nationally from October 2004. Under the proposed agreement, rates of pay will in addition be uplifted by 10 per cent, over the next three years, compared with the 2002–03 level set out above.

  The information in this answer relates to England, although the Agenda for Change proposals apply across the United Kingdom. Pay for NHS staff in Scotland and Wales is a matter for the devolved administrations. Whilst the institutions in Northern Ireland are dissolved, responsibility rests with Ministers In the Northern Ireland Office.

  NHS Trusts
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the salary of the Chief Executive of each NHS trust in England is. [113079]
  859W
  Mr. Hutton
  Information relating to the salaries of National Health Service trust chief executives is not collected centrally. Information on chief executives' salaries is included in the accounts for individual trusts, which are published locally.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what circumstances the chair of a strategic health authority can be required to resign his or her post. [112789]

  Mr. Hutton
  There are no statutory procedures for requiring that a strategic health authority chair resigns his or her post. Resignation is a matter for the individual chair involved. Regulation 8(4) of the Health Authorities (Membership and Procedure) Regulation 1996 provides that:

  "If the Secretary of State is of the opinion that:
  (a) it is not in the interests of the health service in the area for which an Authority acts: or
  (b) it is not conducive to the good management of an authority, for a person whom he has appointed as the chairman or a member of that Authority to continue to hold that office, the Secretary of State may forthwith terminate his tenure of office."

  The Secretary of State has delegated his authority to terminate an appointment to the National Health Service Appointments Commission.

  Nightingale Wards
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much of the modernisation programme announced on Wednesday 8 May 2002 has been spent; and how many Nightingale wards remain open. [110175]

  Mr. Hutton
  It was announced, in August 2001, that £120 million would be made available over a three-year period as part of a modernisation programme to eliminate Nightingale wards for older people. All funding has been allocated and refurbishment work is underway. When building works are complete, 319 Nightingale wards will have been eliminated, of which 236 are Nightingale wards for older people.

  Data on how many Nightingale wards in total remain open is not collected centrally.

  Nurse Practitioners
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses are training to become nurse practitioners. [110950]

  Mr. Hutton
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Oldchurch Hospital
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what procedures should be followed if an anaesthetist disagrees with a consultant surgeon regarding the treatment of a patient under their care. [113466]

  Mr. Hutton
  Relationships between surgeons and anaesthetists are governed by guidance set out by the General Medical Council, on professional working between all clinicians. The guidance 'Good Medical Practice', Third Edition May 2001, outlines the procedures clinicians should follow if they feel another health care professional may be putting a patient at risk.
  860W
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to investigate complaints made about procedures at Oldchurch hospital, following the resignation of a locum consultant surgeon at Oldchurch hospital in Romford; what discussions he has held with(a) the Barking, Havering and Redbridge NHS trusts and (b) the Clinical Director at Oldchurch hospital on the matter; and if he will make a statement. [113467]

  Mr. Hutton
  I have no plans to investigate these complaints. This is an internal matter for Barking, Havering and Redbridge hospitals national health service trust.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ensure the speedy appointment of a new locum consultant surgeon at Oldchurch hospital in Romford. [113470]

  Mr. Hutton
  This is an internal matter for Barking, Havering and Redbridge hospitals national health service trust.

  Primary Care Trusts.
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how long he expects it will take for each primary care trust to reach its target funding levels. [114585]

  Mr. Hutton
  We consider our allocations policy for each round of allocations in the light of all the circumstances at that time.

  We are committed to bringing primary care trusts to their target allocations as soon as is practicable, consistent with all primary care trusts having sufficient extra funding to enable them to deliver on national and local priorities.

  Protective Equipment
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 14 April,Official Report, column 621W, on protective equipment, if he will make a statement on the mid-March review and assessment of readiness by NHS trusts for responding to incidents. [111370]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department of Health has recently completed its comprehensive review of National Health Service major incident plans. This review took into consideration conclusions reached by the National Audit Office in Facing the Challenge: NHS Emergency Planning in England. Preliminary analysis from this review has shown that all NHS bodies have addressed the concerns that caused them to assess themselves as not "well prepared"; they now all assess themselves as at least "prepared".

  The outcome from the review will be used to develop a programme of work to further enhance NHS preparedness.

  All NHS trusts with accident and emergency (A and E) departments and ambulance services are "prepared" to respond to chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear incidents. A programme to replace faulty personal protective equipment is well underway and all appropriate trusts have received at least 50 per cent. of

  861W
  their modified suits. A further batch of suits have been purchased which will provide each A and E department with additional supplies.

  Radiographers
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many radiographers there are in the NHS; how many posts are vacant; and how many radiographers worked in the NHS in 1997;[114119]

  (2) what plans he has to increase the number of radiographers in the NHS. [114120]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Government is committed to increasing the number of radiographers employed in the National Health Service. The NHS Plan states that, by 2004, there will be an extra 6,500 more therapists and other health professionals employed in the NHS over 1999 levels, including radiographers. Between September 1997 and 2001, the number of diagnostic radiographers increased by 800, or 8 per cent., from 10,360 to 11,160 and therapeutic radiographers increased by 130, or 9 per cent., from 1,410 to 1,540.

  To further increase the future radiography workforce, we are substantially increasing the numbers of training places. Since 1997, there has been an overall 63 per cent. increase in radiography training commissions from 582 to 948 and these will be increased further as part of the NHS Plan commitment for an extra 4,450 more training places for therapists and other key professional staff by 2004.

  The Department of Health collects information on the number of vacancies that have lasted for three months or more in the NHS workforce vacancies survey. In March 2002, there were 530 diagnostic radiographer posts and 130 therapeutic radiographer posts vacant for three months or more.

  Working Time Directive
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost to the NHS in(a) financial terms and (b) staffing of including on call time within the 48 hour week provided for by the European Working Time Directive. [110945]

  Mr. Hutton
  Implementation of the European Working Time Directive requires the hours of work of doctors training to reduce to 58 hours from August 2004 and to 48 hours by 2009, or 2012 with an extension. While the number of doctors on an individual rota on call will generally have to increase to implement the 2004 requirements, the intention of the Department's guidance—HSC 2003/001: Protecting Staff, Delivering Services—Implementing the European Working Time Directive for Doctors in Training—is that trusts should find ways to reduce the number of resident rotas. Thus the total staffing requirement and costs do not increase substantially as a result of the Working Time Directive.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Traffic Wardens
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 21 March 862W
  2003, Official Report, column 966W, on traffic wardens, what the total pay costs for traffic wardens were in each year since 1997. [113436]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Detailed information on total pay costs is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  It is however estimated that there are currently about 2,000 traffic wardens employed by police authorities in England and Wales, over a third of this total being employed in the Metropolitan Police District. While average salary costs nationwide are not available, I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the cost of one Metropolitan Police traffic warden is at present approximately £18,500 a year. Since costs in the Metropolitan Police District are likely to be substantially higher than elsewhere, the total national pay cost should not exceed £37 million.

  Anti-social Behaviour Bill
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research informed the proposed extension of the maximum duration of supervision orders under paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 2 to the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill. [112131]

  Paul Goggins
  This proposal would increase the maximum number of days a young offender may be required to comply with specific directions under a supervision order from 90 to 180 days. They typically cover attendance at offending behaviour programmes, educational or training activities, reparation and specialised programmes such as alcohol and drug awareness.

  Together with an extension of curfew order powers this would enable us to strengthen the Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme. This programme is designed for persistent and serious young offenders, and provides a substantial community alternative to custody.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to ensure that information on UK legislation on(a) sexual offences and (b) the age of consent is available to (i) refugees and (ii) asylum seekers in the UK. [113728]

  Beverley Hughes
  Asylum seekers and refugees do not receive specific information from the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) regarding sexual offences or the age of consent. However, asylum seekers attending the IND induction centre at Dover receive briefing on their rights and responsibilities. This material has been developed in collaboration with the voluntary sector and police.

  Cannabis
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made of the prevalence of use of cannabis by 11 to 18-year-olds, and if he will make a statement;[114406]
  863W
  (2) what recent representations he has received from residents of the London borough of Lambeth on the Metropolitan Police Service's response to persons found to be in possession of cannabis; and if he will make a statement;[114407]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the introduction of legislation to re-classify cannabis; and what recent representations he has received on his proposal to re-classify cannabis;[114405]

  (4) what recent representations he has received from (a) Drugscope and (b) Lifeline (Manchester) about drugs misuse issues with particular reference to cannabis; and what assessment he has made about the efficacy of advice provided on drugs misuse in reducing overall drugs misuse among young people and children;[114403]

  (5) what assessment he has made of medical evidence on (a) the detrimental effects of fat-soluble tetrahydrocannabinol on the functioning of cell membranes in the human body, (b) the increased incidence of (i) depression, (ii) psychosis and (iii) schizophrenia and (c) reduced driving ability, in persons using cannabis;[114409]

  (6) what research he has evaluated on cannabis being a gateway drug among 11 to 18-year-olds; and what assessment he has made of research on whether regular users of cannabis are more likely to proceed to use Class A drugs;[114401]

  (7) what assessment he has made of the health implications of the increasing proportion of tetrahydrocannabinol in commonly used cannabis; whether this change will influence his policy on drug misuse; and if he will make a statement;[114408]

  (8) what research he has evaluated on the effects on (a) law enforcement and (b) public health of the relaxation of drugs policy by the authorities in the Netherlands; and if he will make a statement. [114402]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The advice of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (AMD) that cannabis should be reclassified to Class C under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has accepted, was based on a detailed study of the available scientific literature covering all relevant aspects of the issue, including epidemiology and risks to health. Although products with cannabis remains illegal and controlled—it is a harmful drug. Higher concentrations of the main psychoactive ingredient. tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), became available during the late 1980s and 1990s, there has generally been a very wide variation in the THC levels found in cannabis, and this continues to be the case and the Advisory Council Misuse of Drugs took this into consideration in the advice they gave.

  The Government give close attention to developments on drugs laws and polices in other countries within the framework of the United Nations Conventions of 1961 and 1971. Government representatives regularly attend a variety of international fora at which information and ideas are exchanged with other Governments. The Government note the policy being followed in the Netherlands in respect of cannabis. So far as the United Kingdom is concerned, the proposal to reclassify
  864W
  cannabis to Class C provides the best prospect for putting out a credible message to young people about drugs, based on a scientific assessment of the relative harm they cause, and for putting a clear focus on Class A drugs, the ones which do the most harm to individuals and to society.

  The '2001–02 British Crime Survey'—the latest year for which results are available—estimated that 25 per cent. of 16 to 18-year-olds had taken cannabis in the last year. The 'Drug use, smoking and drinking among young people in England in 2001' survey estimated that 13 per cent. of school children aged between 11 and 15 had taken cannabis in the last year. Copies of both surveys can be found in the Library.

  There have been no recent UK studies that have looked specifically at cannabis as a gateway drug among teenagers. However, some relevant analysis has been undertaken which examined wider progression from one group of drugs to another. It used the 1998–99 Youth Lifestyles Survey, which questioned 3,700 young people aged between 12 and 30 years. The analysis examined progression from a group of drugs, including cannabis, LSD, amphetamines, amylnitrate and magic mushrooms, to a group of highly dangerous drugs, including heroin, crack and methadone. When social and psychological factors, such as disturbed family background and disadvantaged location, were taken into account, little evidence was found for a gateway effect caused by use of the first group of drugs.

  This analysis can be found in Home Office Research Study 253 entitled: 'The Road to Ruin? Sequences of Initiation into Drug Use and Offending by Young People in Britain'. Copies of this report can be found in the Library.

  The report of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs on the classification of cannabis provides a detailed assessment of the medical evidence with regard to the possible effects of cannabis use on health. A summary of the findings is contained in Chapter 4. A copy of the Council's report, 'The classification of cannabis under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971', with bibliographical references, is in the Library.

  An Order in Council is needed to change the classification of any controlled drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Such an Order is subject to the draft affirmative resolution procedure. My right hon. Friend intends that a draft Order to amend the Act to reclassify cannabis will be debated in Parliament in good time for changes to the penalties for trafficking Class C drugs proposed in the Criminal Justice Bill being approved and taking effect.

  My right hon. Friend and I regularly receive written representations from right hon. and hon. Members and members of the public about the Government's proposal to reclassify cannabis.

  We have not received any recent representations from Drugscope or Lifeline (Manchester) about drugs misuse issues with particular reference to cannabis.

  We have received a few letters from residents of Lambeth in the past year concerning cannabis issues generally. Issues have also been raised in discussion by constituency MPs for the area and its surroundings.

  Charities
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what representations he has received about(a) the proposed Charities Bill and (b) charitable incorporated organisations; [114573]

  (2) when legislation will be introduced to enable the formation of charitable incorporated organisations. [114572]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 19 May 2003]: The Charitable Incorporated Organisation would be brought into existence by a Charities Bill. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary recently promised to publish a draft Bill as soon as possible.

  The Strategy Unit's recent review of charity law and regulation (Private Action, Public Benefit), was put out for public consultation late last year. Officials have nearly completed an analysis of the approximately 1,100 written responses to the consultation. Initial analysis of the responses indicates clear support for a Charities Act and for the Charitable Incorporated Organisation legal form. The Government intends in the summer to publish a summary of the views expressed by respondents to the consultation together with an indication of how the Government intends to take the recommendations forward.

  Classified Documents
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many documents are held by his Department that are subject to security classification, broken down by category of classification. [107343]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The information could be provided only at disproportionate cost. My Department follows the Cabinet Office guidance on document marking and control.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department with reference to his letter to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton of 7 April 2003 about the letter from the right hon. Member of 27 September 2002, with regard to Mr.Winston Frank Tracey, why he has not yet replied to that letter. [113440]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 20 May 2003.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the cost of the Criminal Records Bureau referred to by the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State during the adjournment debate of 23rd July 2002,Official Report,

  Disclosures received and issued by month

  Net receipts

  (e) Returned to organisation

  (b)(i) Standard disclosures issued

  (b)(ii) Enhanced disclosures issued

  (f) Total disclosures issued

  March 2002

  2,306

  459

  22

  20

  42

  April 2002

  34,301

  5,412

  409

  2,389

  2,798

  May 2002

  82,821

  5,044

  2,070

  17,376

  19,446

  June 2002

  88,442

  1,762

  4,315

  30,585

  34,900

  866W
  column 199WH, fall during the period of the cost recovery plan; and whether the estimate of the costs has changed. [112037]

  Paul Goggins
  £406 million (44 per cent) of the £930 million Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) costs fall during the period of the cost recovery plan.

  Until the contract negotiations with the principal business partner have been completed and a revised business plan produced it is not possible to state whether this estimate of costs has changed.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the Criminal Record Bureau's revised forecasts of demand for(a) standard and (b) enhanced disclosures are for (i) 2003–04 and (ii) 2004–05. [112043]

  Paul Goggins
  Demand for Higher-level Disclosures in 2003–04 are forecast to be 2.6 million, 2.21 million Enhanced Disclosures and 390 thousand Standard Disclosures. Demand for Higher-level Disclosures in 2004–05 are forecast to be 3 million, 2.55 million Enhanced and 450 thousand Standards.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much it cost to implement the paper-based application route for the Criminal Records Bureau. [112045]

  Paul Goggins
  The Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) paid £2,106,667 to Capita in respect of a Contract Change Note to implement the paper-based application route. It is estimated that a further £7.1 million has been spent by the CRB in respect of its additional operating costs.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each month since the Criminal Records Bureau started operations the(a) number of applications received, (b) the number of (i) standard and (ii) enhanced disclosures issued, (c) the number of applications outstanding, (d) the number of applications outstanding for more than (A) three weeks, (B) six weeks and (C) nine weeks, (e) the number of applications returned to registered bodies and (f) the number of total disclosures issued. [112046]

  Paul Goggins
  The following table details a breakdown of the total number of disclosures received and cleared by the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) in three weeks, six weeks and nine weeks since March 2002, up to the end of April 2003. Not all the information sought by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam is available in the format requested. There are no IT procedures at present to differentiate between Standard and Enhanced Disclosures that are outstanding and figures representing the breakdown of those applications that were outstanding for longer than three, six and nine weeks are not available any earlier than November 2002.
  867W

  Disclosures received and issued by month

  Net receipts

  (e) Returned to organisation

  (b)(i) Standard disclosures issued

  (b)(ii) Enhanced disclosures issued

  (f) Total disclosures issued

  July 2002

  134,206

  25,187

  12,828

  76,258

  89,086

  August 2002

  129,049

  14,981

  14,116

  96,295

  110,411

  September 2002

  185,153

  19,715

  16,613

  118,505

  135,118

  October 2002

  208,784

  18,556

  22,620

  159,226

  181,846

  November 2002

  171,893

  15,570

  23,257

  159,199

  182,456

  December 2002

  138,454

  13,330

  22,347

  148,707

  171,054

  January 2003

  144,538

  16,330

  18,251

  152,442

  170,693

  February 2003

  161,286

  16,938

  20,816

  142,330

  163,146

  March 2003

  174,832

  20,667

  21,814

  158,915

  180,729

  April 2003

  151,676

  18,602

  19,700

  140,259

  159,959

  Total

  1,807,741

  192,553

  199,178

  1,402,506

  1,601.684

  (d)(A) 0–3 weeks

  (d)(B) 3–6 weeks

  (d)(C) Over 6 weeks

  (c) Total

  November 2002

  77,147

  47,152

  139,232

  263,531

  December 2002

  59,960

  39,009

  152,365

  251,334

  January 2003

  78,782

  13,796

  133,861

  226,439

  February 2003

  83,574

  25,409

  91,789

  200,772

  March 2003

  88,326

  20,128

  69,822

  178,276

  April 2003

  76,299

  20,807

  21,147

  118,253

  In order to process a Disclosure application the CRB requires a correctly completed application form. Where forms are incomplete or incorrectly completed, they are returned to the applicant or to the Registered Body.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Criminal Records Bureau has commissioned a review of the code provided by Capita. [112098]

  Paul Goggins
  To date, the Criminal Records Bureau has not commissioned a review of the code provided by Capita and there are no current plans to do so in the future.

  Departmental Pay
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his Answer of 8 April 2003, Official Report, column 208W, on departmental pay, if he will place a copy of his action plan in the Library. [112322]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The Home Office has submitted its Equal Pay action plan to Cabinet Office for consideration and will place a copy of that plan in the Library once any arising discussions with Cabinet Office have been concluded.

  Devolution
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with officials from the devolved administrations in(a) Scotland and (b) Wales concerning their support for umbrella registered bodies. [112038]

  Paul Goggins
  Home Office officials are in regular contact with their counterparts in the devolved administrations in Scotland and Wales about a variety of matters relating to the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) and Disclosure Scotland, including support for umbrella registered bodies to help facilitate access to the Disclosure service by voluntary organisations. We are 868W
  exploring with the CRB's Voluntary and Community Sector Working Group cost-effective ways of improving access to the Disclosure service by voluntary organisations in England.

  Drug Addicts (Rehabilitation)
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the level of rehabilitation treatment available for(a) heroin addicts and (b) crack cocaine addicts after custodial sentences have been served for drug related crimes. [113744]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Government's Updated Drug Strategy recognises the need for effective Throughcare and Aftercare for substance misusers leaving treatment or prison. A comprehensive programme of interventions is being implemented to address the treatment needs of drug misusing offenders at every point of contact in the criminal justice system.

  The Prison Service programme Counselling, Assessment, Referral, Advice and Throughcare services (CARATs) offers comprehensive assessments of prisoners with drug problems todetermine individual needs during custody and on release.

  Aftercare and rehabilitation have become part of the package of care for substance misusers leaving treatment or prison.Those recovering from addiction or other drug related problems will be given the support and help to meet their needs.

  Regular assessments are made of the availability and quality of drug treatment at a local level, including treatment for ex-prisoners, by the National Treatment Agency (NTA). It has been given the authority to set standards and monitor both the commissioning and delivery of drug treatment, so that by 2008 we will have doubled the capacity and be in a position to treat 200,000 problematic drug users each year.

  E-Government Projects
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by project the consultancies his Department and its non-departmental public bodies have used on e-government projects since 1 January 2001. [114185]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 16 May 2003]: The information required is not readily available and to provide a full answer would incur disproportionate cost.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the target is for efficiency savings in 2003–04 expressed(a) in money terms and (b) as a percentage of the Department's expenditure limit. [114125]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The Home Office's target for efficiency savings is to realise by the end of 2005–06 improvements in value for money which are equivalent to at least 3 per cent. of its expenditure in 2002–03, excluding grants to the police. As explained in the published technical notes to the Home Office targets which are available on the Home Office website. Efficiency gains are one particular type of value for money improvement and no separate target has been set for them. The value for money improvements which must be achieved by 2005–06 to meet the target is £210 million.

  Illegal Immigrants
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of those currently charged with criminal offences in the United Kingdom are in the country illegally. [89433]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 14 January 2003]: Information on the number of persons charged is not collected centrally within England and Wales.

  Information held centrally on the number of persons arrested for notifiable offences within England and Wales does not identify either the nationality or the immigration status of the arrestee.

  Where a person subject to immigration control who has been arrested in connection with a minor offence is found to be present in the United Kingdom without leave and can be removed immediately, our normal policy would be to remove them rather than to institute criminal proceedings.

  Data for persons charged with criminal offences within Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly respectively.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many of his staff have taken sick leave due to mental health problems in the last year;[111983]

  (2) how many sick days were lost over the last year by his Department through staff mental health problems. [111997]

  Mr. Blunkett
  16,757 working days were lost in the Home Office due to sickness absence caused by mental health problems in the calendar year 2002.

  Also in that year, 445 Home Office staff took sick leave due to mental health problems under the definitions supplied by the Cabinet Office. The figure represents 2.69 per cent of those staff who were absent through illness in 2002.
  870W
  A wide-ranging review of sickness absence and ill health retirement is due to report shortly.

  These figures exclude the Prison Service and the United Kingdom Passport Service).

  Mersey Tunnels
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the assessment by his Department's officials of reports of investigations following the deaths of Darren Franey and Scott Veach to be completed. [114197]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Consideration of the investigation report in regards to the effective policing of Mersey Tunnels is currently in progress.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for he Home Department whether he has established terms of reference for work to be taken forward by Home Office and Department of Transport officials regarding Mersey Tunnels policing. [114509]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Home Office officials are working closely with colleagues from the Department of Transport with the objective of ensuring that the best arrangements for the safe and effective policing of the Mersey Tunnels are in place.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to receive the views of(a) Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary, (b) the Chief Constable of Merseyside Police and (c) the Chief Executive of Merseytravel regarding the policing of the Mersey tunnels. [114196]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  I have already received the views of Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary and the Chief Constable of Merseyside Police. The Chief Executive of Merseytravel has indicated that he will not respond until the conclusion of the Judicial Review proceedings that Merseytravel have commenced.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the relationship between the Mersey Tunnels Police and the Police Complaints Authority, with special reference to section 78 of the Police Act 1996. [114123]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  There is no relationship between Mersey Tunnels Police and the Police Complaints Authority by virtue of Section 78 of the Police Act 1996 nor any similar agreement outside of that legislation.

  Special Constables
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many special constables have been in place in each English police force in each year since 1996. [114307]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The data requested, as at March 1996–2002, are set out in the table.

  Since March 1998, information on the strength of special constabularies for each police force has been published in the Home Office Statistical Bulletins on police strength in England and Wales, copies of which are available in the Library.

  871W

  Special constable strength in England by police force area

  March

  Police force

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Avon and Somerset

  688

  759

  621

  547

  459

  400

  364

  Bedfordshire

  189

  182

  186

  154

  151

  115

  118

  Cambridgeshire

  275

  303

  320

  310

  274

  218

  207

  Cheshire

  274

  475

  459

  407

  350

  290

  191

  Cleveland

  195

  160

  164

  126

  128

  93

  85

  Cumbria

  201

  189

  198

  204

  176

  156

  102

  Derbyshire

  413

  428

  380

  317

  282

  275

  260

  Devon and Cornwall

  1,102

  1,148

  1,024

  918

  870

  796

  689

  Dorset

  254

  289

  315

  305

  298

  267

  253

  Durham

  187

  184

  144

  159

  157

  146

  134

  Essex

  608

  634

  638

  544

  483

  445

  381

  Gloucestershire

  330

  297

  276

  233

  206

  183

  154

  Greater Manchester

  746

  685

  598

  523

  457

  367

  338

  Hampshire

  564

  621

  698

  760

  615

  454

  444

  Hertfordshire

  315

  297

  306

  238

  216

  198

  206

  Humberside

  391

  340

  324

  269

  246

  212

  207

  Kent

  555

  589

  592

  526

  436

  392

  327

  Lancashire

  553

  483

  489

  449

  382

  360

  363

  Leicestershire

  360

  415

  406

  316

  247

  162

  143

  Lincolnshire

  299

  271

  260

  216

  195

  166

  155

  City of London

  77

  86

  76

  64

  56

  43

  36

  Merseyside

  333

  401

  419

  458

  476

  541

  468

  Metropolitan police

  1,850

  1,714

  1,282

  1138

  758

  774

  680

  Norfolk

  319

  402

  337

  336

  285

  259

  244

  Northamptonshire

  289

  316

  288

  230

  199

  188

  177

  Northumbria

  471

  533

  400

  342

  332

  300

  256

  North Yorkshire

  360

  362

  358

  276

  217

  182

  185

  Nottinghamshire

  537

  620

  558

  461

  411

  335

  341

  South Yorkshire

  381

  308

  281

  246

  205

  188

  206

  Staffordshire

  702

  685

  595

  468

  482

  402

  384

  Suffolk

  407

  379

  397

  420

  391

  349

  308

  Surrey

  260

  297

  235

  224

  175

  149

  187

  Sussex

  511

  472

  442

  393

  352

  306

  306

  Thames Valley

  744

  656

  609

  569

  472

  418

  356

  Warwickshire

  340

  381

  345

  261

  260

  221

  209

  WestMercia

  613

  582

  512

  515

  476

  399

  339

  West Midlands

  897

  945

  889

  731

  680

  617

  598

  West Yorkshire

  709

  690

  589

  559

  484

  415

  349

  Wiltshire

  233

  154

  149

  184

  173

  152

  147

  Total all forces in England

  18,532

  18,732

  17,159

  15,396

  13,512

  11,933

  10,897

  Source:

  Figures provided by Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate.

  GHB
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will review the legislation regarding the sale, production and possession of gamma hydroxy butyrate; and if he will make a statement. [114540]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Both Houses have recently approved an Order which will bring 4-Hydroxy-n-butyric acid, otherwise known as gammahyrdoxy-butrate or GHB, within the controls of Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 as a Class C drug. The provisions will come into effect on 1 July. From that date it will be a criminal offence to possess GHB unlawfully, and this will attract a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment.

  Prisons
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners at HMP Altcourse completed a cognitive behavioural therapy programme in 2001–02; and how the benefits of the programme were evaluated. [113430]
  872W
  Paul Goggins
  No cognitive behavioural therapy programmes were run at Her Majesty's Prison Altcourse in 2001–02. The first cognitive behavioural therapy programmes at Her Majesty's Prison Altcourse started in 2002–03.

  Replica Firearms
  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the Government are taking to reduce the(a) sale and (b) purchase of replica guns in the UK. [114079]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  It is difficult to devise a suitable working definition for the purposes of restricting the sale or purchase of replica firearms. We are, however, introducing in the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill a new offence of having an imitation firearm in a public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse.

  Sponsorship
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which of his Department's projects have received sponsorship in the last financial year; who
  873W
  the sponsor was in each case; what the nature of each project was; what time-period was covered by each project; what the total cost of each project was; how much money was involved in each sponsorship deal; and if he will make a statement. [112396]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Due to disproportionate costs we have been unable to obtain details of all sponsorship for the Home Office for 2002–03; however I am able to produce details of the major sponsorship projects undertaken.

  Name of sponsor

  Sponsorship value (£)

  Details

  Lycos

  37,000

  Provision of space for VCR campaign messages, logo and promotions on internet

  Tracker

  703,634

  Provision of space for VCR campaign messages and logo on website, advertising, commercial literature and exhibition space

  Stoplock/Saxon

  64,500

  Provision of space for VCR campaign messages and logo on website, point of sale material and on tamper-proof car tax disks

  Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders/Trackers/Stoplock

  17,000

  Provision of space for VCR campaign messages and logo within exhibition visitor guide

  RAC

  41,500

  Provision of space for VCR campaign messages on prerecorded advice line, commercial literature and website

  RAC Auto Windscreens

  425,430

  Provision of space for VCR campaign messages and logo on point of sale material in retail outlets and at trade exhibitions. Promotion of VCR campaign messages in media activity

  Retaina Group

  173,500

  Provision of space for VCR campaign messages and logo on website, point of sale material, commercial literature and on security marking products

  More Than

  176,000

  Provision of space for VCR campaign messages and logo on advertising, customer correspondence and promotion of VCR campaign messages in media activity

  NCP

  20,000

  Provision of space for VCR campaign messages and logo on advertising, promotional items and signage within carparks

  Auto Express

  35,000

  Provision of editorial space for VCR campaign messages

  Vauxhall

  6,000

  Provision of editorial space for VCR campaign messages in customer magazine

  Cornhill

  48,000

  Provision of space for VCR campaign messages and logo on customer correspondence

  Piaggio

  5,000

  Provision of space for VCR campaign messages and logo on after-sales customer promotional material

  The budgeted cost of the project was £5 million.

  Student Crime Reduction Campaign

  This was an initiative to raise awareness among students of their increased risk of being a victim of crime and to offer appropriate crime reduction advice. Activity took place in January 2003.

  Sponsor: National Union of Students (NUS)

  Provision of database of e-mail address of members of the NUS.

  Sponsorship value £15,000

  The total Home Office costs were £20,000 so including the value of sponsorship the overall cost was £35,000.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Footpaths
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what guidance his Department gives local authorities in relation to the adoption of footpaths. [112885]

  Formula Grant

  SSA/FSS

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  South-west

  2,973

  2,979

  3,276

  4,279

  4,361

  5,160

  South-east

  4,822

  4,844

  5,280

  7,096

  7,235

  8,456

  London

  7,035

  7,126

  7,629

  9,114

  9,326

  10,552

  Eastern

  3,426

  3,441

  3,762

  4,869

  4,963

  5,824

  874W
  Vehicle Crime Reduction Campaign

  During the financial year 2002–03 Commercial partners provided sponsorship support to the Home Office Vehicle Crime Reduction (VCR) Communications Campaign by extending the key messages of the campaign to their own customers and staff. The activity was ongoing throughout the period. The total sponsorship was £1,752,564. Detailed information on sponsors is in the table:

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  My Department has recently issued a Guidance Note to local authorities on the adoption of private streets and footpaths. I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Local Government Finance
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much(a) revenue support grant and (b) formula spending share/standard spending assessment was given to local authorities (i) in total and (ii) in each English region in (A) 2001–02, (B) 2002–03 and (C) 2003–04 (estimated). [113213]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Information on Formula Grant and Standard Spending Assessments/Formula Spending Shares is given in the following table. The total of Revenue Support Grant depends in part on early estimates of the National Non-Domestic Rate yield, which is particularly variable. The total of Formula Grant has been quoted instead, the total general funding provided to local authorities and the basis of the "floor and ceiling" limitations on grant changes. Formula Grant consists of Revenue Support Grant, National Non-Domestic Rates and Police Grant.
  875W

  Formual Grant

  SSA/FSS

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  East Midlands

  2,773

  2,785

  3,082

  3,747

  3,814

  4,523

  West Midlands

  3,930

  3,966

  4,367

  5,176

  5,278

  6,222

  Yorkshire and Humber

  3,801

  3,830

  4,187

  4,932

  5,019

  5,832

  North-east

  2,085

  2,107

  2,278

  2,641

  2,689

  3,088

  North-west

  5,378

  5,438

  5,954

  6,939

  7,077

  8,251

  Total

  36,223

  36,515

  39,815

  48,792

  49,762

  57,908

  Note:

  These data are not adjusted for changes in local authority functions.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the percentage increase was in(a) rate support and (b) NNDR to local authorities in 2003; what percentage of such increases will be taken up by (i) increases in national insurance, (ii) increased pension contributions, (iii) under funded public sector pay settlements and (iv) other duties and powers imposed but not funded by Government. [114545]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Under the Local Government Finance Settlement for 2003–04, Revenue Support Grant (RSG) increased by 15.3 per cent. and the National Non Domestic Rates (NNDR) Distributable Amount decreased by 6.2 per cent. NNDR and RSCl (along with Principal Formula Police Grant) are part of general grant which increased by 5.9 per cent. or £2.249 billion overall on a like for like basis.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister estimate the change in national insurance contributions will increase local authorities' pay costs on average by some £250 million. It is estimated that the 0.4 per cent. increase in employers contributions to the Teacher's Pension Scheme which local authorities have had to fund from within the 5.9 per cent. increase in general grant will add some £54 million to local authorities' revenue expenditure. These pressures add 0.73 per cent. to the 2002–03 adjusted baseline of £41.445 billion. If both are excluded, the increase in general grant would be 5.17 per cent. or £2.145 billion.

  The Spending Review 2000 took into account the results of the 1998 Local Government Pension Scheme valuation exercise and the forthcoming 2004 valuation exercise will inform SR2004. Pay settlements for local government staff are a matter for local authorities and the pay review bodies. It is expected that awards which take into account the overall increase in funding available to councils while reflecting the need to recruit and retain staff.

  The Government funds all new burdens placed on local authorities under the principle of New Burdens which requires Government to reimburse local authorities for any additional costs they face as a result of the imposition of new powers or duties. For example, the Spending Review made clear for the first time the burdens funded in the environmental, protective and cultural services and provided £82 million in year one for burdens such as the changes affecting the disposal of fridges. Following the Spending Review, we transferred funds into the settlement for burdens which could not be agreed at the time, such as an additional £50 million a year over the next three years for the implications for age-equalisation on the mandatory concessionary fares scheme.

  Media
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment has been made of the potential value of(a) film, (b) new media and (c) broadcasting to the UK economy; and if he will break down the results of each assessment by region. [114803]

  Dr. Howells
  I have been asked to reply.

  DCMS gathers information on the economic value of industry sectors from the Annual Business Inquiry (ABI) which is run by the Office for National Statistics. Data from the ABI is presented for Standard Industrial Classifications (SICs) and is not available at the level of detail required to answer the question precisely. We have therefore supplied information on the most relevant available industry classifications.

  In 2001 the gross value added of 'Motion picture and video activities' was £2,101 million and the gross value added of 'Radio and television activities' was £4,179 million. This represents 0.3 per cent. and 0.7 per cent. respectively of gross value added across the whole UK economy. There is no classification for 'New media'.

  Regional figures are only available for the approximate gross value added of the total of all industries defined by the SIC scheme as falling under 'recreational, cultural and sporting activities'.

  Planning Inquiries
  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list public planning inquiries in each of the last five years which took evidence for more than five weeks; how soon after the inquiry the inspector made his report to the Secretary of State in each case; and how long it took the Secretary of State to reach a decision in each case. [112356]

  Mr. McNulty
  The following table lists called-in planning applications and recovered appeals inquiries which began and sat for 20 or more days (equivalent to five weeks as inquiries do not normally sit on Mondays) in the period from 1 April 1998 to 31 March 2003 (it therefore does not include Heathrow Terminal 5). The cases, with the exception of Thameslink 2000, do not include Transport and Works Act cases (some of which include linked planning cases) as these are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh Central.

  The rules for planning appeals, which came into effect in August 2000, introduced the requirement for the appellant and local planning authority to prepare jointly

  877W
  a statement of common ground. The purpose of this document is to set out the agreed factual information about the proposal in advance of the inquiry, and so reduce the time taken on this when the inquiry opens.

  Site

  Inquiry duration (days)

  Start of inquiry

  Close of inquiry

  Report sent to Secretary of State

  Date of decision

  Shellhaven, Thurrock1

  —

  25 February 2003

  —

  —

  —

  Withdean Stadium, Brighton1

  —

  18 February 2003

  —

  —

  —

  MSAs M3,M4,M251

  —

  5 November 2002

  —

  —

  —

  MS As Ml, Leeds, Harrogate, Selby1

  —

  8 October 2002

  —

  —

  —

  Alconbury Airfield, Huntingdon

  43

  22 May 2001

  16 October 2001

  28 March 2003

  —

  Castlegate, York

  30

  15 January 2002

  9 August 2002

  6 February 2003

  —

  Finningley Airport, Doncaster

  58

  25 September 2001

  13 March 2002

  19 September 2002

  3 April 2003

  Cable Street, Liverpool2

  40

  6 November 2001

  22 February 2002

  2 July 2002

  5 September 2002

  MTL site Liveipool2

  40

  6 November 2001

  22 February 2002

  11 April 2002

  30 May 2002

  Adj M5, Tewkesbury

  20

  6 November 2001

  11 December 2001

  15 May 2002

  16 August 2002

  Heron Tower, Bishopsgate, London EC3

  21

  23 October 2001

  5 December 2001

  30 April 2002

  22 July 2002

  Thingwall Hall, Knowsley

  22

  22 August 2000

  29 January 2001

  6 March 2002

  9 September 2002

  Fulcrum and former Castle Donington Power Station

  28

  13 February 2001

  6 April 2001

  1 October 2001

  28 February 2002

  MSAs M42, Solihull3

  38

  30 November 1999

  16 June 2000

  17 October 2000

  6 March 2001

  Roaring Meg Retail Park, Stevenage

  21

  11 April 2000

  22 May 2000

  20 September 2000

  23 November 2000

  Flowers Brewery site, Cheltenham

  40

  28 September 1999

  15 December 1999

  9 July 2000

  12 September 2000

  Xanadu development, Wigan

  26

  1 September 1999

  9 March 2000

  16 August 2000

  20 August 2001

  Waterside Park, Tameside

  24

  6 July 1999

  17 December 1999

  16 May 2000

  30 November 2000

  Lamberhurst Farm, Faversham

  21

  3 February 1999

  10 March 1999

  3 August 1999

  30 August 2001

  Otterburn Training Camp

  26

  23 March 1999

  27 May 1999

  19 October 1999

  4 October 2001

  Aldbough, East Riding

  25

  16 February 1999

  28 April 1999

  5 October 1999

  17 February 2002

  TWA Thameslink 20004

  92

  27 June 2000

  16 May 2001

  10 January 2002

  29 January 2003

  1 Inquiries that have started and are estimated to sit for more than 20 days.

  2 These two inquiries ran concurrently although they related to different sites in Liverpool and the Inspector's report and the decision were issued separately.

  3 The inquiry covered three recovered appeals concerning MSAs on the M42—a decision on 6 March 2001 refused two and was minded to grant the remaining one. A final decision has yet to be made.

  4 Determined by the First Secretary of State for propriety reasons. Interim decision issued.

  Regional Assemblies
  Mr Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much funding each local authority contributes in the financial year 2002–03 to funding regional assemblies; what the expenditure of each regional assembly(a) was in that period and (b) is expected to be in 2003–04; how many staff each assembly employs; and what estimate he has made of the effect upon council tax levels of funding regional assemblies. [114718]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information requested is not collected centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. Regional Assemblies are answerable to central Government for the use of their allocation of the Chambers Fund (in both 2002–3 and 2003–4 £5 million per annum across the eight regions); Regional Planning Body money (in 2003–4 £6 million per annum); and Planning Delivery Grant (in 2003–4 £3 million per annum). Their financial arrangements with local authorities are a matter between them and the relevant local authorities.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the timescale is for(a) English regional chambers to set up regional planning bodies as provided for in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill and (b) drawing up regional spatial strategies; how this timetable will be linked with that for drawing up regional transport strategies; what estimate he has made of (i) the initial and (ii) the annual running costs of regional planning bodies; and from which budgets these costs will be met. [114343]
  878W
  Consideration is also being given to increasing the use of pre-inquiry meetings (where the appointed Inspector can set out the timetable and running order in advance of the inquiry) for suitable cases.

  Mr. McNulty
  All the English regional chambers are now regional planning bodies (RPBs). Providing they operate in a sufficiently inclusive way they will be recognised as RPBs once the relevant provisions of the new Bill commence. On commencement my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will prescribe which existing regional planning guidance should become regional spatial strategies (RSSs). Thereafter, the timetable for revisions to particular RSSs, including their transport elements, will be agreed between the RPB and the Government Office. RPB running costs are a matter for them. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is contributing over £9 million, including planning delivery grant, this year towards RPB running costs. RPBs can also receive moneys or in kind assistance from local authority and other member organisations.

  Regional Government (North West)
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister further to the answer of 14 May,Official Report, column 301, on Regional Government (North West), if he will make a statement on how the question to be put in the second vote will be decided on; and whether the result of the second vote will be binding on the Government. [114711]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Section 3(3) of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act sets out the question to be asked in any local government referendum. The options for unitary local government which are put to voters in two-tier areas in such a referendum cannot be determined until the Boundary Committee has made its recommendations. So the order for a local government
  879W
  referendum to be held will set out the text of the options which are to appear on the ballot paper. Sections 3(7) and 3(8) of the Act provide, respectively, that the Electoral Commission must be consulted on this wording and that their comments are laid before each House when the order is laid. The order will also he subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.Local government reorganisation would only go ahead if an elected assembly is to be established. The local government referendums will be advisory, though the Government would intend to be guided by the results.

  Starter Homes Initiative
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many(a) teachers, (b) police officers, (c) nurses and health workers and (d) others have been assisted through the Starter Homes initiative (i) in each local authority area and (ii) by each Government office of the region since 31 January. [112763]

  Mr. McNulty
  As at 31 March 2003, 2,678 key workers had purchased homes with Starter Home Initiative assistance that they would otherwise have been unable to afford. This compares with 2,011 at the end of January. A table setting out, by region and local authority area in which the key workers are employed, the number of key workers in each group that have benefited so far is available in the Library of the House.

  Urban Renewal (West Yorkshire)
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations he has received over the implementation of the urban renewal development in the West Yorkshire Region; and if he will make a statement. [113002]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has not received any representations regarding urban renewal development in West Yorkshire.

  The Regional Development Agency (RDA)—Yorkshire Forward—is currently in discussion with partners in West Yorkshire on the level of RDA support for priorities in the West Yorkshire sub-regional action plan. One of the key priorities is to support urban renaissance for economic growth. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is satisfied the RDA and its partners recognise the important role urban renewal plays in economic development. This is reflected in the Yorkshire and Humber Regional Economic Strategy.

PRIME MINISTER

  KPMG
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Prime Minister how many contracts have been awarded by his Government to KPMG since 1997. [113693]

  The Prime Minister
  Contracts for Government work are awarded within a policy and legal framework which requires the process to be fair and objective and deliver value for money. However, responsibility for any contract rests with the individual Department concerned. Information for the Government as a whole is therefore not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Nadhmi Auchi
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Prime Minister when he was first informed of the international arrest warrant against Mr. Nadhmi Auchi. [112868]

  The Prime Minister
  This was dealt with by the Home Office.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Prime Minister for what reason Lord Sainsbury presented Mr. Nadhmi Auchi with a painting of the House on behalf of the Prime Minister in 1999; and if he will make a statement. [112873]

  The Prime Minister
  The presentation of the painting, which was signed by the leaders of the three main political parties as well as a large number of Members of Parliament from all sides, was not carried out on my behalf. I understand from Lord Sainsbury that he presented it in a personal capacity and that at the event members of the three main parties were also present.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Prime Minister how many times he has met Mr. Nadhmi Auchi officially since 1997; where these meetings took place; who was present; when they took place; what the substance of these discussions was; how many times he has spoken to Mr. Nadhmi Auchi by telephone since 1997; and what was discussed on each occasion. [112867]

  The Prime Minister
  I 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.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Energy Council
  The Minister for Energy and Construction (Mr. Brian Wilson)
  I represented the UK at the Energy Council, Brussels on 14 May 2003.

  The Council considered several matters of interest for the UK. Chief among these were the Cogeneration Directive, the
  follow-up to the World Summit on Sustainable Development and the Commission's proposals and draft directives on EU level oil and gas stocks and security of supply.

  A compromise text for a Directive on Cogeneration (combined heat and power), which reflects UK objectives, was adopted after reserves (including the UK) were lifted. The European Commission described the important points as being the need to concentrate on high-quality schemes delivering good energy savings with safeguards against market distortions. Whilst Member States agreed to the text, some signalled a desire for a more ambitious measure at a later stage.

  The debate on the follow-up to the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) centred on whether existing Community measures were sufficient to meet targets for greenhouse gas emissions, and on the long-term future of renewable energy. There was support for the outcome of the Johannesburg WSSD and recognition that the EU must take the lead in developing a sustainable energy policy. Most felt that the existing Community instruments would need assessing in about one year. On the future of renewables, the general view was that there needed to be a broadening of the technological base: wind technology alone was unlikely to deliver all the savings needed; effort was needed to develop biomass, solar and clean coal technology.

  The Commission thought that, whereas the EU appeared to be in the lead on energy efficiency, progress in the EU on renewables had been good, but could be better; and stressed the need for realism towards developing countries in respect of their capacity to switch to non-fossil fuels along with the need for developed countries to provide technological help to discourage growth in fossil fuel use.

  The UK said that the main need was for greater use of market-based mechanisms to incentivise investments in more novel forms of renewable energy such as wave and tidal power, biomass and solar. The UK underlined the need to encourage development of cleaner coal technology—particularly relevant to developing countries, with whom dialogue should be stepped up.

  On oil stocks, most Member States opposed the Commission's proposals to increase emergency oil stocking levels and give the Commission a greater role
  40WS
  in co-ordinating a response to disruption of world oil supplies. They shared the UK view that oil is a global market, that any response to disruption needs to be coordinated on a global basis, and that only the International Energy Agency (IEA) can do this. Recent events had shown that the existing LEA arrangements worked well and there was no need to change them.

  On gas stocks, most opposed the Commission's proposals, giving the Commission wide new powers over the use of gas stocks in the event of potential supply disruptions. The UK saw merit in increased transparency and minimum security standards, provided they did not result in additional costs. But long-term contracts were a matter for companies—subject to EU competition rules. Some accession states (present for the first time at an Energy Council) endorsed the need for common measures on supply security, but expressed concern over the cost of larger stocks.

  Discussion on International Energy Relations focused on the EU/Russia dialogue and the energy forum scheduled for Amsterdam in May 2004. Delegates emphasised the need to prepare carefully for the EU/Russia Summit on 31 May in St. Petersburg, and the need to promote a consumer/producer dialogue and to encourage Russia to accede to the Kyoto protocol and Energy Charter Treaty.

  Following agreement on a Commission request for the inclusion of a reference to the negotiating mandate for a nuclear co-operation agreement with Russia currently in the Council Working Group, Council conclusions were adopted.

  Italy concluded by indicating that it would take forward the work of the Greek Presidency. Its priorities will be EU/Russia, Euro-Med and South East Europe/Balkans relations, particularly the need to develop further gas supply partnerships.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Council of the European Union
  The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane)
  The forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union from June to December 2003 is as follows:

  Date

  Location

  Event

  JUNE

  2

  Brussels

  EUROGROUP

  2–3

  Brussels

  Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs

  2–3

  Alexandroupolis

  Development Co-operation (Ministerial Informal)

  3

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  4

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Presidium

  5–6

  Brussels

  Convention Plenary

  5–6

  Brussels

  Transport, Telecom and Energy Council

  5–6

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  41WS

  Date

  Location

  Event

  6

  Rhodes

  Public Administration (Ministerial Informal)

  9

  London

  Chancellor's statement to the House of Commons on the UK's euro decision

  11

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Presidium

  11–12

  Brussels

  Agriculture and Fisheries Council

  12–13

  Brussels

  Convention Plenary

  13

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  17–18

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs and External Relations

  20

  Halkidiki

  European Council

  21

  Halkidiki

  Zagreb 11 Summit

  24

  Brussels

  General Affairs and External Relations (GAERC)

  JULY

  2–3

  Rome

  Research (Ministerial Informal)

  4–5

  Naples

  Transport Infrastructure (Ministerial Informal)

  6

  Palermo

  Trade (Ministerial Informal)

  11–12

  Varese

  Employment and Social Policy (Informal Council)

  15–16

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  17–18

  Treviso

  EU Employment Committee (Informal)

  18–20

  Montecatini

  Energy and Environment (Ministerial Informal)

  22–23

  Brussels

  Agriculture and Fisheries Council

  22

  Brussels

  General Affairs and External Relations

  24–25

  Milan

  European Conference on Competitiveness (Informal Ministerial)

  25–26

  Rome

  European Conference on Competitiveness (Informal Ministerial)

  25–26

  Verona

  Education (and Research?) (Ministerial Informal)

  AUGUST

  No meetings planned

  SEPTEMBER

  3–4

  Viterbo

  Telecommunications (Ministerial)

  5–6

  Riva del Garda

  Gymnich (Informal Foreign Affairs)

  7–9

  Taormina

  Agriculture (Informal Council)

  12–13

  Stresa

  ECOFIN (Informal Council)

  19–20

  Rome

  Justice and Internal Affairs (Informal Council)

  22–23

  Brussels

  Competition (Internal Market, Industry and Research)

  42WS

  Date

  Location

  Event

  26–27

  Erice

  Community regional Cohesion Policy (Ministerial Informal)

  29–30

  Brussels

  General Affairs and External Relations

  29–30

  Brussels

  Agriculture and Fisheries Council

  OCTOBER

  2–3

  Brussels

  Justice and Internal Affairs

  3–4

  Rome

  Defence (Ministerial Informal)

  7

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  9–10

  Brussels

  Transport, Telecom and Energy Council

  13–14

  Brussels

  General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC)

  13–14

  Brussels

  Agriculture and Fisheries Council

  16–17

  Brussels

  European Council

  20–21

  Brussels

  Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council

  27

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  NOVEMBER

  4

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  6

  Brussels

  Justice and Internal Affairs (Informal Council—to be confirmed)

  17–18

  Brussels

  General Affairs and External Relations

  17–18

  Brussels

  Agriculture and Fisheries Council

  24–25

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  24–25

  Brussels

  Education, Youth and Culture Council

  27–28

  Brussels

  Justice and Internal Affairs (Informal Council)

  DECEMBER

  1–2

  Naples

  Euromed Meeting

  1–2

  Brussels

  Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs

  1–12

  Milan

  Climate and sustainable Development Conference

  4–5

  Brussels

  Transport, Telecom and Energy Council

  4–5

  Rome

  Closing Conference for the European Year of the Disabled

  8–9

  Brussels

  General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC)

  12–13

  Brussels

  European Council

  15–17

  Brussels

  Agriculture and Fisheries Council

  16

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  17–18

  Brussels

  Environment Council

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Hereford.

Music Standards Fund
2.36 p.m.
Lord Lloyd-Webberasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the funds from the Standards Fund For Music are being administered for the purposes for which they were intended.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, the Music Standards Fund was set up to protect and expand the local education authority music service provision. The Government are putting nearly £60 million per annum into their Music Standards Fund, which can be spent in any way to increase opportunities for pupils to access music education of a high quality.
In June 2002, Ofsted reported that the fund had been "well used" by music services which had,
"responded quickly to opportunities to expand and protect their work"
Lord Lloyd-Webber: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her response. But is she aware that the situation as outlined is far from satisfactory, partly due to the very wide remit of the Music Standards Fund? The fund was indeed created to protect and expand existing local authority music services that employ teachers who provide instrumental music lessons in schools, not to replace them. However, we have seen many local authorities using their allocation from the Music Standards Fund to do exactly that. As there is no statutory obligation to maintain their contributions, the LEAs inevitably reduce or remove these in order to make savings.
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Lloyd-Webber: My Lords, my question was: is the Minister aware of this? As a specific example, in the five years since the introduction of the standards fund, the Berkshire Young Musicians Trust has seen its total funding reduced by £200,000. The trust is now totally dependent on the Education Department's Music Standards Fund. The service is clearly in danger of going into reverse. Will the Minister look again at this issue? Is there not some way of looking again at the requirements for providing musical instrument tuition in schools and of considering how to press local
822
authorities with regard to their contributions to ensure that this aspect of music education is given its proper place within the curriculum?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, who has the widest experience and expertise on this subject in your Lordships' House. I have some points to make in response to his Question. First, we have performance indicators for the music service, which we have developed in the past year. We are looking at the issues of access, breadth, quality and wider opportunities, particularly at key stage 2 for seven to 11 year-olds—critical years, I would argue, in terms of developing that experience.
Secondly, about 253,000 pupils at key stage 2—about 10 per cent—receive regular instrumental lessons; more than 92,000 attend music service ensembles; and 18,500 schools—83 per cent—receive music support. I agree with the noble Lord that this is not perfect, but I believe that we have good services to build on. We are specifically looking at the issue of musical instruments, the point the noble Lord raised. We are looking in 12 areas at wider opportunities, making provision for 100 advanced music school teachers and carrying out a survey of the services that are available between different local authorities so we have a baseline upon which to develop.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in the past 30 or 40 years we have gone back a very long way in the provision of advanced instrumental teaching for children at school? There was a time when there was an embarrassment of people from this country joining, or seeking to join, the European Youth Orchestra, but those numbers have fallen. There is real cause for concern, not for the breadth of provision, which I believe the Government are really trying to ensure, but that the intense study of musical instruments for really talented children in the maintained sector is falling off. This is an area where we cannot fall victim to the fear of elitism. I would like the Minister to answer that question.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, there is no doubt that preparing musicians for what we might call a top professional career is not necessarily a priority for individual LEA music services. We accept that we need to do more to support them. We have within the gifted and talented programme and the music and dance scheme ways of providing that additional support. Indeed, we are looking at what more we can do to ensure that we continue to have high quality musicians and other performers in this country.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, the Minister will be aware of how important music is to the wider curriculum, particularly in the primary schools, as she said. We are delighted that there has been some resurgence, although there is a long way still to go from the depths that we reached during the period when the Conservatives were in power. There is considerable variation across the country from LEA to LEA. Can

823
the Minister reassure us that there will be some levelling to make sure that every child has the opportunity which the standards fund is supposed to provide?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Baroness is correct: not only did we start from a position of having very little resource but there is variation across the country. Within the resources we have, we are very keen to develop all services to be as good as the best. Noble Lords will know about individual services. I believe that the new specialist schools programme has a massive contribution to make in terms of developing its services with other secondary schools and, of course, primary schools in the locality. As more schools specialise in music and the arts, increasing numbers of them will be able to do that.
I referred earlier to the national baseline. We are looking to ensure that we have a very clear view of what we would consider to be a good music service. My honourable friend David Miliband is holding a seminar with those involved in the music industry, professional musicians and others involved in education to look more fully at how we can develop a wider strategy on music to ensure consistency across the country.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords—
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, could we hear from the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, first?
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, thank you. Is my noble friend aware that some cathedrals find it very difficult to recruit choirboys because of the lack of teaching in schools?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Yes, my Lords, I have heard the reports that, I believe, my noble friend refers to. That will be an aspect of the attempt to develop how schools can support the different kinds of musical teaching and training that will be available.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that there are particular difficulties, now that the Learning and Skills Council has come into play? It has confused the funding streams. A perfectly marvellous music school in Huntingdon is now vulnerable to going out of business altogether because, by law, the Learning and Skills Council cannot support extra-curricular music to school-age children in that school. It seems that an historically very good music school may now be vulnerable simply because the law prevents it from being funded properly.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I do not know about the particular case that the noble Baroness cites. I undertake to look into the matter and
824
to write to her about it. We do not intend, in any of the ways in which we set up funding, to prevent the high-quality services that one would expect in schools of the quality to which the noble Baroness refers. I shall address the matter.

Samuel Pepys: Tercentenary of Death
2.44 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwichasked Her Majesty's Government:
How they are celebrating the life and achievement of Samuel Pepys, founder of the professional navy, on the tercentenary of his death on 26th May 1703.
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, I am delighted that the British Library, the Public Record Office, the National Maritime Museum, the National Portrait Gallery and the Museum of London, all bodies sponsored by government, are running exhibitions and other events this year to commemorate the life and achievements of Samuel Pepys.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that Answer. I declare a family connection and a special interest as president of the Samuel Pepys Club, which celebrates its own centenary this coming week. Does the Minister agree that Samuel Pepys was not just a great and talented literary and historical figure; he was a founder of our modern Civil Service through his work in the professional navy? Does she further agree that his acumen, intelligence, eye for detail and, I might add, joie de vivre can be said to be qualities found in the modern Civil Service?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I think I can bear testimony to the eye for detail, the scholarship and the humanity of the modern Civil Service, but I am sure that I cannot comment on its pursuit of pleasure.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords—
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, stood up first.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, thank you very much indeed. Quite right, too. I was impressed with the list that the Minister gave. Will she add another place to it? I do not know whether Magdalene College Cambridge is doing anything about Pepys, but it owns his entire library. I wonder whether it is holding any special events this year. Rather than detain noble Lords, I shall say, "And so to bed".
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it is absolutely right that Magdalene College Cambridge has Samuel Pepys's splendid library, including every volume of his

825
diaries. Two volumes are regularly on show at Magdalene College. I think that one of them is always open at the page that describes the Great Fire of London. I am not sure whether the college is doing anything special this year. I have just been told by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that it is. Perhaps she will he able to tell the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, what is planned, as, unfortunately, I cannot. I am delighted that not only are all the government-sponsored institutions celebrating this great man's life, but so is Magdalene College Cambridge where he was a student.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, does the noble Baroness not agree that, apart from the attributes mentioned by the noble Earl, Samuel Pepys was a remarkable Englishman from a relatively modest background who made use of powerful patronage—the patronage of the noble Earl's forebear—and with great skill and talent occupied high office? Does she further agree that he did more than that; he left an unequalled picture of the period and a wonderful piece of literature?
I conclude with a practical suggestion. Perhaps copies of the wonderful biography by Claire Tomalin, which won the Whitbread Prize this year, might be given as prizes in schools. The Government might encourage, where possible, that a copy be given to a star pupil.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I have just read Claire Tomalin's splendid biography of Samuel Pepys. I am not sure whether it would be right for the Government to prescribe what books ought to be given to star pupils. I am sure that anyone who happens to read Hansard might take up the noble Viscount's suggestion. I wish to add that patronage was something at which Samuel Pepys was a great expert; today it would be described as cronyism.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, as a proud albeit retired member of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, can I ask the noble Baroness whether she might encourage the chairman of the Refreshment Committee, my noble friend Lord Colwyn that, on our return from the recess, we might possibly splice the mainbrace in the Bishops' Bar?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I shall certainly do so.
Lord Judd: My Lords, whatever the great characteristics of this distinguished Briton of the past, given his lively view of womanhood does my noble friend agree that it would have been difficult for him to have envisaged the valuable role now being played by women within the Royal Navy? When we celebrate this important anniversary, may we accompany it with a real salutation to the women of today's navy and the role they play in it?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, Samuel Pepys certainly liked women, but I do not think he ever
826
envisaged them in the kind of role they now play in the Royal Navy. However, were he to come back I am sure that I and my female colleagues on the Front Bench would be delighted to take him through the enormous contribution now being made by women to all aspects of public life, including our armed services.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the borough of Huntingdon got rid of Oliver Cromwell after suffering him for only one Parliament of four years? It then became a Royalist borough and welcomed the first Earl of Sandwich to Hinchingbrooke, which is the title of Viscount Hinchingbrooke, heir to the Earl of Sandwich. Huntingdon welcomed also the first cousin once removed of that first Earl of Sandwich, Samuel Pepys. Is it not essential that the borough of Huntingdon and the parish of Brampton should join equally in these great celebrations?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I was well aware of the noble Earl's ancestor, Edward Montagu, who was Samuel Pepys's sponsor. Both the noble Earl's ancestor and Samuel Pepys were extremely skilful at changing sides. They started out as supporters of Oliver Cromwell and ended up as supporters of Charles II. Perhaps that is another reason why the borough of Huntingdon should recognise the anniversary.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we on this side strongly support a commemoration for this excellent Tory, which is the way he ended up? We congratulate the present holder of the title who asked the Question, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, on reminding us of his illustrious ancestor, who was extremely adroit at being a crossbencher. As the Minister has just reminded noble Lords, Samuel Pepys began as a ferocious parliamentarian general and ended up a passionate supporter of Charles II. That is an interesting example to examine when we consider today's politics.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I do not know whether that means the noble Lord is about to change sides.

Iraq: Role of UN
2.52 p.m.
Lord Juddasked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress they have made towards defining the role of the United Nations in the reconstruction and political rehabilitation of Iraq.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the United Kingdom has co-sponsored a draft Security Council resolution, together with the United States and Spain, which sets out the vital role we expect the United Nations to play in Iraq.

827
The draft resolution would appoint a special representative of the UN Secretary General to coordinate the UN's humanitarian, political and reconstruction work in Iraq. The UN special representative would be given a mandate to coordinate closely with the people of Iraq, with the coalition and with other interested parties, but would work independently and report regularly on progress to the Security Council. We expect the draft resolution to be voted on by the Security Council either later today or, more probably, tomorrow.
Lord Judd: My Lords, while recognising the hard work by the British Government on their American colleagues on this resolution, does my noble friend agree that it will be unfortunate if the view taken by the wider world is that the occupying powers are beginning to regard the United Nations as a useful humanitarian sub-contractor for whatever they want to do? Does she further agree that the real issue here is that, if we are going to work towards global stability and security, it is essential to demonstrate that operations of this kind are undertaken with the maximum authority of the global community as a whole? That is why the United Nations should be central to the operation.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for acknowledging the hard work of both the United Kingdom and the United States on this draft. That work has resulted not only in improvements to the draft itself, it has also ensured maximum support for it around the Security Council. I hope that, when my noble friend has an opportunity to study the draft, he will acknowledge that a number of improvements have been made to the text which was originally circulated. The issues in regard to strengthening the role of what was the special coordinator but is now to be the UN special representative to bring it into line with that adopted in post-conflict situations such as Afghanistan should also hearten my noble friend. He will see that we have moved very much in the direction he wishes.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept my thanks for the changes made to the resolution, which I think have greatly improved it? Does she recognise, however, that what matters now is, first, for the resolution to be adopted as quickly as possible and, secondly and most important, that the role of the United Nations in implementing the resolution is one of being a team player with the allies who are taking a leading role in Iraq? It is absolutely essential that the United Nations, rather than being marginalised in the implementation of the resolution, should become an integral part of it.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. Lord Hannay. Perhaps I may say to him that I think that it is exactly that desire which has prompted the kind of changes that have been made to the Security Council resolution. I hope
828
he will note that the UN special representative will have a key role to play in facilitating the political process leading to representative government. By that I mean that he or she will be an equal partner in the process. That is one of the very important adjustments that has been made to the draft of the Security Council resolution.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, can the Minister clarify the position of the UN weapons inspectors? In Prime Minister's Question Time today, the Prime Minister said that the new UN resolution would address this. Yesterday, however. John Negroponte, the US ambassador to the UN, said that,
"the US envisages no role for the UN weapons inspectors in the immediate future",
even though the head of the UN weapons inspection team wants to return to Iraq.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I have not seen Mr Negroponte's remarks, but I would point out to the noble Baroness that the resolution does touch on this issue by emphasising the need to confirm disarmament and the intention to review the UNMOVIC and IA EA mandates in Iraq. That review will leave open the possibility of a future role for UNMOVIC, taking account of the changed situation on the ground.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, as regards reconstruction in Iraq, do the Government see roles for the specialised agencies of the United Nations as distinct from the United Nations itself?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hope that we will see the specialised agencies in Iraq. Of course they have a great deal to contribute, in particular to the longer-term reconstruction efforts. While we have discussed at length the short-term humanitarian efforts, we must also acknowledge that our attention must be directed to longer-term issues such as health and education. Only last Friday I was in the United States. While there I discussed these issues with colleagues working in the various departments responsible. Between us we acknowledged that there will be a very important role to consider for the UN agencies.
Lord Rea: My Lords, with regard to those specialised agencies, can my noble friend say whether the World Health Organisation and UNICEF teams are now back in their offices and once again functioning? They performed an extremely useful role in pre-war Iraq.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, indeed they did perform useful roles and I hope that they will be able to do so again shortly. I am unable to tell my noble friend whether they are in place on the ground at the moment. The noble Lord will know that we have been working hard to ensure that a permissive environment is developed which would allow the NGOs and agencies of the UN to return. Some of them

829
have started to go back, but I shall try to be more precise about UNICEF and the World Health Organisation and write to my noble friend.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the new draft resolution gives the United Nations a much stronger role and upgrades the previous co-ordinator to the rank of UN special representative? That is important.
Can the noble Baroness confirm that, if it is carried, the resolution will solve the difficult problem of making oil and gas revenues in Iraq immune from litigation and the claims of creditors, so that the money can begin to flow back into the rebuilding of Iraq?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, yes, that was one of the main intentions behind passing the resolution. Perhaps I may say that it was also one of the reasons why it is important for us to do so urgently. The fact is that the oil is now starting to be pumped and we must ensure that it can be traded legally so that the people of Iraq can enjoy the benefits of indulging in that trade on a far more widespread basis than was ever the case under the Saddam regime.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, in the context of the Question, might the House not use the occasion to pay tribute to the efforts made by our Armed Forces in the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Iraq, especially in the area around Basra?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure that all Members of the House will wish to join in that acknowledgement of the way in which our Armed Forces prosecuted not only the military conflict but the peace thereafter. It has been an enormous credit to them, particularly, as the noble Lord said, their work in Basra, where they were responsible for ensuring the quick re-connection of clean water supplies. It was our Army engineers who got the railway between Basra and Baghdad running—a railway that had not run for 10 years.

Indonesia
3 p.m.
Lord Aveburyasked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking, in conjunction with other members of the international community, to avert the resumption of hostilities in Aceh, and what assurances they have been given by the Indonesian Government that arms and military equipment supplied by the United Kingdom will not be used in any military operations that may be conducted in Aceh.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the British Government, together with our EU partners, the United States and the World Bank, have urged the Indonesian Government and the Free Aceh Movement—the GAM—to resume negotiations. We
830
regret that martial law has been declared in Aceh. The Indonesian Government have confirmed that Hawk aircraft were used on the first day of action in Aceh, but they have given assurances that they were not used offensively. We are considering that response.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, Britain was represented, through the European Union, at the Tokyo meeting last weekend, at which attempts were made to salvage the cessation of hostilities agreement. Can the Minister say whether any concessions were made there by either side? How far apart were they at the end of the process? Would it not be useful to know, without attempting to apportion blame, what was the sequence of negotiations that led to the final breakdown?
Considering that there is a risk of overwhelming human catastrophe in Aceh and the fact that the UN Secretary-General has made a plea that peace should be restored, will the Government consider referring the matter to the UN Security Council and calling on the council to pass an embargo on the supply of weapons to either side? Spares for the Hawks that the Minister mentioned and the Scorpions that, we understand, are being transferred to Aceh should be withheld until peace is restored.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the reasons for the breakdown in the discussions that the noble Lord mentioned are difficult to disentangle. It looks as though, to some extent, both sides were not sufficiently committed, with regard to some of their own interests, to seeing a peaceful solution go forward. I am unable to go into any further detail than that at the moment. Perhaps, it is a subject for discussion at a future date.
The noble Lord asked about weapons. We are considering the right response in the light of what has happened over the past few days. I hope that the noble Lord will understand that even as I left the Foreign Office late this morning more information was coming in about the incident, which I know has not only caused concern to the noble Lord but has prompted further comment elsewhere. Further information is arriving from our post about what really happened, and that information is being analysed at the moment.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, do we know of any connection between the Free Aceh movement—GAM—and terrorist organisations? It seems to be intent on burning schools. If there is evidence of terrorist links, ought we not to be a little more understanding of the need for the Indonesian authorities to try to keep their country together? Should we not indicate that we realise that they need somehow to restore law and order there?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we do not need to know that there are terrorist links. The noble Lord may be referring to the wider question of terrorist organisations elsewhere.

831
If there is terrorism, it is of itself bound to be a reason for any government to want to ensure the security of their people. The noble Lord will know that there are many different views about the nature of the GAM. As is so often the case, there are those who consider it to be a group of people who legitimately want freedom for Aceh from Indonesia, and there are those who consider that its activities go beyond that into some activities that others would describe as terrorist activities.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, more specifically, does self-determination supersede territorial integrity, in the Government's view?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we acknowledge the territorial integrity. But, to take another example, the United Kingdom and the United Nations never recognised the sovereignty claim to East Timor. This is a different question. After Indonesia declared its independence in 1949, Aceh became part of that country. Eight years later, Aceh began to fight against the central government and, as we know, there has been a GAM seeking an independent state since 1976.
Questions of self-determination arise in a variety of historical contexts. There are differences in the way in which Indonesia has operated here historically and the historical claim that it has, as compared with the recent example of East Timor, which may still be in your Lordships' minds.

Israel and Gaza
3.6 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, l congratulate the Minister on her tirelessness and beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what measures they are taking to encourage Israel to open the border to allow foreign nationals to cross between Israel and Gaza.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are gravely concerned at the recent surge in suicide bombing in Israel. We understand the need of the Government of Israel to ensure the security of Israeli citizens within international law, but we do not believe that the decision to forbid most foreign nationals from entering the Gaza Strip furthers the cause of peace or contributes to security. We have made those views clear to the Government of Israel as a matter of urgency, and we look forward to the Government of Israel easing the restrictions as soon as possible.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, the cycle of provocation and reaction is globally unsettling and is prejudicing the road map. Arguably, regionalism is an answer.
832
Do not current political policies fuel the resolve of the suicide bombers? Will they not create a humanitarian backlash that will come to haunt Israel? The guardian of Israel's well-being is to come to the negotiating table in a constructive manner.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree entirely that the "cycle of provocation", as the noble Viscount put it, on both sides is at the root of the problem. We hope very much that work on the road map will not be deflected by recent developments, both the suicide bombing and the reaction to it. The people who are not friends of a peace process are exactly the people who undertake such atrocities in order to try to derail that process.
Mr Sharon has felt, as a result, that he must stay at home. That is understandable, but it has meant that he has not been able to go to the United States of America and engage in the discussions on the road map that are so important. I am sure that that was what the suicide bombers wanted to achieve, and I can only hope that Mr Sharon will take up the invitation to go to the United States and hold those discussions very soon.
Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld: My Lords, I note what my noble friend says about the attitude of Her Majesty's Government. None the less, it is the responsibility of the Israeli Government to do everything possible to protect their people against the kind of barbaric terrorism that is being directed against them. Is it not responsible of the Israeli Government to warn off foreign nationals from entering parts of the West Bank and elsewhere that are highly dangerous? They are right to do that, and many people in this country agree with the action that they have taken.
I hope that, when Her Majesty's Government give advice to Israel, they remember that it is the only democratic country in the region and that the despotic countries that surround it give succour and comfort to the terrorists.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of course I agree that it is the responsibility of the Government of Israel or any other government faced with the horrors of suicide bombing to do everything possible to secure the security of their own civilians. I hope I made that absolutely clear in the opening statement that I made in answering the noble Viscount's Question. The issue remains whether the measures taken by the Government of Israel really do further the cause of peace and really do contribute to further security, or whether they actually contribute to what the noble Viscount called a cycle of provocation, which leads to bitterness and further violence.
Of course, we warn our own nationals about going to places where we believe they will not be safe. We are very clear at the moment about the fact that it is not safe to travel to Gaza. That is rather different from forbidding people to visit their families, to conduct legitimate trade, and the issues which perhaps do not contribute as much as they might to the security of the region.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, have the Government made it clear to the Israeli Government that the existence and expansion of Israeli settlements within the Gaza Strip, and, in particular, the recent expansion of the security zones for those Israeli settlements by the demolition of orchards, olive groves and houses, are part of the cycle of violence which breeds precisely the despair out of which suicide bombers come? Have the Government also made it clear that a reversal of Israeli settlement policy has to he part of an acceptance of the road map?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, yes, indeed, we have. As the noble Lord would expect, we have done so very recently with the visit of the Israeli Foreign Minister which we welcomed. He was received very much as a friend to whom we gave messages that friends give each other in privacy behind closed doors. Our policy on settlements is absolutely clear. Settlements are illegal under international law. We believe that they are an obstacle to peace. We believe that Israel should freeze all settlement activity, as the noble Lord said, as required by Phase 1 of the road map.
Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, as most European countries have maintained contact with President Arafat and now that the Israeli Government have said that they will not speak to anyone who retains contact with him, what is the position of the United Kingdom Government?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government will consider whether it is in the interests of peace to see President Arafat. We must remember that he is still the elected president of the Palestinian Authority. He has an important role to play. But I would remind the noble Lord that there have been substantial changes in the Government of the Palestinian Authority. Now the main responsibility for delivering reforms and progress falls on the shoulders of Abu Mazan. That is obviously where the first point of contact on these issues rightly is.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, does the Minister agree that despite five suicide bombings being carried out by Palestinian terrorists against Israel within a 48-hour period, Israel has withdrawn from some areas of Gaza to allow Prime Minister Mahmud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority to take control of the situation? Since September 2000, the Palestinians have carried out more than 17,000 attacks, killing 778 Israelis. Does the Minister agree that the inconvenience of temporary border closing is a small price to pay if it stops one fanatical terrorist from blowing up mostly innocent people and destroying life which is so precious to all people in that region?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, if I could honestly lay my hand on my heart and say that we would know that it stopped one fanatical terrorist, of course I would agree with the noble Lord. But the problem we have here is the suspicion that for every terrorist it stops, it breeds two more. That is the
834
dilemma we are facing. There is not an easy answer. I absolutely acknowledge the appalling statistics that the noble Lord gave about the death to Israelis. Your Lordships have discussed before the particularly cruel phase of using young people who are undoubtedly targeted by many suicide bombers.
I would just remind my noble friend that since the beginning of this year, 82 Israelis have lost their lives tragically and 385 Palestinians have lost their lives. There is a terrible loss of life on both sides. That is why all these discussions about whether it is right to close borders or whether it is right to have families going to see each other are really not the issue. The issue is to move forward on the road map. The issue is to go forward and to ensure that the dreadful people who want to derail this process are ignored and that that process is carried forward under the new Palestinian Authority Government.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, the figures that the Minister has just given are very telling indeed. Is not the noble Lord who has just spoken right to remind us that if we are trying to look forward, in the past few days there have been these five suicide bombing attacks against Israel which were bound to sour the process and create the type of problems that we are now discussing? Does the Minister agree that if the road map is to start from here, or even from a few days back, the first moves between the two sides have to be simultaneous? There must be substantial concessions on the Palestine side—obviously, a move towards controlling and arresting the groups that perpetuate suicide bombing—and substantial moves on the Israeli side as well. They must be together and we must move away from this "you first" argument which will never lead anywhere except to more tragedy and bloodshed.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of course the noble Lord is right to say that the suicide bombings were bound to sour the atmosphere for international discussions. I have no doubt that that was entirely the objective of those who carried out those evil acts. Of course I agree with the noble Lord that it is essential for both sides to be seen to move together.
The terrible history that we are dealing with is one of lack of trust between the two sides. It will take great courage and great statesmanship on both sides to take those first steps. As members of the international community, through the EU and with our partners in the United States, Russia and the United Nations, it is our role to give every encouragement to that process to take those first enormously important steps.

Clerk of the Parliaments
3.17 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I informed your Lordships on 12th March of Sir Michael Davies's intention to retire from the office of Clerk of the Parliaments with effect from Monday 14th July. I told the House on that occasion that it had been agreed that

835
a trawl for Sir Michael's successor should be held, with applications being invited from the House of Commons and the devolved Assemblies as well as from the House of Lords.
There were six applications in all—five from the Lords and one from a devolved Assembly. One applicant from the Lords was not short-listed for interview but a board, consisting of myself, the other party leaders, the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, the First Civil Service Commissioner, interviewed the other five. The unanimous recommendation of the board is that Mr Paul Hayter should succeed Sir Michael Davies as Clerk of the Parliaments.
Following Mr Paul Hayter's appointment as Clerk of the Parliaments, I have been asked by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to say that he will propose to the House that Mr Michael Pownall should become Clerk Assistant and that Mr David Beamish should be appointed Reading Clerk. Both of those appointments have the support of the board to which I have already referred. The Lord Chancellor will invite the House to approve the necessary Motions of appointment on 14th July. There will be an opportunity to pay tribute to Sir Michael's distinguished career in the House on 10th July.

Criminal Justice Bill
3.19 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and ordered to be printed.
Procedure of the House: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, on behalf of the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Hoyle be appointed a member of the Select Committee in the place of the Lord Gladwin of Clee deceased.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Personal Bills: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, on behalf of the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Slynn of Hadley be appointed a member of the Select Committee in the place of the Lord Wilberforce deceased.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Water Bill [WH]
3.19 p.m.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of my noble friend Lord Whitty.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 33,

Schedule 1,

Clause 34,

Schedule 2,

Clause 35,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 36 to 54,

Schedule 4,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 55 to 78,

Schedule 5,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 79 to 93,

Schedule 7,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 94 to 97.—(Lord Grocott.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Africa
3.20 p.m.
Lord Lea of Crondallrose to call attention to progress towards the development of "mutual accountability" with African countries under the aegis of NePAD (the New Partnership for Africa's Development) prior to the G8 summit at Evian; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am very glad to have been fortunate enough to secure this debate in the lead-up to Evian early in June providing the opportunity for my noble friend Lady Amos to respond in her new role as Secretary of State for International Development. It was clear in her previous incarnation that the issues surrounding the New Partnership for Africa's Development were and are very close to her heart.
In that context I also welcome, among an impressive list of speakers, her distinguished predecessor in that role in this House, the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker of Wallasey, who has a long and continuing experience with the affairs of Africa.
Our immediate aim is to help to maintain the G8/ NePAD momentum set in motion in Canada a year ago. President Chirac, who is in the chair of the G8 this year, is giving this a high priority at Evian—if it is not a treasonable offence to mention that. We need continuity in the work of the G8 even when major new issues in the Middle East and the world economy dominate the headlines. The African time-bomb is still ticking away, and we have to attend to it.
What are the key issues and developments at this time in NePAD, and what are the key challenges for the G8 in Evian in that connection? They are twofold,

837
with a close connection between peer review and mutual accountability. I shall say a few words about each.
Peer review is voluntary, but there are tangible advantages for countries entering into the process. We are beginning with about a dozen. There are 46 counties in total in Africa to bring within scope, some more on a regional framework. In the language of the Government, there will be,
"enhanced partnerships with African countries whose performance reflects the NePAD commitments".
I shall relate that to some of the main headings of NePAD.
First and foremost, peace and security, covering good governance, is correctly placed at the top of the list. No one can doubt that political stability is of the utmost importance for social and economic progress. I can add to that the effectiveness of aid; fostering trade and investment; implementing debt relief; health issues; and water security. There is a long list to be addressed. Those issues immediately raise all aspects of what is now called mutual accountability, between African countries, within African countries and north-south—by which I mean between the G8 OECD countries and the countries of the African Union.
On the question of peer review, as in the European Union the African Union leadership of such initiatives has to be top-down to begin with, but it certainly will not go far unless there is in-depth understanding and ownership. That is a tall order. It is not often appreciated how much we in Britain have benefited from being peer reviewed in Europe, but many people in this House view that process with only modified rapture. I have personally been on the receiving end of that on such issues in the labour market as adaptability, employability and equal opportunity. My advice is that it does you good.
I find when talking to African colleagues at different levels in the trade unions that they are surprised to hear what I have just said; they find it an eye-opener. One of them said to me, after hearing my line on it: "Well, if you are benchmarked and you are rich, maybe it's alright for us as well". This is not an abstract matter it is entirely practical.
The G8 countries will be reporting at Evian on progress against the commitments agreed in Canada a year ago. If the UK national action plan is any guide, that will further demonstrate the value added in the NePAD process. It is also very timely to welcome our Government's ideas for the international financial facility and the 50 billion dollars that it would produce for international aid.
The tent "mutual accountability"—I emphasise the word "mutual"—is relatively new. It may be useful to identify the two complementary aspects of the concept: the accountability north-south and the accountability within Africa. The northern contribution, from OECD countries, is not only to help with cash and technical assistance but also to be accountable in terms of removing trade distortions;
838
taking really tough action against the unaccountable arms trade; having a policy on drugs; making business accountable; and so on.
The June deadline for the headings of agreement on reform of the common agricultural policy—perhaps I should say that the same should go for the American agricultural policy should see tangible progress on one of the central issues on the north-south agenda. One of the central reforms should be put in place so that, inter alia, we switch about 80 per cent of the CAP spending into areas that the WTO accepts are not trade distorting. That is only a start. Here again, however, one cannot gainsay the fact that for the countries with falls in GDP in the past 10 years of which there are many, although I do not have time to read out the statistics—the big factors unfortunately have nothing to do with trade policy.
We want to see more on the table from the north on trade policy. President Chirac acknowledged the need for change at his meeting with Africa presidents in March, beginning with the abolition of EU export subsidies for agricultural products affecting African markets. It is essential that that is taken forward further at Cancun in the autumn.
NePAD has its critics, in Africa and elsewhere. I was struck by the robust response by the executive secretary of the Economic Commission on Africa last October. Mr Amoako referred to what he described as the main myths about NePAD. First, it is said that it is an intrusion on national sovereignty; we all know about that one, of course. Secondly, it is said that it will be an elite club with insiders and outsiders. Some of our own aid organisations, such as Christian Aid, quoted in the House of Commons research paper on NePAD, share the critique of elitism against grass roots involvement.
On the other hand, there is the opposite critique, heard much more frequently in this House, that NePAD is ineffectual. There are, in fact, two opposing myths. That is well illustrated by Zimbabwe, which will obviously feature in some of your Lordships' speeches. There is a myth put about in that part of the world that NePAD is all to do with South African imperialism. The South Africans have given courageous leadership in getting NePAD off the ground, and I would advocate that they are much bolder. But what about the fact that the Mugabes of this world get a standing ovation—as he does—at the meetings of African heads of government? One way of understanding how that can happen is to reflect on how politics in our own sophisticated country operates. One might take the example of why we, in the TUC, gave a standing ovation each year to Arthur Scargill years after the TUC was even remotely in agreement with his irredentist policy. It is a genuflection to the old time religion.
The South Africans are better placed than ourselves to knock right on the head the idea that NePAD is part of a conspiracy designed by forces of white imperialism vis-à-vis countries to their immediate north. Morgan Tsvangirai, leader of the Movement for Democratic Change, is no one's poodle, as his

839
distinguished record as a trade union official demonstrates. He stands in a great tradition of African trade union leaders, from Tom Mboya to Cyril Ramaphosa.
Zimbabwe also illustrates the fact that NePAD cannot at this stage jump miles beyond peer group pressure—as if the next move would be to go right to the other end of the spectrum of direct intervention. It is absurd to say that NePAD has failed on such a test as that.
It is necessary to issue a general disclaimer or health warning that NePAD cannot do everything. Nor can it be a quick fix. Some things may need to be done that could by no stretch of the imagination be its responsibility or even potential responsibility. For example, it cannot change the United Nations rules of engagement in the Congo, highly desirable as that might be. Nor is it responsible for the arms trade; we are more responsible for it than NePAD. It cannot change tribal loyalties, straight lines on the map or more than 1,000 years of history as regards Christianity versus Islam, desirable as all that might be if we could turn back the clock.
In that connection we should remember that the countries of the Maghreb are prominently involved in this African project even though they may feel different and much nearer to Europe than to sub-Saharan Africa. However, having said that NePAD must not bite off more than it can chew, I believe that it can make the difference between a road to ruin and a road map to minimum standards of governance. Political stability has been the centrepiece in transforming many basket-case economies. It is certainly the key to private investment. I am sure that colleagues will have more to say about the role of the private sector. I hope that the Secretary of State will say more about the multi-donor-funded public/private infrastructure facility and the framework for dialogue about that.
In our most recent debate on this general topic I engaged in an interchange with the noble Lord, Lord Desai, on the comparative growth rate between Asia and Africa. We discussed the role of the middle class in generating a quite high rate of return for the new professional services and so on and creating a more powerful political constituency for good governance and the rule of law.
The role of the trade unions—one of the main forces for pluralism in many party of Africa ever since colonial days—should also be acknowledged. When it comes to local "ownership"—to use the modern vernacular—they are streets ahead of the otherwise admirable development NGOs. Trade unions play a much wider role than simply at the place of work. For example—to give a flavour—in Sierra Leone the Commonwealth TUC is working with the Labour Congress to help all civil society organisations contribute to peacekeeping. In Ghana and Nigeria, the TUC and the national Labour Congress have run voter education programmes. The list is a long one.
840
Ownership of NePAD in depth is now an urgent question. That ultimately bears on the role of parliaments and parliamentarians. We should note the creation, at a meeting in Cotonou in October 2002, of the African Parliamentarians Forum for NePAD. In its communiqué it reports that some EU countries have had a direct financial input into the forum—namely, Denmark, Italy and France—whereas the UK is not mentioned except indirectly insofar as there is also EU assistance. Perhaps my noble friend can say more about that.
As regards the role of Westminster, both the IPU and the CPA do an excellent job on inward and outward missions and in seminars on the type of issue we are discussing today. The All-Party Group on Africa will be discussing with those bodies, and perhaps with the Foreign Office and DfID, how we can put together a more systematic exposition of the link with the NePAD parliamentary forum.
For many historical, contemporary and practical reasons, among G8 countries Britain and France have by far the most significant interests in Africa. France is, for example, the biggest aid donor to Africa. We are therefore proposing a meeting between British and French parliamentarians, perhaps to be addressed jointly by a NePAD governmental and parliamentary representative as the start of a continuing relationship. There have been preliminary discussions with French parliamentarians who have warmly welcomed the proposal in principle. Now we have to work out the logistics, with the enthusiastic support of the French ambassador in London, M. Gerard Errera.
I look forward to the debate and to the response from my noble friend the Secretary of State. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.34 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I should first declare an interest as chairman of Africa Matters Ltd, where we try to open doors to African investment and development. Secondly, I most warmly welcome the new Secretary of State for International Development, our own Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Amos. She has a huge task ahead of her. She has my full support. Although we might have grown up in different stables, we have exactly the same objectives. I hope that this will be the first of many informative debates about Africa. Such debates might expand the positive attitude that already exists among many of those doing the practical work on the ground. Thirdly, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, and congratulate him on gaining this debate.
In a recent conference involving thinkers from both the G8 and African nations, we came to the conclusion—which the noble Lord, Lord Lea, has already mentioned—that NePAD cannot be a cure-all for the many problems facing Africa. It is by far the most complicated of continents. There are more than 40 countries in sub-Saharan Africa, all with their own cultural diversity and customs. I often become a little infuriated, shall we say, when I hear people talking of Africa as if it were one country with a single cultural

841
heritage. It is not. It is as diverse as anywhere else in the world. I think that we need to remember that when trying to combine the energies of Africans to make a better future.
The African Union seems to realise that and to be aware that NePAD cannot be a one-speed forward process. NePAD must work at a variety of speeds in a variety of different sectors. I should like to concentrate on that in the few moments available to me.
The first thing that I should say about mutual accountability is this. Part of the solution to many of the issues on which the western world and northern hemisphere criticise NePAD, where the G8 nations and others in OECD are looking for solutions, is already in their own hands. I begin with the issue of corruption. Bribery is successful only when someone bribes. By going into the detail—as Transparency International has done—of how much corruption around the world occurs, one finds that an awful lot of companies from European and other OECD countries—and maybe even some governments, for all I know—are involved. It is they who, for a variety of projects, put up the money, which is easily taken by people of lesser probity. So part of the solution—mutual accountability—is, as the noble Lord, Lord Lea, said, in our own hands. Corruption is but one issue.
The second issue is the whole question of funding for small private sector developments through banking and other funds which may be made available by the I FC or other multilateral bodies. We will cure some of Africa's problems only if new jobs are created. As we know in this country, new jobs come not from big government contracts—I think that even the current Government would accept that—but from loads of small enterprises. Small enterprises succeed only if they can get funding. Of all the problems that can arise in developing enterprises which can bring growth, the lack of resources for small business is one of the most critical. I hope that with the new African Project Development Fund organisation and the emphasis now being placed on it by multilateral and bilateral donors, we can really do something to enhance the growth of small businesses. That will bring the jobs, and that will actually start to cure some of the problems.
The noble Lord, Lord Lea, spoke of the key problem of gaining peace and security as well as democracy and political governance. You get peace and security only when people feel themselves secure, and that requires employment. That underlines, perhaps in an unusual way, why I am so keen to see such business development.
There is a great deal to be done in terms of economic and corporate governance, not only by sharing best skills on financial management with the countries of Africa but also by making sure that businesses operating in Africa have first-class corporate governance and can share systems of corporate governance with African countries and companies in the continent.
842
The third broad precondition for the sustainable development of NePAD is clearly regional cooperation and integration. I believe that if we are to see NePAD succeed, we have to put many things in our own houses in order. I hope that a renaissance decade lies ahead. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to push that for all she is worth. Certainly the African Union wants to meet commitments in terms of creating local conditions of peace, security, democracy and political governance. The African Union is prepared to take on the ownership of NePAD, but NePAD's own development goals can be met only if it is a real partnership. That real partnership involves not just money but the active involvement of people sharing their skills with people in African countries. That is the way to get growth and stability in this huge continent, and that is the way for the G8 to help NePAD forward.
3.41 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Lea, on initiating this useful and timely debate in advance of the G8 summit. We are glad to know that the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, will be there maintaining the high priority given to African affairs notwithstanding the other important issues that will be on the agenda. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lea, that the momentum has to be kept up. It is more important than ever that the resources available for this project are effectively deployed and underpinned, as has been said, by good governance, the rule of law, human rights and democracy. That was the essence of the G8 Africa Action Plan, agreed at Kananaskis a year ago. At Evian the participants will no doubt assess the progress made towards meeting the objectives of the plan, which include strengthening institutions and governance.
In July 2002 the African Union agreed to the African peer review mechanism—which has been mentioned—directed and managed by a panel appointed by heads of state and government, and supported by a secretariat which would maintain information about participating states. Each state would submit a programme of action for implementing the declaration on democracy, political, economic and corporate governance, and that would be subject to periodic review by the panel.
Unfortunately, there are some defects in the proposals. First, states which have no intention of complying with international standards will simply not participate. It is a pity that the mechanism was not built into membership of the African Union. Secondly, the panel is not independent. Why not allow candidates to be nominated by the leader of any political party or NGO in the participating countries, with the final selection being made by an independent body such as chief justices instead of heads of state? The panel would then have the power to appoint the head of the secretariat, making that also fully independent.

843
Thirdly, there is a commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but not to the covenants, or to other UN instruments such as the Convention Against Torture. That is a defect. Fourthly, civil society should have been given a more prominent role. As I say, appointments to the panel are controlled entirely by governments, and so also presumably would be appointments to the secretariat and to the peer review teams. The review of a state will rely on
"material provided by national, sub-regional, regional and international institutions".
When the review team visits the country in stage two, it has to consult with representatives of civil society, but surely the secretariat ought to receive and study complaints beforehand, discarding only those which it considers to be frivolous or ill-founded.
Finally, only heads of government have the right to call for a review outside the normal cycle where they consider that there are signs of an impending political or economic crisis. If the panel is independent, why should it not have the power to conduct a review of its own volition, on the basis of objective trigger facts such as an adverse report on the conduct of an election, together with a request for a review by the main opposition in the country concerned? By what right do we make suggestions of this kind about the African peer review mechanism? Since the object of the exercise is in part to create a new environment that will encourage aid and investment from G8 countries, we can, by making these suggestions, render it more attractive than it is now.
That brings me to the OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises and the associated monitoring mechanism. These are practical tools for ensuring that commercial activities in Africa are guided by the highest standards of corporate social responsibility. NePAD's peace and security commission has proposed that African governments establish minimum standards by which non-state actors may access natural resources, and the guidelines provide a workable model that could be adapted or even adopted by the African Union for this purpose.
The G8 Africa Action Plan has pledged to work with African governments, civil society and others to address the linkage between armed conflict and the exploitation of natural resources by encouraging the adoption of voluntary principles of corporate social responsibility. It also calls for accountability and transparency with respect to the import or export of Africa's natural resources from areas of conflict. So there should be a more specific linkage between the guidelines and NePAD, and this would again dovetail with the Prime Minister's Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, which I hope will be discussed at Evian ahead of the meeting on June 17th, where I understand that key players will be asked to sign up to a statement of principles. It would be useful if the noble Baroness when replying to the debate could say something further about the EITI—an initiative which I am sure your Lordships warmly welcome.
844
Not much progress has yet been made towards mutual accountability under NePAD, but now is surely the time to accelerate the process. President Chirac says that one theme at Evian will be the responsibility of both governments and business. The G8 need to spell out clearly both what they expect from the peer review mechanism and what states can expect from the G8 if they satisfy well-understood benchmarks of good governance. Equally, they must speak plainly on what business and governments must do together to ensure that the African people, and not the kleptocrats, get the full benefit of developments that NePAD can ensure.
3.48 p.m.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, on initiating the debate. I offer my good wishes and congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, on her new position.
This debate hinges on an extremely important topic, particularly coming at a time when the plight of Africa has slipped somewhat from the limelight. When campaigning in Edinburgh back in May 2001, the Prime Minister said:
"If elected for a second term I will make Africa a major personal priority and a priority for a Labour Government".
It would appear, however, that international events—September 11th and the subsequent war on terrorism, the wars in Afghanistan and most recently in Iraq, and the continuing Israeli/Palestinian conflict—have somewhat distracted the Government and the world's media and drawn attention away from Africa.
Not for a second am I suggesting that Britain's eye should not have turned to those events. I merely wish to point out that Africa remains very much, in the Prime Minister's own words, a,
"scar on the conscience of the world".
Indeed it may even be suggested that the recent security alerts and events in Kenya and the suicide bombings in Morocco show that the continent is in fact tied up in those international events. Africa must remain a priority for us all. No one can deny that the continent is in dire need of long-term sustainable commitment.
It is therefore vital that the achievements of Kananaskis in Canada last year, when G8 support was secured for the New Partnership for Africa's Development, are carried through to this year's G8 summit in Evian. If not, we are in danger of allowing Africa to become little more than a fashion accessory, a stylish issue that grabs the headlines on select occasions to appease targeted audiences.
It is worth reminding ourselves of the reasons why we need to think more carefully and frequently about Africa. Some 65 per cent of the population of sub-Saharan Africa live on one dollar a day, 40 per cent do not attend primary schools, and 28 million are living with HIV/Aids. Southern Africa is plagued by famine and food shortages. Many of Africa's nations are suffering under the effects of continued conflict and corrupt leadership, and countries persistently face low growth rates.

845
Yet, even among the gloomiest of pictures and statistics, there is a glimmer of hope. Uganda and Mozambique, for example, have annual growth rates of 7 per cent and 10 per cent respectively. Recent years have seen the smooth handover of power to democratically elected governments in countries such as Ghana and Kenya. Life expectancy in Gambia has risen from 45 years to 53 years, and the percentage of the population receiving education has doubled in countries such as Burkina Faso, Liberia and Mali.
Although many of those improvements should be attributed to foreign aid from developed countries and to the excellent work and major commitments of NGOs, credit must also be given to the African countries themselves. Aid can and does provide the infrastructure, the means by which improvements can be made. It can indeed be the impetus to change. But fundamental long-term change can come only from within the countries themselves. Without the support of the African leaders, and the African people, aid will be little more than a stop-gap measure, a sticking plaster or band-aid over a very deep wound.
In setting standards for good governance, respecting human rights and working for peace and poverty reduction, NePAD, as the brainchild of several African leaders, is Africa's recognition that it is responsible for its own development. NePAD does not represent ideas and regulations imposed on African nations by western countries. It is not an attempt to mould them to our liking, although of course we share the aims and sentiment. Rather, it is an inside-out approach to development. As a child learns from its mistakes. so must Africa recognise its own problems, recognise that it can and must do something about them, and set about not only resolving them but moving forward and beyond them. NePAD is a real opportunity for Africa. I urge the Government to consider more carefully our commitment to and support for it.
NePAD is undoubtedly ambitious. Perhaps it can best be described as offering a new attitude to African leadership, a new way of thinking that needs time to seep into the African psyche. I wish to place on record my admiration for and congratulations to those African leaders— in particular, President Mbeki of South Africa and President Wade of Senegal—on their drive and determination in taking on the arduous challenge of lifting Africa from global depression. It is all too easy for us to be cynical about NePAD, to dwell on the teething problems and criticise the tardiness with which the principles are implemented. But I believe that we should offer those African leaders our steadfast support and not our criticism.
That said, the notion of mutual accountability or the peer review process has had a less than wholehearted response. It is not unlike the concept of peer mentoring, of which we hear much in the UK. At first glance it represents an excellent idea. African leaders can help each other to reach the goals of democracy and good governance. They can keep a close eye on each other, and allow their neighbours to criticise them in order that improvements may be made. However, with only 13 states signed up so far, it
846
seems unlikely that the peer review process will get off the ground, let alone have a major impact. Mutual accountability is voluntary and, unlike developed countries, which can at least offer sticks and carrots in return for internal improvements to governmental structures, the African states can do little more than make polite recommendations.
We need only look at other African states' response to the behaviour of President Mugabe to understand just how reluctant Zimbabwe's neighbouring states are to condemn one another. If self-scrutiny is going to work in Africa, it needs a lot more teeth. The peer review mechanism requires a great deal more authority, complete with punishments and incentives.
If NePAD is truly to be an African initiative, implemented by African nations, it cannot solely remain in the domain of Africa's leaders. In asserting the importance of democracy across the continent, the heads of state must show and recognise that everyone, not just the government, should be involved.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting, but I remind noble Lords that the agreement is seven minutes.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, I apologise. I conclude by saying that NePAD must involve civil society.
3.57 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, like others, I thank my noble friend Lord Lea for having introduced the debate. When someone with his very significant experience of life brings his attention to bear on such an issue it is particularly important.
I also say how glad I am that my noble friend Lady Amos will reply to the debate. She has already more than proved herself, and she will know that not only in this House but more widely, among all those concerned with development issues throughout the country, there is nothing but good will and the hope of a long and successful innings for her.
I should declare an interest. I am a member of the Oxfam Association and a trustee of Saferworld. I believe that one of the important aspects of policy in this country should be a close working relationship between government and the NGOs, with all the experience and insight of practical engagement that the NGOs bring to bear. That practical engagement and what it has to offer is well evidenced in the excellent briefing for the debate from the Save the Children Fund, ActionAid, Oxfam and others.
It was also good to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker. Perhaps I have reason to know more than some other Members of the House that, although on the wrong side of the House, she was an extremely effective and committed Minister. Her experience then and what she has done since have a great deal to offer us all.
As we approach the debate on NePAD in the context of the forthcoming G8 summit, there are important issues to be examined. Of course we

847
welcome the partnership principle in NePAD, but how equal is that partnership in reality? Is there really the space for Africans to take the strategic responsibility?
Positive aspects of NePAD include the commitment to greater trade access; less international financial institution conditionality; meeting the development aid targets—I say in parenthesis that nothing generates more cynicism in the world than to enter into all kinds of rhetorical commitments which are not then fulfilled—regional cohesion; commitments to democracy; wider participation; and human rights. All these are good things. But we have to be realistic. Anxieties remain.
There is an insufficiently clear statement of intention on the whole issue of HIV/AIDS. There is not sufficient cast-iron commitment on the revitalising of the health sector and on access to essential medicines; and there is an absence of firm commitment on gender issues.
But, more generally, questions that worry a large number of us relate to how different in effect NePAD will be from the previous commitment to structural adjustment. It has to be recognised that structural adjustment did a great deal of harm. It was export driven—often at the expense of local producers, self-sufficiency, survival mechanisms and food security.
There are also anxieties about the context of a commitment to neo-liberal economics. A great deal of research needs to go into how far neo-liberal economics is benefiting the poor as distinct from the rich in the third world. I suggest that even World Bank statistics, as they are presented at the moment, are not very helpful in providing detail in that context.
There is also the issue of how far NePAD has taken seriously the engagement with civil society. We are not going to make a success of development unless civil society is engaged.
I hope my noble friend will forgive me if I conclude by putting a number of specific questions to her in this context. What will be done at the G8 summit to ensure that we fulfil our commitments on debt and on aid? What of the undertaking to provide an additional 12 billion US dollars for overseas development assistance from 2006; and what of the G8 pledge to ensure that half of that is for sub-Saharan Africa? What of the sectoral development goals—not least on health and education? Can we be certain of long-overdue renewed and generous backing for the Global Health Fund, and especially for the combating of AIDS in the expenditure from that fund in Africa?
What of the G8 promise to eliminate polio by 2005? As I understand it, this now requires only an additional 275 million US dollars. Compare that to recent expenditure on bombs in the Iraq war. Why can we not, at G8, make sure that it is done?
On trade, can my noble friend assure us that there is to be a real commitment to the end of dumping? The common agricultural policy is highly relevant in this context. But recent research by Oxfam and others has suggested that, in 2001–02 alone, United States'
848
subsidies for cotton exports resulted in 30 million US dollars export earning losses by sub-Saharan cotton producing countries.
What of the "development box" within the World Trade Organisation agreement on agriculture? What of President Chirac's proposed moratorium on subsidies for all export goods to African countries during the current trade negotiations? What about commodity prices? Falls in world commodity prices can undo years of attempts at development. What will be the position on the coffee rescue plan put forward by the International Coffee Organisation?
On multinational companies, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, said, what of their regulation and accountability? The noble Baroness was right to emphasise the importance of corruption in this context.
I simply make the point, as we approach the G8 summit, that central to it will be the role of the occupying powers in Iraq. I am frankly tired of repeatedly seeing conflict situations in which no questions are asked about the cost of bombs and armaments to win a military victory. But this is the positive fight for humanity. If we do not win it, there will not be security and stability. We shall have failed in the application of our own values. At G8 we need the hard evidence that we take the fight for humanity every bit as seriously as we take military conflict.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I join him in expressing support for NePAD although I am not sure that I can do it so eloquently. I want also to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, for initiating this timely debate.
It was in October 2001 that the Prime Minister made a moving speech in my former constituency of Blackpool—evidently inspired by NePAD—and spoke of his vision of a partnership for Africa between the developed and developing world, involving aid and investment from the former and good governance in the latter.
But on 31st March this year, only 18 months later, the noble Baroness, Lady Amos—whom I congratulate on her new appointment—said in Pretoria:
"One unfortunate consequence of the Zimbabwe situation is that …Foreign investors fear that Nepad won't work—they think Nepad is a lost cause".
NePAD is wider than Zimbabwe, but I want to talk about Zimbabwe because I believe that the disaster that is occurring there is central to the future success or otherwise of the NePAD venture.
To me, the exciting thing about NePAD when I first came across it was its emphasis on good governance, the rule of law and human rights—and, in addition, peer pressure to secure those aims. They are also written into the African Union treaty, and into the SADC treaty.

849
The second most important aspect of NePAD is the emphasis that the treaty places on the fact that bad governance undermines even the best of economic policies.
President Mbeki has frequently said that the problems of Africa should be dealt by African countries. He is certainly regarded as the most important leader in southern Africa and can give a lead. But, sadly, I do not think that so far he has displayed his ability to give a lead that will be successful. He suggested, with President Obasanjo, that the suspension of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth should be terminated. I am glad to say that that was not accepted. He recently visited Zimbabwe with President Obasanjo to talk to President Mugabe, and the latter seems to have reacted with disdain to the approach of the two foreign presidents. He appears to have rejected a proposal that he should have talks with the MDC, to see whether agreement with the opposition could be reached, unless the MDC recognise him as the properly elected President of Zimbabwe.
So the situation in Zimbabwe is one of terror, chaos and near anarchy and it is getting worse. I do not want to add to all the facts that noble Lords already have in their possession, save to say that the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, has said that it takes seven years—originally I believe she said seven; now I think that she says 10 years—to make up the leeway lost in every year of negative growth. So we face many years of making up for what has already happened.
My main point is that the situation in Zimbabwe is now affecting not only the people there but also those in the neighbouring countries in southern Africa. This point was made not long ago by Pascal Lamy, the European Union Commissioner, and by the Canadian Trade Minister. It is made, too, in a report in today's Financial Times on the studies of the Zimbabwe Research Initiative, a non-profit-making think tank, which says that the cost to the region's economic situation has been 1.5 billion since the year 2000. That means a loss not only to South Africa but particularly to the 14 smaller member countries of the SADC. South Africa's own GDP is said to have suffered a loss of 1.3 per cent. I believe that that is an understatement because it appears to leave out the influence of foreign direct investment. A Reuters report of 13th February said that foreign direct investment for the 14 smaller countries in SA DC for 2001 was 6.6 billion dollars but for 2002 the figure had fallen to 1.09 billion dollars. That is an absolutely astonishing fall, which was no doubt caused by the situation in the neighbouring country of Zimbabwe.
I respect President Mbeke's view that the problems of Africa should be dealt with by the African countries. However, in my view that does not prevent the developed countries from urging African countries to do what they have undertaken to do in those treaties to which I have referred. The southern African countries could he encouraged to do more together to resolve the Zimbabwe problem.
850
That brings me to the forthcoming G8 conference on 1st June. Africa is prominently on the agenda. The G8 countries are vital for investment in southern Africa and the provision of economic aid to southern Africa. They therefore have very great influence. A great opportunity was lost last year at Kananaskis when the Zimbabwe question was not discussed at all, except in a passing reference by, strangely enough, Chancellor Schroeder of Germany. At Evian it should be possible for the G8 countries to help the African countries to set in motion an end to the Zimbabwe tragedy for the benefit of southern Africa and the wider world.
About 200 years ago in Russia, there was a prominent courtier of Catherine the Great called Potemkin. He became famous for constructing what were called Potemkin villages. They were constructed to greet the empress when she went on tour among her people. Those villages consisted only of facades of fine buildings with nothing behind. It would be a great pity if the NePAD treaty were allowed to resemble a Potemkin village.
4.12 p.m.
Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, I join all noble Lords who have spoken in wholeheartedly congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, on her well deserved appointment. Her dedication to Africa and developing countries will be a great example to her department. I also sincerely thank the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, for introducing this timely and topical debate.
When the NePAD initiative first emerged from discussions among leaders of various African states, many observers at the time expressed reservations about the capacity of those countries to work together and effectively to unite and address the fundamental challenges of reducing poverty and resolving conflicts. However, despite those early reservations and notwithstanding a certain loss of momentum in the shadow of other dramatic events around the world during the past year, almost a year on from its launch I believe that the number of NePAD doubters has diminished.
In my view, NePAD is a clear, principled initiative, which was devised by Africans for Africans; it has a momentum of its own and its time has come. Everyone knows that it is easy to bury Africa beneath an avalanche of statistics. My noble friend Lord Rogan mentioned that. It is true that more than 55 per cent of Africans live on less than one dollar a day, that life expectancy is only 47, that one in every five African lives will be affected by violent conflict and that seven out of 10 people in the world who have AIDS are from Africa. Yet it is also the case that 22 African countries achieved growth rates in excess of 4 per cent in 2001 and that bitter long-standing conflicts are in the process of being resolved in Sudan, Sierra Leone, Angola and the DRC. Of course, if we want to focus on the negative, it is not difficult to find more than enough reasons to shrug our shoulders and dismiss Africa as hopeless. However, we do have a choice.

851
The western world can also choose to be positive and offer real and meaningful support and encouragement to the African leaders who seek African solutions to African problems. In essence, NePAD involves a straightforward recognition by African leaders that it is they who carry the responsibility for solving African problems. The days of blaming former colonial powers—and, indeed, anyone else have passed. Those leaders have admitted past failings in governance and leadership and they have stated and agreed that good governance is a pre-requisite for Africa's recovery. They have also identified the three key goals of achieving macroeconomic stability, resolving conflicts in the region and creating a peer governance system to monitor progress. Ultimately, the goals of achieving political and economic transparency, mutual accountability and mutual trust are cornerstones to the success of this new initiative.
I am aware that it is said that NePAD is just another grand statement of intent, which was drawn up to prevent a reduction in aid from donor countries that are growing weary of corrupt governments in Africa. Personally, I take a totally different view. NePAD is a credible initiative and it deserves our wholehearted and ongoing support. I also believe that it provides the promise of a new start in the relationship between Her Majesty's Government and other African nations.
Ahead of the G8 Summit in Evian, President Mbeki of South Africa has warned his fellow leaders that Africa would have to fight for more attention at the summit. He went on to say that Africans would have to learn how to start relying on themselves.
There are many reasons to be optimistic about the future of NePAD. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, has already outlined, there is one major barrier to the path of progress. It was not that long ago that the Zimbabwe issue was described by the G8 as the litmus test to NePAD's commitment to good governance. Sadly, the situation in this afflicted country worsens by the day.
Mugabe's misrule has undermined every principle on which NePAD is founded. I do not believe that the link between the success of NePAD and resolving the Zimbabwe crisis has been fully digested and accepted by all African leaders. I was fortunate enough just two weeks ago to meet the presidents of Uganda and Rwanda. While both of them gave their wholehearted support to NePAD, neither of them accepted the link between the resolution in Zimbabwe and the success of NePAD. Yet the crucial plank of NePAD is peer governance, whereby African nations unite to safeguard standards of government in neighbouring countries.
Thankfully, President Thabo Mbeki and President Obasanjo of Nigeria seem to recognise the urgency now of resolving the Zimbabwean crisis. Although their trip with the president of Malawi to meet Mugabe in Harare on 5th May did not yield immediate results, there are signs of progress along the slow, quiet path of diplomacy. The general debate appears to have
852
switched from "whether" Mugabe will step down to "when and how" he is to be removed. The resolution of the Zimbabwean crisis would provide a springboard for NePAD and Africa could leap forward, increasingly united, credible and resolved.
This is an historic challenge. There is a new spirit in Africa, but it requires support and encouragement. It needs the outside world to focus on the positive and so create the kind of "can do" environment in which NePAD will succeed. In my view, it has never been more important or more valuable to be positive about Africa and its future.
4.20 p.m.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord Lea of Crondall on introducing the debate. Many noble Lords can speak with greater expertise than I in this area, but as a member of the All-Party Group on Africa, which he was instrumental in setting up and of which he is so able a vice-chair, I wanted to support the thrust of his debate. The All-Party Group aims to give greater visibility to the problems and challenges of the continent of Africa and to ensure that its needs are not ignored in the cacophony surrounding other crises in the world.
It is a timely moment for this House to discuss these issues in advance of the G8 summit at Evian which, as I see it, will be a test of whether the developed world is prepared to respond in concrete terms to the opportunity offered by the NePAD framework.
The uniqueness of that opportunity lies in the fact that NePAD is African owned and led. It was inspired by key African leaders who recognise that economic development and social change are dependent on putting right the failures of government and governance and the neglect of human rights which so often lead to conflict: and the continuing conflict in so many countries completely undermines any attempts to increase investment and thus Africa's share of global trade. Bad governance is a deterrent to foreign investment in Africa.
But as the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, emphasised only a moment ago, African leaders through the NePAD strategy have recognised their collective responsibility to create the conditions for development and investment by ending conflict, improving political governance and strengthening regional integration. They will be judged on their delivery, but that very recognition is such an important first step towards delivery. And of course it can be seen only as a first step. It must be backed up by commitment to action. There is, perhaps not surprisingly, a degree of scepticism about the progress that has been made.
Several noble Lords have held up the example of Zimbabwe as a failure of collective responsibility of African leaders. They have expressed concern that they have been slow to intervene in Zimbabwe and I very much share that concern. But steps are at last being taken by African leaders and there will be more. The NePAD framework is still in its infancy. It can

853
only move in partnership both within Africa and with international partners. I hope that we will not be deflected from unstinting support for this fledgling process. We have to be in this for the longer term, recognising the enormous pressures on individual participants in the NePAD process.
There are key reasons for optimism, as other noble Lords have said, and I will not enunciate them. But the challenge that NePAD leaders have posed to the developed world is that we should willingly work with them to define a new way of co-operating with Africa that involves partnership and mutual accountability. Developed countries, the G8, must demonstrate that they are willing to commit sustained, increased resources if we are to make that new partnership a reality.
We also need to see much greater co-ordination between the G8 on recognising the goals that it sets for development strategies. As others have said, both here and in another place, it is important for donors to collaborate. One suggestion has been that one of their number might be appointed as a "lead" donor that could negotiate with other donors in a particular country to develop a comprehensive and co-ordinated poverty reduction strategy.
I am aware that the G8 have set a challenging set of objectives to take the partnership with NePAD forward. The strength of these objectives is that each of them was developed in partnership with NePAD leaders. I want to compliment my noble friend the Minister—as she then was and now a most welcome appointment as Secretary of State—on the crucial part she played in representing the Prime Minister in these discussions.
But while I acknowledge that the aim of these challenging goals is to develop a new style of partnership that will unlock greater resources in the longer term, not only from the public purse but also from private sources, I hope that in her response the noble Baroness will be able to give us some indication of the timescale against which success in achieving these objectives will be assessed.
I would also welcome a clear checklist of proposals for future action against which we can judge both the progress of African partners and of G8 participants. It would be enormously encouraging if the Government were able, under the UK's presidency of the G8, to encourage all members to make Africa a priority.
Finally, from my background as chief executive of Universities UK—and I declare that interest—perhaps I may make a special plea for education. Investment in education is critical to economic and social development in Africa. It also holds the key to achieving full gender equality for women and girls—another important goal.
We cannot ignore the knowledge deficit that is a critical factor in holding back development in Africa. There is a huge brain drain. It is estimated that 30,000 Africans with doctorates live outside the continent. Young adults represent about 45 per cent of the population in most African states, but higher
854
education has barely made an impact. The median rate of entry into higher education is under 2 per cent in 30 countries of sub-Saharan Africa.
Universities have a vital role in producing the professionals that the region will need if it is to reach its development goals. Scholarships and fellowships remain key to this role; for example, the Association of Commonwealth Universities has developed split-site programmes and now provides distance learning scholarships and short professional fellowships to meet contemporary needs.
Will my noble friend confirm that the UK Government will continue to give priority to efforts to help African leaders not only achieve their goals on conflict resolution and better governance, but also in the key sector of education?
4.26 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, like many other noble Lords who have spoken in the debate, I believe that NePAD gives us grounds for optimism. There are so many issues to worry about within the continent of Africa that an initiative by African leaders to recognise previous failings and to seek to address them on an international basis must be the key to the future development of that continent. I agree with my noble friend Lady Chalker that it is difficult to generalise from Angola, to the Democratic Republic of Congo, to South Africa and to Mozambique. They are very different countries and to consider them all under the one broad grouping of Africa is to cast a wide net indeed.
There have been examples in Africa which give us some degree of optimism. The success of the South African Government in taking that country forward in the post-apartheid era is extraordinary. I had never imagined that it would be so successful. It keeps the key to the success of growth within the continent. If South Africa fails, the outlook for the rest of the continent is very poor. That is why we must give South Africa all the support we can.
The blight that faces the continent from the terrible plague of HIV/AIDS cannot be over-estimated. We are talking about countries and their governance where a large proportion of the civil servants will be infected by AIDS and dying. We are talking about capacity-building within those countries. The reality is that people are dying in great numbers, including in the educated middle-classes, and the difficulty that causes for the continuing administrations of many countries of central and southern Africa is profound.
We do African countries no favours unless we talk straight about the issues that are being faced. It' African leaders can face the truth of the failings of their forebears, so should we. The crucial reason for that is that business does not speak the language of diplomacy. Business understands sovereign guarantees and good governance. We in Parliament can persuade ourselves that things are going well, but we cannot make business invest in Africa unless the climate is created that will attract investment. That is

855
why I welcome initiatives such as the Africa Private Infrastructure Financing Facility and others which have been deliberately designed for that purpose.
So we have to mean what we say. If we say that NePAD is about good governance and about peer review, we have to consider the key test that that organisation now faces—another way of putting it is that it is an opportunity—and that is Zimbabwe.Many noble Lords have referred to the problem of Zimbabwe and how that can affect the whole success or otherwise of NePAD.
If we are talking about good governance, the sanctity of property, international governance and the rule of law, then torture, rape, the seizure of property and the destruction of agriculture cannot be tolerated. I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, said in his powerful speech. None the less, quiet diplomacy is not the same as condemnation of such appalling practices. My belief is that unless these issues are strongly addressed and condemned, and unless African leaders are seen to uphold the principles encompassed within NePAD, that initiative will not be taken seriously. So Zimbabwe is a test but also perhaps an opportunity.
I was certainly surprised by the statement that the Secretary of State—it gives me great pleasure to use that description of the noble Baroness—made in a previous debate that Zimbabwe is not a test case for NePAD. How can that possibly be so? I am interested to know whether the noble Baroness has changed her opinion since she made that statement.
When the Foreign Secretary had discussions recently with President Thabo Mbeki, there were headlines stating that there was unity about the treatment of Zimbabwe. I am not sure that that is the case. I would appreciate clarification of that from the Secretary of State.s
NePAD has been criticised as being a top-down initiative involving only African leaders and not necessarily the rest of the countries' civil societies—the man in the village. Of course that is the case, but leadership has to come from somewhere and, in the first place, it must come from the leaders. Those who rule countries must give the first indication and the first support for such an initiative. What alternative is there? If we do not have NePAD we must have something very like it. We must have an acceptance from those who are in power that good governance must be the way forward for Africa.
How can we help? I believe that we in the West can help through carefully targeted aid, through donor funds, through making it clear to our partners within Africa that we intend to uphold our end of the bargain and through lobbying strongly in international forums for others to do so. We must also not be uncritical where we should be critical.
I leave your Lordships with a final thought. Is there some way in which Her Majesty's Government and our European partners can help with capacity building in the civil services of African countries? Often we see a situation where those at the top wish to see better
856
governance and wish to address the issues of corruption. It is easy to say that in a speech, but when the entire system has broken down it is difficult to execute. I welcome any initiatives that the Secretary of State can tell us about.
4.33 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, the noble Lord. Lord Lea, is an experienced trade unionist and economist and a strong advocate of NePAD. He also has the most resolute e-mail address of all of us, namely, lead@parliament. I congratulate him on initiating the debate and for his leading role in the new All Party Group on Africa.
I cannot and do not fault the principles behind the new partnership. I am impressed by the commitment of African leaders, already mentioned, and, so far, of the business community. What I am uneasy about is the lack of involvement of African people below the level of Minister and, indeed, anyone off the government payroll. As the noble Lord, Lord Lea, and others have said, Oxfam, Christian Aid and others have called for more visible participation by civil society in the development of NePAD. It will otherwise wither on the vine like so many other initiatives that have not been shared with NGOs, Churches, trade unions and other active components of society. It is surely the greatest test of good governance that more of the people have more of the share in decisions affecting their country whether or not their leaders have been elected.
I have read the UK's proposed implementation of the G8 Africa Action Plan agreed at Kananaskis. While it contains fine words, the G8 can hardly expect to achieve all of it, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, said. One political scientist has said that it will take a century for Africa to achieve even the degree of integration demanded by NePAD. Yet the process is under way. I have heard the positive comments of my noble friend. The AAP is also an important political initiative, a strong endorsement of the NePAD principles linked with promises of capital projects, PRSPs, enhanced sustainable debt relief and the doubling of aid according to the process agreed at Monterrey.
Aid is important if it is carefully channelled, but we must recognise the paramount role of trade. The world aid budget is only one seventh of the amount that developed countries spend a year in agricultural subsidies. I am aware of the Government's objectives for agriculture, but unless we move faster on the CAP we are condemning African countries to a permanent state of poverty.
The answer, as always, is a mixture of aid and trade. The SADC region holds out the most promise. Having been in Mozambique last December I know that the local agricultural markets are coming back to life, and the improved internal transport, international trade in food and commodities will be a lifeline for southern Africa's poorest countries. But when it comes to mutual accountability, I wonder whether donors are

857
keeping their side of the bargain. There are growing doubts about the millennium development goals and even the eradication of polio by 2006.
I come briefly to the peer review mechanism, which is the most ambitious part of NePAD. I agree that Zimbabwe cannot be ignored; yet the NePAD idea is so much bigger than Mr Mugabe. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, it needs a stronger framework. There are still too many organisations involved. NePAD can and perhaps should deal mainly with the economic and social aspects, but I doubt whether the African Union can undertake the political side on its present form. I hope that the noble Baroness will give us her own opinion and not just what the UK Government want her to say.
I am not even sure about Africa's role in African conflict. Again, it is high on the agenda. It is said that NePAD cannot work in a situation of conflict, because it concerns development. Yet some of the same principles of international partnership must apply to international peacekeeping.
Peace and security, especially in the Congo, were high on the AAP agenda last year. But what happened? Until the latest horrors at Bunia there has been no real African or international initiative. I hope we shall see one now. We have some good examples of conflict resolution. Nelson Mandela's role has been widely commended and Sir Ketumile Matsire has played a powerful role in the internal dialogue in the Congo. But what about peacekeeping? Is the African Union equipped to make a response? Are Europe or NATO so equipped? Evidently not until now.
I welcome the announcement that some troops may go to the Congo, but I wonder whether that goes far enough. The UN compound in Bunia has been literally besieged by thousands of students and militia. The local police melted away and the Uruguay force at the airport could not cope. We have relied too much on neighbours like Uganda and Rwanda, local militia all with their own agenda. The two presidents of Uganda and Rwanda even came to No. 10 last week to put their case. They can he involved now only as part of an international force.
The UN has been waiting for a proper role in the Congo for several years but the will of the Security Council which can move mountains in the Balkans or the Middle East has simply not been present in the DRC. Sierra Leone showed what was possible in a contained area with a strong component of training. But is there likely to be any change in the Congo?
Will the Minister confirm that it is not principally an African but a European failure that has left MONUC unsupported, the local militia in charge and the Congolese people stranded? Was it not a breakdown in dialogue between Britain, France and Belgium? Can she give us any news of genuine progress on this in the European Union? Recently, the right reverend Prelate, who is in his place, raised that issue. I know that M. Wiltzer, the French Co-operation Minister, has recently spoken on the urgency of taking initiatives in Africa.
858
Does the Minister agree with Clare Short that the EU could do more to control small arms in Africa? Can we not do more to tighten up the ECGD's regulations on arms exports to Africa? I agree that African governments could also be much more transparent about their arms spending.
Finally, is it not time that Africa benefited from a UN regional peacekeeping initiative on the scale of those that we have seen in the Middle East? The Prime Minister is always talking about Africa. Now is the time for the noble Baroness to raise her voice in the Cabinet and to remind her colleagues that this continent deserves a higher profile and more action to match the rhetoric we have already heard. I am sure that she will.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Lea for proposing the debate. I join other noble Lords in hoping that my noble friend Lady Amos will use the same firm hand with the leaders of the G8 that she has used with various African leaders, and ask them to get on with the job.
There are some matters to which the G8 ought to pay attention. First, it is very important that the G8—especially the EU and the USA—should stop harming African agriculture. I hope that by the the time of the Evian summit we shall have a firm report on how CAP reform will be delivered. Secondly, we should have a promise from the United States that at the next discussions on the intellectual property rights problem in respect of pharmaceuticals it intends to agree to the WHO proposal for a limited lifting of the patent restriction. The USA is the only country to resist an agreement. I believe that we should hold the US to account on that.
Thirdly—I repeat the point of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich—bad as the situation in Zimbabwe may seem to us to be, the urgent problem in Africa is the Congo. People are dying in their thousands. While we wish that the UN should do X, Y and Z, we never provide it with the resources to carry out those wishes. Only the G8 can take hold of the issue and say that the Congo should be sorted out with a proper peacekeeping mission. Otherwise there will he many more deaths, which will be our fault for not having sorted out the matter.
Having got that problem off my chest, we should not forget that while there are problems in Africa good things also happen. My noble friend Lord Lea was kind enough to mention a recent comparison that I made between Africa and Asia when I pointed out how good Asia was. However, one must also remember that while we criticise Africa for its tragedies, we take the tragedies of Asia for granted. No one has stood up and said that Myanmar is a litmus test for someone's policy on Asia. But Myanmar exists. There is a problem in Acheh. I could point out other problems in Asia. So I do not think that we should single out Africa as being the only bad boy in the world.
Africa has its problems and its achievements. I especially mention the re-election of the president by peaceful democratic process in Nigeria. That is a great

859
plus. I should also mention the smooth transition of power in Kenya. Many of us said that that was not possible. The high growth rates of many African countries have been mentioned. Mozambique has now become a beacon of achievement rather than a land infested by civil war. So there is a possibility that Africa will emerge from its problems.
If we say to Africa that it should solve its own problems, we should not be too impatient if those solutions are not as rapid as we would wish. Europe has problems which it has not been able to solve rapidly either. So we should not ask why the problems of Zimbabwe are not being solved quickly. It is very important that ownership of NePAD remains with Africa. While we can do our best not to add to Africa's problems, we should not be so impatient that we take over the initiative to solve its problems.
The peer review process is welcome. However, not only is it ambitious, but it is not a process that any European country would accept. We should not assume that somehow a peer review process will be tolerable. It is an interference. Unless that interference is readily welcome—and welcome with co-operation by a local state—it will not succeed. It is no good imposing conditions on others which we would not accept. Therefore, I should be cautious about this peer review process. However, it is important that we welcome, highlight and advertise the successes of Africa in democratic political transition. It is important to be able to show that countries which had problems previously, such as Nigeria, can emerge from them by their own efforts. It was not outside help, it was Nigeria's own people who solved its problem. That is important.
I make one more point. We need major investment in Africa's agriculture to improve productivity. Again, as experience of East Asia shows, it is only when one creates prosperity in the rural areas that one establishes the foundations for continued prosperity.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, in advance of the G8 summit in Evian the whole House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lea, for introducing this timely and well attended debate featuring so many singular contributions. This is also an opportunity to welcome the Minister to her new role as Secretary of State. I join other noble Lords in warmly welcoming her, not simply because of the personal achievement it represents, but also because I believe that it will bring focus into your Lordships' House on development issues and ensure that they are centre stage as political questions. We are grateful also to her for that reason.
One recurrent theme throughout the debate has been the relationship not just between NePAD, but between development itself, and conflict. Without resolution of conflict it will be very difficult to ensure the success of NePAD and bring about development. On a day when we have learned that the number of deaths in the Congo has now reached a staggering 3 million over the past five years—a point referred to
860
by my noble friend Lord Sandwich—I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to say something about the apparent failure of peacekeeping in the Congo and what more we can do to end that conflict.
Furthermore, I hope that she will reflect on the deteriorating situation in Dafur in western Sudan and the jeopardising of the Machakos peace process, what that represents and whether we can expect progress to be made. Many of us had hoped to hear by June that there would be progress and that we might see an end to conflict in Sudan, so enabling some development to take place.
The ending of the mandate of the special rapporteur for human rights in Sudan has created a vacuum in the human rights monitoring mechanism: it is one which many of us find very depressing. In the past few days a 14 year-old girl in Sudan, who is nine months' pregnant, was sentenced to 100 lashes of the whip for alleged adultery. The Sudanese Government have not ratified and do not adhere to the convention against torture. We know that torture and violation of human rights have played their part in fomenting many conflicts in countries throughout the continent, such as Rwanda, during the past few years.
The noble Lord, Lord Blaker, and other noble Lords referred to the situation in Zimbabwe. Last week, I and some other Members of your Lordships' House had the opportunity to meet Archbishop Ncube of Bulawayo, an extraordinarily brave and courageous man who has won widespread admiration for the way in which, perhaps in the steps of Desmond Tutu, he has been prepared to speak out against oppression in all its forms, risking his own life in so doing. If Robert Mugabe insists in fomenting conflict, his people will not just continue to suffer. The situation will spiral down, as it has done in the Congo, Rwanda and Sudan. That will jeopardise many innocent lives, including those of children.
A few months ago, I was able to travel into southern Sudan with the SPLA and to spend some time in the neighbouring Turkana region in northern Kenya. I also visited the shanty town of Kibera, a sprawling slum close to Nairobi, which the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, from whom many of us were pleased to hear earlier, knows. It is said to be the biggest slum in sub-Saharan Africa.
In each of those situations, I was struck by the number of rootless, drifting young people, and by the challenge that they pose to development. It is their plight on which I wish briefly to touch today. With 1 million orphans, often living rootless and disaffected lives, and their number rising exponentially, who can doubt that that will be one of the most serious challenges that that continent, riven by so many crises, must face? Africa is awash with feral children, faring little better than vermin. They deserve to be at the top of NePAD's agenda.
Orphaned children are the sharp end of the AIDS pandemic, but urban drift, civil war, a collapsing education system, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, referred in her excellent speech, human trafficking—an issue with which we

861
have been dealing in the Sexual Offences Bill during the past week—and corruption are all playing their part.
In a report, Children on the Brink, several agencies including UNICEF, the United Nations Children's Fund, spelt out the scale of that disaster. It states of 88 countries studied:
"More than 13 million children currently under the age of 15 have lost one or both parents to Aids, most of them in sub-Saharan Africa. By 2010, this number is expected to jump to more than 25 million".
By 2010, in 12 African countries orphans will comprise 15 per cent of all children under the age of 15. There are already indications that that will not be the peak. In Zimbabwe, for instance, 17.6 per cent of children are already orphans, three-quarters left parentless by AIDS. In Kenya, HIV prevalence among pregnant women ranges from 3 per cent in Monsoriot to 31 per cent in Chulaimbo. Bishop Patrick Harrington, the Bishop of Lodwar, in Turkana, told me that the district medical officer reports 34 per cent of the population infected by the HIV/AIDS virus. One Kenyan simply said to me, "Kenya is dying".
The consequences of a vast, dislocated and embittered underclass of orphaned children, if it is not tackled properly and fundamentally, will be devastating for Africa. Tomorrow's revolutionaries and tomorrow's coups are already in the making in the festering slums to which children with no hope or prospects are migrating. Here is a fertile breeding ground for both Marxism and the radical fundamentalism of some religious groups.
Culturally disaffected young people will always create unrest, but the numbers in Africa are without precedent. The crisis of orphans is often just shooed away; I see no evidence that we have properly understood the scale of that catastrophe or to what it may lead.
The ravages of African civil war and tribal killings take their terrible toll. In southern Sudan, the vicious policies of the Sudanese Government have caused 2 million deaths and 4 million internally displaced people, including vast numbers of children. Development is impossible in places such as the Torit diocese, which I visited, which is being pounded into the ground. Auxilliary Bishop Akio Johnson showed me where bombs had showered down on schools and the shelters where children take refuge—"like foxes in holes", he said. For most children, there is no education at all. There are just 20 secondary schools in an area the size of western Europe.
That must be the key question for NePAD to address. It is not just a question of people in parliaments such as this lecturing people in Africa. We must work in partnership with them and use our resources, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, to ensure that something is done to tackle the issues.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Lea on arranging this debate on NePAD, which potentially provides a new start for
862
Africa and for improved relations between Africa and the rest of the world. I declare an interest as chairman of ACOPS, an international non-governmental organisation set up by my noble friend Lord Callaghan to promote sustainable development worldwide, especially in marine and coastal areas.
I shall focus my remarks on environmental issues and how they are being tackled by NePAD and other, supporting initiatives. There is no doubt that environmental issues are of central concern for individual Africans suffering from lack of clean water, depleted fish stocks and desertification, to mention only a few. Those issues are included as one of the five groups of themes—the others in the group being infrastructure, IT and energy—where new initatives are to be developed under NePAD. The other groups are focused on economic, political and commercial issues.
While the UK Government are, rightly, focusing on urgent political and administrative issues, they are apparently not including those environmental issues in their work with NePAD, at least according to the DfID/FCO document of November 2002. That is perhaps surprising, as the Prime Minister in his visit to Africa in August 2000 and in the conclusions of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, emphasised environmental issues. However, some government departments and agencies are certainly working with African partners on environmental and sustainability projects, inside and outside the framework of NePAD, as I shall mention.
One key area for the African environment and for providing sustainable livelihoods is the coastal zones on and offshore. That was identified in the collaborative project called the African Process, involving many African and partner countries, which culminated in an agreed set of priorities and practical projects at a meeting of African heads of state at the World Summit on Sustainable Development. I witnessed the energy and intelligence of many African environmental experts, Ministers and officials last year at Abuja as we prepared for that world summit, with the support of President Obasanjo, whose important role in Africa was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Desai.
Those proposals are now being considered for practical action in the framework of NePAD. The responsibility and the secretariat for the overall coordination of environmental issues in NePAD, belongs to the Government of Senegal, under the leadership of President Wade and their environment Minister, the honourable Mr Diagne Fada. President Wade last year presented those issues at the G8 meeting in Canada. Other countries are given specific tasks within the specific areas of the environment programme. In the case of coastal zones, the lead is taken by the Kenyan environment Minister.
The emergence of such a structure, which I have described in a little detail, for doing business is clearly a great step forward. But it appears that the diplomacy involved has been quite stressful, as we have seen in the European Union when smaller countries are leading

863
the activities of larger countries. As the new approach shakes down, agreements at high levels of government must be accepted at the working level, as other noble Lords have mentioned. The establishment of those structures should also enable partner countries, international organisations and individuals to work more effectively with Africa on those issues.
It is encouraging that some major donor countries, including Japan, I believe, are providing substantial funds for the NePAD infrastructure. Similarly, officials in international and UN agencies, with their important conventions, such as the Abidjan and Nairobi conventions regarding coastal areas, must also work with the new arrangements. That will require some adjustment as, or we hope, they will in future be able to support the designated NePAD lead. Also, the NePAD structure should help non-governmental organisations and the private sector to work more effectively and transparently with African countries' civil society in future.
To illustrate that, next week, a unique conference is being held at the Natural History Museum and the Royal Society here in London to help to support the NePAD initiative on the environment and sustainability of coastal zones in sub-Saharan Africa. Twenty-five specialists and government representatives from about 10 African countries will meet about 50 UK, European and international specialists and officials. My noble friend Lord Evans of Temple Guiting will be representing Her Majesty's Government. Addresses by the Government's chief scientist and the Foreign Secretary at the Royal Society also show the strong commitment of the scientific community to follow up commitments made by governments at the World Summit on Sustainable Development.
As I have already mentioned, there are other UK agencies, such as the Met Office, DEFRA, NERC and DfID, all of which recognise the vital interest to the whole world of the environment in Africa. At a somewhat more local level, I was delighted to hear of a splendid initiative undertaken by the World Wildlife Fund and Kiunga Marine National Reserve on the Kenyan coast, which even provides jobs for women—recycling flip-flops into delightful ornaments. These flip-flops wash up in enormous quantities on the coasts of Africa.
I join with other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend the Secretary of State on her new appointment. I look forward to hearing from her as regards how she will be directing the excellent capabilities of her department towards the solution of critical environmental and sustainability problems in Africa. As my noble friend Lord Judd might have shouted out, these are moral imperatives.
Finally—I hope that I do not break the rules here—I thought that noble Lords might be interested to hear about the strong support for NePAD from a senior official in Senegal who, this morning, sent an e-mail, which read:
"Le NePAD dolt être connu, diffusé et compris par tous les partenaires de l'Afrupie"—
NeP AD must be known about, publicised and understood by all the partners of Africa.
5.2 p.m.
Lord Chan: My Lords, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, for securing this strategic debate. I, too, warmly congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, on her appointment as Secretary of State for International Development. I wish her well, especially because of her commitment to Africa and now, I hope, to the rest of the world.
My involvement in Africa has concerned health and disease. The health of most Africans has not improved in the past three decades; if anything, it has got worse. The average life expectancy of Africans is now 47 years, or 30 years less than it is in the United Kingdom. Endemic disease, such as malaria, continues to kill a million people every year, including many children. Infant mortality rates in Africa are among the highest in the world. HIV/AIDS affect up to one in four adults in some African countries, resulting, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, reminded us, in 11 million children in sub-Saharan countries who have lost one or both parents. Young children orphaned by AIDS may have acquired the disease themselves.
I listened carefully to all noble Lords who have spoken about their expectations of improvement for Africa through the G8 summit at Evian. Development in Africa must now be focused on NePAD, the New Partnership for Africa's Development, a strategy led by Africans for sustainable development, and the reduction of poverty.
The ownership of the partnership by African leaders, with their role in politics and policy, gives hope for the future, but we all know that leadership commitment alone is not sufficient: local people must be engaged in the process. There is also NePAD's innovative plan for peer review to monitor progress and raise standards of political and economic governance. Thirteen African countries volunteered for peer review to take place. This initiative should be strongly supported by G8 countries, without too much negative criticism. Like other noble Lords, I urge Her Majesty's Government to take a lead to establish practical partnerships with NePAD countries.
Development success must clearly be linked with good governance, sound policies and effective aid. Like the noble Lord, Lord Judd, I ask her Majesty's Government to ensure that the substantial new development assistance commitments made by G8 will, by 2006, amount to 12 billion US dollars annually. Will every G8 donor decide how it will allocate the additional money pledged at Evian? Assuming strong African policy commitments, about half or more of the new development aid could be directed to African nations that govern justly, promote economic freedom, and invest in their own people—according to the document.
G8 has made a number of priority areas in support of NePAD: promoting peace and security; strengthening institutions and governance by capacity building programmes, promoting human rights, empowering women and implementing measures to combat corruption; fostering trade, investing, economic growth and sustainable development;

865
implementing debt relief; expanding knowledge; improving health, including HIV/AIDS; increasing agricultural production; and improving water resource management. That is a very large agenda. It is to be hoped that those issues will be tackled with persistence, and that they are not allowed to fade away.
The African Action Plan contains a commitment to provide the resources necessary to eliminate polio in Africa. The commitment will require equipment, vaccines, transport, and staff supervision. There is a requirement for 218 million US dollars to support the Polio Eradication Initiative, which began about 20 years ago. Non-G8 donors will need to be found to fill this funding gap. The United Kingdom will need to allocate an additional £37.9 million to polio eradication before the end of 2005.
Essential medicines are not available throughout the year in health clinics in Africa, and in other developing countries. Her Majesty's Government have made a commitment in the next 12 months to get international co-operation from G8, other governments, and the pharmaceutical industry, to increase the availability of essential and affordable medicines in Africa. Such medicines are needed to prevent and treat common and lethal infections for children, such as malaria. Antiviral drugs to treat HIV/AIDS are needed, but at affordable costs. I look to the Secretary of State for a brief progress report on the health improvement commitments that the Government have made to NePAD.
Finally, western voluntary organisations should be encouraged to participate in initiatives with local communities in African countries. Health professionals who are willing to give their time and their skills to assist in community health services and in hospitals in African countries should be encouraged to go to Africa, though I fear that this is still in its early stages because of conflict. However, a small start has begun; for example, the International Child Health Group of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, of which I am a patron, has sent medical literature required by colleagues in Zambia. Much more can be done with the emergence of government lead, as I experienced in India during the time when the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, was Minister of Overseas Development.
I look forward to hearing the response of the Secretary of State for International Development, especially her words of strategic importance to Africa.
5.9 p.m.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, I should like to emphasise what we said from these Benches last week when congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, on her new appointment. We know and recognise her huge commitment to this field. I am very glad that the noble Baroness's new responsibilities have not prevented her from being present in the Chamber today. Long may that continue.
866
We have had a most important debate. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lea, for his introduction. Tony Blair was surely right when he said that Africa was a scar on the conscience of the world. With the events in Iraq, it would indeed be too easy to focus on the Middle East alone, and to forget the needs of Africa. Those needs are glaring: acute poverty; the high rates of HIV/AIDS, as other speakers have mentioned, which takes out those in their most productive years; low economic growth; appalling conflicts, such as those now unfolding in the DRC and elsewhere; and corruption. All of the latter hold back hopes of progress. No wonder universal primary education and adequate health care for all seem such a distant hope.
Aid alone, as others have said, cannot deal with these problems, nor can debt relief alone, although these are both vital. But as the noble Lords, Lord Rogan and Lord St John of Bletso, and others have said, Africa itself needs to address these questions, and that is why the creation of NePAD must surely be welcome.
There are at least two views of NePAD: one is that it is a positive development, and that African countries will indeed support each other to democratise and prosper. And then there is the view that they will take no such action—Zimbabwe is taken as a case in point and the DRC might be as well—and that NePAD is a mere fig leaf for those who wish to do nothing. Perhaps there is a middle, more neutral view of "wait and see".
The Government recently stated the view that NePAD had made good progress since its inception. The noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, argued:
"It has established a broad base of support from African governments. We and others are committed in our support for NePAD, in particular through the G8 Africa Action Plan. NePAD needs time to make further progress and it needs the active support of the international community".—[Official Report, 6/5/03; col. 939.]
That is a welcome statement.
As other noble Lords have said, it is clearly very important that African countries themselves have signed up to this agreement. Few would disagree with its aims. The eradication of poverty through the pursuit of sustainable growth and development, underpinned by the advancement of good governance, democracy, human rights and conflict resolution. We surely must welcome those aims.
In a debate on 29th April in another place, Hugh Bayley made the telling point:
"We need to recognise who the sceptics are …There are western leaders who do not want to commit to more aid or to refocus their aid on the alleviation of poverty. They do not want to change the terms of trade between the rich and poor worlds …They do not want to have to adjust the way in which the rich world deals with rural economies. There are African leaders who do not want to be accountable to their people".
He also pointed out:
"For every sceptic in Africa there is an enthusiast, and the enthusiasts and their countries will benefit most from NEPA D".

867
His analysis was that many African developments had failed over the years because they were built on expectations that people outside Africa would do certain things, particularly in providing more aid. He said:
"NEPA D's strength is that it concentrates on what Africa can do for itself.".—[Official Report, Commons, 29/4/03; col. 35WH.]
Hugh Bayley makes a persuasive case. That does not mean that we should not make challenges. The action, or lack of action, over Zimbabwe is surely one area we must address, as noble Lords have said. But also, as my noble friend Lord Avebury said, it is justifiable to suggest ways of improving NePAD's independence and its concepts of human rights and good governance. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, also made important comments about the need to involve ordinary Africans in this process. All noble Lords rightly agree that we should support the process.
When the G8 meets in France shortly, there will be a great deal on the agenda, not least the situation in Iraq. There are many bridges and relationships that need to be mended. It seems that half a day at most will be devoted to Africa. I hope that the Secretary of State will reassure us that due attention will be paid to the situation in Africa. Will the international finance facility proposed by the Chancellor be on the agenda for the G8? How far will the G8 address the health questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chan? And could the noble Baroness tell us what the UK proposes for the G8 summit in terms of fair trade and reform of the CAP and of the EU?
As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, pointed out, not only the EU needs to change. The US has become particularly flagrant about its own protectionism in recent years. The example the noble Lord gave of the cotton subsidies bears this out, and there are many other examples. But opening markets in the poorest countries has to be approached with care. Some are so poor and their infrastructure so weak that they will simply lose out if that happens. China may be well placed to exploit the opening of markets, but this may not he the case for a country such as Malawi.
Can the noble Baroness assure us that in considering the situation in Africa as a whole, the Government will press on the US the need to contribute its fair share of aid, including to the United Nations and its organisations? Can she also assure us that the crisis in the DRC will be addressed, as the noble Lords, Lord Desai and Lord Alton, and others have said?
The G8 Africa Action Plan paper, Towards the 2003 Summit, issued in 2002 states:
"Up to and beyond June 2003 the UK Government will support the resolution of conflicts and consolidation of peace in the Great Lakes region".
The United Nations Security Council debated the crisis in Ituri last week and agreed that current MONUC deployments are insufficient and further action is vital. They talked about a rapid reaction force that could stabilise the region.
868
At the weekend, Kofi Annan called for states to come forward to support this idea, and France has indicated its willingness to contribute troops as part of an international force, perhaps led by the South Africans. Therefore, all EU states—and the UK in particular—must be pressed to support this initiative in any way possible. I note that at Prime Minister's Questions, the Prime Minister responded positively to this idea, and I would like to hear more on this subject from the noble Baroness.
The G8 must also make real efforts to tackle the global trade in arms and ensure that G8 countries are not undermining efforts to win peace in key African countries by supplying arms to these same countries.
As we have heard, there will be much on the agenda in Evian and many relationships to restore, not least with our European partners. But if we are indeed to reduce the likelihood of conflict, addressing the situation in Africa has to be a major part of that agenda.
5.18 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I, too, add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, for initiating this debate today. With the G8 starting in less than two weeks, it is both important and timely.
The debate has been of the highest quality, with moving details of personal experiences from many of your Lordships. I was so pleased, as was the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that my noble friend Lady Chalker was able to contribute to this debate. She is, without doubt, one of the most knowledgeable people in this area, with all the work she does and the important business that she now leads called Africa Matters Ltd.
Though previous continent-wide initiatives have failed to deliver, there is still hope that NePAD's outcome will differ. We need to recognise that NePAD represents a significant shift in pan-African policy and that one year on we are still very much at the start of the process.
There have been some positive signs in African countries, as we have heard from my noble friend Lord Goschen, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and the noble Lord, Lord Desai. World Bank reports show that life expectancy is increasing—for example, in Gambia it has risen from 45 to 53 years—and the percentage of the population in education has doubled in several African countries, including Uganda, Malawi and Ethiopia.
However, the continent's economic performance as a whole remains disappointing. Real GDP since the 1980s has averaged only 2.5 per cent a year, while real GDP per capita has remained virtually unchanged. There is no denying that extreme poverty is still widespread, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, and that significant proportions of the population live on less than a dollar a day, as we have heard from the noble Lords, Lord Rogan and Lord St John of Bletso, and many others.

869
One in three people is infected with HIV. It is vital that NePAD's implementation is set within the context of HIV/AIDS and shocks such as chronic food insecurity, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Chan. In 2000, it was estimated that AIDS was wiping out 1 per cent of Africa's GDP per year. Can the noble Baroness tell us what the figure is now?
Issues of accountability and ownership are vital features of NePAD. The African peer review mechanism, as mentioned by most noble Lords, is an important part of that. We welcome the statement by the chairman of the steering committee in April that the independent panel of experts is expected to be appointed within the next two months. It is a worry, though, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, that only 13 states have yet signed up to it. However, I share the frustration expressed by so many that so little has been done about the appalling humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe. I find interesting the comparative explanation of the noble Lord. Lord Lea of Crondall, linking the situation of Mugabe with that of Scargill as,
"genuflection to the old-time religion".
I wonder if that is really good enough.
I am very pleased that the Secretary of State, is here for this important debate. Her presence gives extra weight to these difficult issues. She said that the attitude of African leaders towards President Mugabe was "disappointing". That is surely an understatement. As my noble friends Lord Blaker and Lord Goschen so rightly said, Zimbabwe is central to the future success of NePAD.
The refusal by African leaders to attend the African conference in Paris if Mugabe was not invited put African solidarity first, contradicting the commitment that leaders made under NePAD to provide and support good governance and ignoring their responsibility to Zimbabwe's suffering people. It is hard to promote NePAD if it flouts its obligations. We all have responsibilities as well as rights. As my noble friend Lady Chalker said, corruption exists only if someone offers the bribe. What discussions have the Government had with NePAD members about the formation of a sanctions mechanism to punish bad behaviour and breach of commitments?
There must be more recognition by Africa's governments of the deteriorating situation in Zimbabwe. Recent talks undertaken by the leaders of Malawi, South Africa and Nigeria produced nothing but stalemate. Enough talking; now is the time for action with Mugabe.
If I may remind noble Lords of Christian Aid's comments in 2002, warning that,
"NEPAD has been developed predominantly between African heads of state …and the G8 leaders. It is not just a partnership between African heads of state and their own people, or between African peoples".
Can the noble Baroness please comment on the measures taken to involve civil society in NePAD, as mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Rogan?
870
For NePAD to make real progress towards the 2015 millennium development goals, it is vital that Africa's nations are supported by the international community. I wish to focus particularly on trade, as highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick. Africa has 12 per cent of the world's population but only 2 per cent of its trade. Trade helps towards employment, and, as my noble friend Lady Chalker so rightly stressed, security comes with employment. Full integration into the international trading system could release an estimated 150 billion US dollars' extra income for developing countries. However, little progress has been made within the G8 and the EU.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, mentioned in his very eloquent speech that dumping is another problem. The past three deadlines of the Doha trade negotiations have been missed. Doha was a crucial kick-start on trade, but progress is still disappointing. However, how are we working with NePAD to ensure that trade barriers and tariffs between African countries are tackled?
I have touched on only a few of the issues surrounding NePAD. We must reassure NePAD members that we support and follow the progress of this young body, which has huge potential to do great good for the African people. However, we remain critical in our assessment not only of their achievements but of the achievements of our Government in seeking to deliver changes needed to meet the millennium development goals.
7 p.m.
The Secretary of State for International Development (Baroness Amos)My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Lea of Crondall on securing a debate on this important issue, and on his work with the All-Party Group on Africa, at whose inaugural meeting I had the pleasure of speaking earlier this year. I also thank my noble friend for his work in seeking to build relationships between French and British parliamentarians. I thank noble Lords for their very positive remarks about my work and my role. In particular, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, that we share the same objectives. I hope that the House will not mind if I thank the noble Baroness in particular for her very warm words and support.
A debate on NePAD and mutual accountability is timely in the run-up to the G8 Summit at Evian, where G8 leaders will receive a report on implementation of the G8 Africa Action Plan. Our debate focused on four main areas: why NePAD is important, the response of the G8 to NePAD, areas of particular concern highlighted by noble Lords, and the key challenges that remain.
NePAD matters for Africa's development. The challenges faced by Africa are widely known, and the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, mentioned them. At present, one fifth of the world's poorest people live there, and on current trends that will rise to a half by 2015. Without major changes in how Africa does business and how we do business with Africa, it will become even further marginalised. NePAD matters because it

871
is an African response to its own development problems. It is an African articulation of African priorities. It sets out a set of principles for the economic, social and political development of the continent and is, therefore, a major step towards achieving sustainable development in Africa and managing its reintegration into the global economy. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, that this represents a step change in the way that African leaders think about their continent.
NePAD identifies the priorities to be pursued by African governments. Africa needs to create an enabling environment to stop capital flight—and skills flight, as my noble friend Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, noted—and to secure investment. To do so, it needs to put an end to conflicts that blight the lives of its people. It needs to put in place sound economic policies to address corruption, improve the quality of governance and tackle the spread of HIV/ AIDS. I shall return to that point.
Without such action, the millennium development goals will not be achieved. Without change, there will be little domestic or foreign investment in Africa, resulting in continued low growth or stagnation. Furthermore, the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, was right to point out that the diversity that exists in Africa is not recognised by business when thinking about investment in Africa.
NePAD acknowledges these problems. African leaders have said that they are going to take responsibility and that they are willing to be judged by their peers and citizens. Principles for economic, corporate and political governance have been set out, and 12 heads of state have already signed up to them. The first peer reviews will begin later this year. However, we must recognise that these are early days and that the peer review mechanism is a long-term agenda for raising standards of governance. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked a series of questions about the nature of the peer review process, while the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, along with other noble Lords, was critical of the fact that, so far, only 12 countries have signed up to the principles.
It is important to be realistic. It is my view that good progress has been made. Only in July last year did the African Union adopt NePAD. Our own OECD-DAC peer review process, although set up some 40 years ago, is still being refined. That demonstrates the complexity of the exercise when countries judge each other through a peer review mechanism. Building on the notion of mutual accountability, the African peer review mechanism will examine African commitments to political, corporate and economic governance in a specific country. It is a voluntary process to monitor and raise governance standards in Africa. It has almost been finalised, but has not yet been launched. Work in progress includes setting up a panel of eminent persons, finalising technical work on developing agreed definitions of mutual accountability and selecting an institution to undertake the reviews of
872
corporate governance. All this will be done at the NePAD Heads of State Implementation Committee meeting to be held at the end of May.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about the need for an inclusive process; he spoke about the importance of including NGOs in this. I hope that that will develop over time. With respect to the political aspects of peer review, I understand that, for the time being, NePAD will draw on experts selected on an individual basis until the institutions of the African Union take on this role. It is likely that economic governance reviews will be undertaken by the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa.
Economic governance reviews are likely to begin earlier than the political reviews. UNECA has said that it believes that two or three reviews will be completed by the end of the year. I think that that is a very ambitious timetable, but it is what the organisation has said. I can also assure the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that the NePAD secretariat has been in discussion and consultation with the OECD about the peer review process. It is intended that the NePAD secretariat will eventually go into the African Union once restructuring of the union has been completed.
As regards mutual accountability, the UNECA paper recommends that donors should be reviewed on policy coherence, medium-term aid flow, donor practices and capacity building. The African side should be reviewed on peace, security and political governance, economic and corporate governance, and human development.
If Africa is to make progress, donors as well as African governments must work together to improve performance. That means increasing the volume of aid, improving the quality and ensuring coherence in other policies such as trade, as well as working to attract investment. The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, was correct to remark that the right kind of framework needs to be put in place to attract investment and create employment. Africa's development will come from economic growth.
The last G8 summit announced its Africa Action Plan, which includes a commitment to ensure that half or more of the new development funds announced last year in Monterrey will be used in African countries to create the right policy environment. The plan also listed the responses to be made to NePAD by G8 countries, including those on conflict, trade, health, education, water and aid effectiveness. My noble friend Lady Warwick asked for a checklist against which we can judge progress. The G8 will report concrete indicators of progress at the summit in June. A number of countries will produce country progress reports at Evian so that the public will he able to judge our performance. But we should be clear that this year's summit, although it is a key milestone, is not an end in itself. We and our G8 partners will continue to work on implementation of the action plan through our bilateral programmes and our multi-lateral engagements beyond Evian. We have performed a key

873
role in maintaining high-level political interest. We need to build on that momentum, including through our increased development assistance to Africa.
I turn now to peace and security issues. We want to highlight the commitment to a co-ordinated effort to bring the peace process in Africa to a rapid conclusion, and to make a longer-term commitment to post-conflict reconstruction. Concrete progress has been made towards building peace in Sudan—which is a particular interest of the noble Lord, Lord Alton—in Burundi and in the Democratic Republic of Congo. We need ensure that final important steps are taken in those peace processes, as well as to intensify efforts to plan for peace and ensure that reconstruction efforts are successful. We also need to consolidate peace elsewhere, including in Angola, Sierra Leone, Ethiopia and Eritrea.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Alton, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, raised the problem of the DRC. I should remind the House that the DRC is the size of western Europe and that there is no infrastructure. I acknowledge that there are weaknesses in MONUC. International partners have been working together much more closely. Those partners include South Africa, France, Belgium, ourselves and African countries neighbouring the conflict area.
Noble Lords will have been concerned about the recent upsurge in violence in the east of the country despite the signing-off of the peace process in South Africa and moves to put in place a transitional administration. The upsurge in violence was discussed last week in the Security Council and urgent consideration is now being given to the possibility of creating an international force to complement the work of MONUC and try to stop this violence as soon as possible.
I cannot agree with the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that there have been no African initiatives in the DRC. South Africa has played a critical role in securing the peace. The noble Earl mentioned the important role played by Sir Ketumile Masire, while my predecessor, Clare Short, facilitated talks between Rwanda and Uganda.
It is also important to mention our work to build African capacity in conflict management. A plan has been produced and will be put to leaders at the Evian summit to be held at the beginning of June. I should also like to say something about small arms and light weapons—an issue raised by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. The United Kingdom has pledged over £20 million to combat small arms problems, including a regional programme for east Africa, the Great Lakes region and the Horn of Africa. We also have national plans in Kenya, Mozambique, Tanzania and Uganda.
My noble friend Lord Lea asked for more information about the multi-donor-funded public/ private infrastructure facility. The facility advises governments on improving the enabling environment for private sector participation. The Emerging Africa
874
Infrastructure Fund, launched in 2002, recently made its first investment in a pan-African telecommunications company. The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, was quite right to point out that, while we cannot make business invest in Africa, we can work with the governments of developing countries to put in place the right enabling framework.
I mentioned earlier the money committed by the international community at Monterrey. I agree with my noble friend Lord Judd that we need to ensure that that money is delivered, as well as ensuring that the aid is targeted and distributed in such a way that it can produce the most positive results.
On health, since 1988 the United Kingdom has contributed over 354 million dollars towards the eradication of polio, including an additional 25 million dollars at Kananaskis last year. I assure my noble friend Lord Judd that we have worked with others to encourage pledges to close the critical funding gap. We have increased our assistance for basic education.
With regard to the global health fund, my noble friend will be aware that, for 2004, the United States has pledged an additional 1 billion dollars, which is conditional on the US contribution to the fund not being more than 33 per cent. It is an incentive for other donors to make contributions. The United States has also made a commitment of an additional 15 billion dollars for HIV/AIDS. The noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, spoke movingly about the situation of AIDS orphans. We provide substantial support to UNICEF, which is helping to tackle the problem of HIV/AIDS orphans. We also have partnership agreements with several international development NGOs.
I am happy to write to noble Lords with more information about what we are doing with respect to health and HIV/AIDS, as there are several other issues that I would like to cover in the time available. We are proposing to the G8 that we demonstrate the success of the access to medicines framework for public/ private partnership in Ghana and Rwanda initially. We hope that that will lever further international commitments onto the agenda.
The replenishment of the HIPC trust fund has now been agreed. The UK has made a further bilateral pledge of 95 million dollars, bringing our total pledges so far to over 400 million dollars, in addition to our share of any further EC pledge. Donors have pledged an additional 850 million dollars to the HIPC trust fund, to cover the costs of debt relief for multilateral creditors that do not have sufficient resources to pay for HIPC debt relief.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to the extractive industries transparency initiative. It seeks to create transparency in payments and revenues in the extractive industries—oil, gas and mining—in countries heavily dependent on those sectors. We hope that, at the G8 summit, we will get endorsement of action to take forward the initiative as part of a broader action plan on transparency and corruption, which is one of the priorities that the French have set.

875
I turn to some of the challenges that remain. Some noble Lords questioned whether we should support NePAD, when it has taken no decisive action over Zimbabwe. The noble Lord, Lord Blaker, is right: the situation in Zimbabwe is dire. I hope that the initiative taken by Presidents Muluzi, Mbeki and Obasanjo results in some positive changes in Zimbabwe. However, NePAD is not an organisation, person or entity. It is a framework that prioritises key development issues for Africa and is bought into by African governments.
The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, referred to my previous statement that Zimbabwe was not a test case for NePAD. The success or failure of NePAD cannot be judged on the issue of Zimbabwe alone. As I said, the peer review process was endorsed by the African Union only in July last year. We would blight an entire continent if we were to judge it on the basis of what happens in one country. I cannot agree with the noble Baroness. Lady Rawlings, that nothing has been done to deal with the humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe. The British Government feed 1,500,000 Zimbabweans a day, and we are the second largest humanitarian donor after the United States.
Trade was mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, my noble friend Lord Desai and the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Rawlings. We know that Africa's full integration into the international trading system would have a hugely beneficial impact on Africa's development. Africa has 12 per cent of the world's population but only 2 per cent of the trade. The summit comes at a critical time in the trade round. It will be important to demonstrate some concrete progress on the commitments made in the Africa action plan on trade.
We have made progress on improved trade-related capacity building, on support for regional economic integration and on improving the preference schemes accessible to African countries. Huge challenges remain, and we will continue to try to get agreement in the run-up to Cancun.
Humanitarian crises are a third major challenge. I was encouraged by the response of the international community to meeting recent humanitarian needs in southern Africa, Ethiopia and Eritrea. The UK played a major role in that. However, the role of the international community must go further than supplying food aid. We must support Africa in addressing the underlying causes of food insecurity, which include poverty, ill health, poor governance and conflict.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker of Wallasey, touched on the importance of regional co-operation, working in partnership and actively involving the people. That was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings. Noble Lords will be pleased that the Department for International Development has funded an NGO in South Africa to communicate NePAD ideas and principles to NGOs in South Africa, as part of the process of communicating ideas.
876
My noble friend Lord Hunt of Chesterton raised the issue of the environment. Environmental issues are part of sustainable development and part of our fight against poverty. We are engaged through international processes and through our commitments under the G8 Africa Action Plan, focusing on water and agriculture. I was also asked about agriculture, and the noble Viscount. Lord Goschen, asked about capacity building. If noble Lords will allow me, I will write on those matters, given the time.
In conclusion, I reiterate our support for NePAD, because of its African ownership, because of mutual accountability and because of the importance of performance measurement. I assure noble Lords that no resources have been diverted from Africa to Iraq, and I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, that there is a commitment to talking about Africa at the Evian summit. President Chirac has made that clear. I also assure noble Lords that we are seeking international support for the international financing facility, which would mean a doubling of development assistance and would mean that we could achieve the millennium development goals.
The UK Government will continue to support NePAD and Africa. We will continue to work with others for further progress towards the achievement of the millennium development goals.
5.47 p.m.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, in the couple of minutes available, I must thank all those who spoke in a well informed debate. In particular, I thank the Secretary of State for her thorough response. The debate has helped to secure wider understanding of what is meant by mutual accountability. The penny has dropped on what an ambitious programme NePAD is, despite the paradox of having the commitment of African presidents to NePAD side by side with their great reluctance to be accused of neocolonialism.
The Secretary of State pointed out that we must use realistic benchmarks for progress but also said that—I paraphrase her conclusion—there were grounds, on balance, for more hope than despair. We look forward to further consideration of the matter following the Evian summit and to the work that lies ahead. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Judiciary, Legislature and Executive
5.48 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bankrose to call attention to the relationship between the judiciary, the legislature and the executive, and to judicial participation in public controversy; and to move for Papers.

877
The noble Lord said: My Lords, seven years ago, on 5th June, 1996, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, rose to call attention to a Motion in precisely the terms that I have adopted this evening. The noble and learned Lord said:
"I believe that this debate is timely. It comes when the country must believe that there is an unprecedented antagonism between the judges and the Government".—[Official Report, 5/6/96; col. 1254.]
He also referred to judicial review and judicial discretion in sentencing.
Time has moved on—there has been the Human Rights Act, for example—but not moved on. At that time the noble and learned Lord was on the Opposition Front Bench, while in most of the intervening years the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, has been the Lord Chancellor and a member of the Cabinet. But changing places, and the switch from one government to another, leaves the issues much the same. In particular, the antagonism of the Home Secretary towards the judiciary is a matter of serious concern, echoing the controversy between Michael Howard and the judges between 1993 and 1997.
In the debate seven years ago there were 20 speakers—it was a full day debate-15 of whom were lawyers. Only one speaker, myself, was both a non-lawyer and a former Member of the House of Commons. I was bold, perhaps foolish, to intervene, but it seemed right to speak from a different experience to other speakers, whatever conclusion I reached. I am speaking from that perspective again. I have now spent more than 10 years in your Lordships' House. But I was a Member of Parliament for over 20 years, more than 10 of them in government. I see no merit in presenting these important issues in terms of "us" and "them" between Members of Parliament and the judges.
Of course, Members of Parliament are close to their constituents who experience the sharp end of life. They are absolutely right to listen and reflect upon public opinion on law and order, violent crime, children as victims, drugs and policing. Members of Parliament are sometimes troubled and even angry about the apparent failures of the judicial system. But I have no evidence, and I had none during the time of my own constituency, that the judiciary has been indifferent towards these problems or living in an ivory tower.
There are no easy solutions to the rough and awkward corners of our society. The judiciary, the legislature and the executive each have their task. It is better to work together in a tolerant partnership, given their inescapable roles. That is why I am particularly disturbed by an article in the London Evening Standard on 12th May, under the name of David Blunkett. The Home Secretary chose the headline, "I won't give in to the judges", quickly slipping into,
"my so-called 'war on the judges'".
He asked why it was not possible to avoid,
"a strong and lively debate"
about Parliament and the judiciary instead of "a brawling slanging match". It was news to most of us that the judiciary had been brawling at all.
878
There was a good deal more of hyperbole, often lumping together the judiciary and the rest of the legal profession. More important, Mr Blunkett made disturbing assertions that "judges now routinely "—1 repeat, "routinely"
"rewrite the effects of a law that Parliament has passed",
with,
"ever more ingenious ways of getting what they want".
This was not a casual news-based item, but a carefully considered article of over 1,000 words. At the core was his argument that,
"we need a long hard look at the constitutional relationship between Parliament and the judges and be clear how ii has changed".
But if he has raised some fundamental questions, they cannot be the property of the Home Secretary alone. On the contrary, much of the substance of the article is closer to the responsibilities of the Lord Chancellor than those of the Home Secretary. So long as the Lord Chancellor's Department remains within Government, the Lord Chancellor cannot wash his hands of Mr Blunkett's statement. To be fair, that would not be characteristic of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg.
There may be a case for "a long, hard look" at the constitutional relationship that Mr Blunkett wants. We shall see in this debate and elsewhere. But there cannot be a bilateral exchange between the Home Secretary and the judges, least of all in the language of the Evening Standard article. In the article, the Home Secretary referred to the judgment delivered by Mr Justice Collins on 19th February in an asylum case, saying,
"the Home Office eventually won the legal arguments".
In fact, on 18th March., the Home Office lost the appeal. But on this occasion it is not asylum policy or the outcome that I am discussing; it is the manner in which the Home Secretary handled the matter.
Mr Blunkett was clearly very upset about the initial judgment. He appeared on the BBC Radio 4 programme, "The World at One" and said:
"Frankly, I'm fed up with having to deal with a situation where Parliament debates the issues and the judges then overturn them".
He added:
"I am absolutely clear that we don't accept what Justice Collins has said. We will seek to overturn it".
That was not an off-the-cuff response, as the judgment had been delivered on the previous day. It was, again, a considered statement. And he made no comment on an unpleasant and highly personal attack on Mr Justice Collins in the Daily Mail.
The matter was raised by my noble friend Lord Smith of Clifton at Questions on 26th February. The Lord Privy Seal, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, was at his most emollient, and that can be very emollient indeed. He said:
"We live in a pluralist democracy",
adding that the Home Secretary was,
"perfectly entitled to give his view about the judgment of Mr Justice Collins".

879
He drew attention to another interview in which the Home Secretary had said,
"'I merely ask that alongside'"—
that is, the role of the judiciary—
"'that there should be a recognition of the role of government in establishing public policy'".
The Lord Privy Seal mentioned yet another article—the Home Secretary had had a couple of busy days—in which he made,
"a classic statement of constitutional principle".
In response to a Question asked by my noble friend Lord Lester about whether Whitehall had briefed the Daily Mail against Mr Justice Collins, the Lord Privy Seal said,
"I have not the slightest idea".—[Official Report, 26/02/03; cols. 239-240.]
I make no criticism of the Lord Privy Seal. As expected, he made the best possible defence of the Home Secretary. But he knew, and the House knew, that the Home Secretary's remarks were against the spirit of—to put it at its least—the conventional relationship between the executive and the judiciary. Mr Blunkett's remarks had been foolish and damaging. The Home Office was entitled to appeal against Mr Justice Collins's judgment, but the Home Secretary went far beyond what was required in making an attack on Mr Justice Collins.
I turn for a moment to two announcements by the Home Secretary made on 7th and 9th May calling for clarity, consistency and confidence, as the Home Office puts it, in sentencing. In the first, he referred to "tougher sentences for murderers"; in the second, he announced a new sentencing body "to guarantee sentencing reform". The principles of tougher sentences will form part of the current Criminal Justice Bill and the new sentencing body will follow.
The Home Secretary explained that he was not prepared,
"to allow sentences …which do not reflect either the punishment required or the need to give a clear signal to perpetrators that will not tolerate their presence in our society".
He said that "life should mean life" for the most serious crimes of murder. For other serious crimes, there should be a minimum of 30 years in prison, and there should be a minimum of 15 years for other murderers.
The Criminal Justice Bill should reach your Lordships' House towards the middle of June and the Home Secretary's detailed proposals will be debated at that time. I am not pursuing the new minimum sentences or the meaning of "clarity, consistency and confidence", although other noble Lords may wish to do so. My concern today is the extent to which these proposals shift the balance towards the executive from the judiciary. The Home Secretary called his statement "a landmark change." For the first time, he said,
"Parliament will …provide a framework for judges to determine how long an offender should spend in prison".
880
I accept the Home Secretary's term "a landmark". He is right. The effect of these changes will diminish the discretion of the judges.
As for the sentencing guidelines council, I find it difficult to measure its weight and significance. The chairman will be the Lord Chief Justice, with seven members of the judiciary and five lay members, including the interests of victims of crime. The purpose may or may not be cosmetic. In his statement the Home Secretary referred to "too much individual discretion" in sentencing, but its powers do not appear beyond—his own description—a "dialogue" between members.
I am not claiming that the Home Secretary's new proposals—the two announcements—are unconstitutional. But, I repeat, the balance between the executive and judiciary is changing, which is precisely what Mr Blunkett wants.
Let me go back to the background of the debate seven years ago and the Home Secretary's article of 12th May. The Home Secretary claimed that the judges routinely rewrite the effects of a law and find ways of getting what they want. But judicial review is not an appeal on the merits of the case: the merits have been decided by Parliament. Judicial review simply decides whether the actual exercise of power is lawful, fair and reasonable. Judges are seeking to interpret what Parliament has decided, sometimes as the result of sloppy or ambiguous drafting by Ministers.
The Home Secretary complains about,
"a rash of high-profile cases",
under the Human Rights Act 1998. However, apart from his claim, only about 400 cases of judicial review in a year succeed—about 15 per cent of all applications. That is despite the vast number of decisions that are made by officials.
"Our democracy", as the Home Secretary described it, is not only the processes of Parliament. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal was right: ours is a pluralist democracy. There is a huge subtle web of relationships, far beyond one man, one woman, one vote at the ballot box, the votes in Parliament and the decisions of Parliament. Our democracy is rich, sophisticated and vigorous.
If I was still in the House of Commons, I might be tempted to say to the Home Secretary, "Stop whinging". But in your Lordships' House and on this occasion, I suggest as an alternative that he stays silent and calm and, to use another word that he likes, takes a rather more mature view of these very important issues. I beg to move for Papers.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Woolf: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, for enabling us to have this debate. It was pleasing to hear him speak today as eloquently as he did seven years ago in the debate on the same subject.
As the noble Lord indicated, we are concerned today about the relationship between the different arms of government. Judges of all levels are concerned

881
about the tone and content of the current public debate about that relationship. After consultation with other members of the senior judiciary, I decided that it would not be helpful for me to leap into print, as to do so could so easily be portrayed as my entering into an unattractive tussle between competing interests. Having heard at the weekend of this debate, I decided that, as I have the privilege of addressing your Lordships in person, it would be wrong of me not to inform the House of the reasons for the judiciary's concern, so far as it is possible to do so within my allotted time of seven minutes.
Before I proceed let me make some things clear. First, it is not in issue that the three government departments responsible for the criminal justice system are at one with the judiciary in seeking to improve that system and the public's confidence in it. Secondly, it is not in issue that changes are needed to the criminal justice system and that Parliament is the body that should have the final say as to what form those changes should take. Thirdly, it is not in issue that changes that are made by Parliament will be loyally implemented by the judiciary. Fourthly, it should not be in issue that, if the justice system is to be improved, close co-operation is required between the government departments involved, the judiciary and the legal profession. Fifthly, it should not be in issue that in recent times the judiciary has indeed co-operated with government departments, so far as is appropriate, to achieve the changes that are needed. Sixthly, it is not in issue that the judiciary can appropriately contribute to the work of parliamentary committees that have responsibilities in relation to criminal justice and human rights.
Let me say a few more words about co-operation. The implementation of the civil justice reforms involved the Lord Chancellor's Department, the legal profession and the judiciary working closely together. The success of the reforms demonstrates what can be achieved through co-operation. Happily, that co-operation continues. The judiciary has made very substantial efforts to assist the Home Office in achieving our common objective of improving the criminal justice system. My predecessor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, established the Rose committee, which takes its name from Lord Justice Rose, to ensure that there is a body of highly experienced judges who can give a prompt response to proposals for change when they are received from the Home Office.
We have ourselves asked for legislation to introduce changes which we see as being needed. In relation to asylum and immigration, which we recognise are particularly difficult areas for the Home Office, we have tried to assist in every way that is appropriate. We have made Mr Justice Collins, and now Mr Justice Ouseley, available to be presidents of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. They have transformed that body. We have made senior judges available to sit on the Special Immigration Appeals Commission so as to try to ensure that the rights of suspected terrorists who are being detained without trial receive proper protection in a manner which does not prejudice national
882 s
security. We have also made special arrangements to enable certain asylum proceedings to be disposed of with remarkable expedition.
One of our senior judges, Lord Justice Kay, sits on the National Criminal Justice Board, a body with a critical role in achieving co-operation between agencies. We have co-operated with the various initiatives which the Home Office has rightly piloted to improve the justice system.
There are a great many more examples that I could give, but, regrettably despite our efforts, we have so far failed to achieve the co-operative relationship that is required between the judiciary and the Home Office. Unfortunately, there are times when the judiciary is left with the impression that its efforts are neither appreciated nor welcomed.
Members of the judiciary are fully prepared to accept criticism when it is justified, but they are particularly vulnerable to unjust criticism. They have no public relations machine to deploy to rebut such criticism. They are dependent upon the reasoning set out in their judgments to explain their decisions, but they cannot compel their critics to read their judgments. If judgments are not understood or are misrepresented, the judiciary is inhibited from responding because of the very important convention that judges do not discuss individual cases. The lack of response from individual members of the judiciary or the judiciary as a whole should not be regarded as indicating that criticism is not extremely damaging and, if unjustified, unfair. It is damaging because it undermines the confidence of the public in the justice system and inhibits reform of the system. It also makes the individual tasks of judges more difficult.
Finally, I turn to judicial review. Judicial review is the last protection of the individual member of the public from the unlawful activities of public bodies, including, when appropriate, the government of the day. So far as this is consistent with upholding the law, the procedure is designed to minimise the impact upon the activities of public bodies. A wide range of public bodies are subject to judicial review in addition to the Government. It is of course frustratine, for the Government to be unsuccessful, but the courts do not intervene unless that intervention is necessary to uphold the laws passed by Parliament. Out of respect to the courts and Parliament, the Government must resist giving vent to their frustration.
To attack judicial review is to attack one of the basic protections of our society today. It is inconsistent with the rule of law. It must not be forgotten that the rule of law has a critical role to play in the war against terrorism and that this country is regarded as being its flag bearer around the globe. The impact of any failure on our part to observe the rule of law is not confined to this country.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, but we have agreed a time limit of seven minutes.
Lord Woolf: I apologise, my Lords. I come to my conclusion by emphasising the judiciary's deep commitment to the improvement of the administration of justice and by making a plea for those who share that commitment to be prepared to co-operate fully with us in achieving the improvements which are needed. I apologise for my discourtesy to the House.
6.14 p.m.
Lord Morris of Aberavon: My Lords, I, too, am grateful for the opportunity that the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, has given us for this debate on judicial participation in public controversy.
The use of judges to head public inquiries always causes me concern. Frequently there is no one else one can trust to be so impartial, but there is a price to pay. When a judge enters the marketplace of public controversy outside his court and throws coconuts, he is likely to have coconuts thrown back at him. If one values the standing of the judiciary, as I do, the less they are used the better it will be. Neither Lord Scarman's findings on the Brixton riots nor those of Sir William Macpherson escaped completely without criticism.
Secondly, politicians should exercise great restraint in their comments on the judiciary. In another place, it used to be out of order, and probably still is, to comment upon a judge without a substantive Motion. The Home Secretary uses colourful language in his writings. Surely there must be a better way for a Minister to get his views over. If the Home Office gets its actions right, the problems may not arise. I say no more.
Thirdly, the growth of judicial review and the adoption of the human rights convention have radically changed the duties of the judiciary. I read that, in 1980, there were 149 cases of judicial review. In 1997, there were 2,573. It is expected that there will be some 5,000 cases in 2003. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, I very much value judicial review as a bulwark for the people.
As a young man I heard Lord Scarman speak in west Wales on the human rights convention. "Trust the judges", he said. Even then his boldness caused me some concern. The more that judges' views are sought on convention concepts the greater will be the likelihood of controversy. However, I think that the track record of our judiciary in interpreting human rights concepts has in fact caused comparatively little controversy. Nevertheless, it may be opportune before very long for this House to sit back and examine both the growth of judicial review and its effects and the way in which human rights concepts are interpreted.
I turn to another aspect of the relationship of the judiciary and the executive—the office of the Lord Chancellor at the head of our legal system and its holder as part of the executive. With the reform of this House as a backcloth the office cannot escape examination. There are distinguished Members of this House who advocate a supreme court. I have reread the case of the Bailiff of Guernsey, in which, on its facts,
884
the court—including a distinguished British judge—found unanimously that there had been a breach of the right to a fair trial. The bailiff had presided at a legislative stage and later as part of the executive on a planning inquiry. It was all about the change of use of a shed—perhaps the modern equivalent of the "snail" in our legal history.
The Lord Chancellor was right when he said that the position of the Lord Chancellor is unaffected. The question was whether, in a given case, the convention requirements were met. In a large number of cases where convention rights are not affected, he will sit. However, he has already reduced his availability by stating that he will not do so where Article 6 might be infringed. The reality is that the growth of cases involving the convention and of judicial review involving government should persuade us to take stock of the position.
However, in my view the prime justification for a change in the role of the Lord Chancellor is the substantial growth in the responsibilities and the spending of his department. Constitutionally, the granting of supply is the sole prerogative of another place. In 1989–90, the spending of the legal departments, including the Law Officers, was £1,173 million. In 2002–03, it is estimated that it will be over £3,000 million excluding the Law Officers.
A great spending department should have at its head a person directly answerable to another place. That is why it is rare for a Cabinet Minister other than the Lord Chancellor and the Leader of the House to be a Member of this House.
I well remember the fuss when Lord Home and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, became Foreign Secretaries. Their department's spend was about half the then total of the Lord Chancellor's Department.
These problems will not go away, and it would be prudent for us to consider them—soon.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, I start with a reflection. The remarkable tolerance of the British constitutional practice has been demonstrated by the Home Secretary, an elected Member of one House of Parliament, criticising the Lord Chief Justice on a public platform outside Parliament, and by the noble and learned Lord. Lord Woolf, as a Member of the other House of Parliament, replying from within it—and what an effective reply it has been.
The debate is timely for several reasons, not only for the Home Secretary's reported remarks in his speech to the Police Federation at Blackpool last week. Although his unwarranted criticism of a recently retired and well respected High Court judge was widely reported in the press, the fact that no mention of it was included in the Home Office press release suggests that Mr Blunkett was speaking off the cuff—something that departmental civil servants always dread on sensitive occasions of that sort. Yet his censure of the judiciary was important in that it

885
demonstrated publicly his own true instincts, and his political values, more starkly than would have been the case in any more carefully edited text.
As widely reported in the press, Mr Blunkett said that judges should live in the same "real world"—that dread phrase—as the rest of us. In a regrettable display of what can only be regarded as class prejudice—there is no other word for it—he declared that a retired judge who had criticised his policy in a radio interview only recently appeared to have discovered that the people he tried lived in a different world from those he had met—mark these words—at school, at university and in his chambers. I know Sir Oliver Popplewell, as do others present in the Chamber this evening. He was my vice-chairman for a time when I chaired the Parole Board. It is an entirely unfair caricature.
If sentiments of this sort are to be the driving force in relationships between Ministers and the higher judiciary, then, indeed, the outlook is bleak. What the Home Secretary appears to want to do is to determine levels of punishment by ministerial decree. This is illustrated by his attitude towards the duration of the period to be spent in custody by offenders who have been sentenced to life imprisonment for murder or certain other serious crimes. His latest claim is that the tariffs—that is, the minimum period to be spent in custody by offenders who have been sentenced to life imprisonment for murder or certain other crimes—should be reviewed. This is very difficult to accept. What it boils down to is his belief that the guidelines set by the Lord Chief Justice are simply not long enough. But how to decide what is long enough? It is a personal judgment which may be influenced and I believe is strongly influenced in the instance of the Home Secretary by reactions as reported in the mass media.
In any high profile criminal trial which attracts the interest of the mass media there is always the likelihood of a strongly punitive public response. From time to time judges have to stand up to this criticism when deciding what is the correct sentence that they believe is appropriate to all the facts that have been heard by the court. We should be grateful to them for doing so.
6.26 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank for initiating this very timely debate. I very much enjoyed the constructive response of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice.
I should like to concentrate on just one key aspect of the relationship between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary; namely, the issue of sentencing. The nature of crime may vary from place to place and from generation to generation. We can argue about factors that affect crime and its causes, but crime is something with which all societies have to come to terms in their own way. We also have ample evidence to confirm that the public and political mood continues to be conditioned more by hunch, gut feeling and tabloid publicity than by sound research.
886
The frequent calls for stiff punishments for the minority of offenders convicted of crimes involving violence, drugs or sex are not necessarily in conflict with a wish to see fewer prisoners. No one disputes for a moment that grave offences should in general attract long sentences. But the exaggerated and generalised language sometimes used about crime and law and order tends to create a climate in which it is much more difficult for the more restrained message to be heard and acted upon. The present pronouncement from the Home Secretary has not helped. A determined effort from politicians and others is needed to secure a decisive shift in the public perception of crime and punishment. We need to challenge the attitude among some people that the best thing to do with criminals is to lock them up, preferably in some of our unhealthy prisons, and throw the key away. But that is not realistic and it is unacceptable in every respect.
The past 15 years have seen an unedifying and unnecessary struggle between successive Home Secretaries and the judiciary over one key aspect of sentencing—the resistance of Home Secretaries to losing their former powers in relation to life sentences. The power of Home Secretaries to set tariffs and make release decisions in life sentence cases has always been deeply offensive to the basic principles of justice. Setting tariffs is clearly a sentencing decision and it is right that it should be made by a judge following a judicial process, not by a politician. The procedure whereby Home Secretaries have made such crucial and far-reaching decisions in private, with no right of a hearing for the prisoner and with no right of appeal against the decision, contravenes fundamental precepts of natural justice. In high profile cases there is always a risk that elected politicians will be influenced by considerations of electoral popularity and tabloid headlines rather than by the merits of the case.
Yet successive Home Secretaries have resisted every move to challenge their powers on life sentences and they have been forced to withdraw from decision-making only because the Government have lost a series of cases in the European Court and before our own courts applying the Human Rights Act. Even now, the present Home Secretary is not prepared to let the matter go, but has tabled amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill that set significantly higher starting points for tariffs in murder cases, including whole life tariffs for some types of murder.
Constitutionally, Parliament has the right to set down the parameters of sentencing in legislation. There is no dispute about that. Morally, however, Parliament should refrain from legislating for a sentencing framework which will make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for judges to do justice in individual cases. It should resist laying down a sentencing framework which will have all the ill effects of past failed attempts to distinguish between the heinousness of different categories of murder, such as the Homicide Act 1957, rather than leaving judges to assess the seriousness of each case in the light of all the circumstances.

887
Parliament should resist laying down a framework of sentences that will deprive significant numbers of prisoners of all prospect of release and any incentive to reform, thereby making it much harder for prison staff to control prisoners deprived of hope and with little to lose. It should resist rushing through a sentencing framework in such a grave area of decision-making which has been produced by the Home Secretary with no consultation whatever with the judiciary, the Prison Service, the Probation Service, victim support organisations, the sentencing advisory panel, or voluntary agencies working with offenders, such as NACRO. I have an interest as the chair of that body.
There have also been increasing moves towards Parliament's laying down mandatory sentences in cases other than murder. Since 1997, we have seen automatic life sentences introduced for a second serious violent or sexual offence, minimum seven-year sentences for a third offence of trafficking in class A drugs, and minimum three-year sentences for a third domestic burglary. The Government have now tabled amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill to provide for five-year minimum sentences for certain firearms offences.
There again, Parliament has the constitutional right to pass such legislation if it chooses to do so—but that does not mean that it is either sensible or morally right to do so. World-wide research on sentencing indicates that increasing the severity of penalties has little if any demonstrable deterrent effect on potential offenders. That is because offenders fall broadly into two categories: first, those who do not calculate rationally when committing an offence; and, secondly, those who plan carefully but plan not to get caught. The evidence shows that increasing the likelihood of detection can produce lower crime rates, but toughening up sentencing produces little demonstrable deterrent effect.
Although mandatory sentences do little to reduce crime, they do a great deal to produce injustice by tying judges' hands and making it impossible for them to sentence according to what the individual offenders deserve. They also produce distortions in the criminal process. For example, they deter guilty pleas with the result that more witnesses unnecessarily have to go through the distressing experience of giving evidence. In some cases the problems of evidence lead to acquittals of guilty defendants.
The system of justice is at the heart of our democratic process. It is the envy of the civilised world. Public confidence is shaped by the way in which justice is delivered. It does not help when the executive start interfering with it.
6.33 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, in the presence of persons of such distinction and experience on the subject, and in a debate for which I share the gratitude already expressed by many noble Lords, I hope that it will not be thought unduly abstract or over-ambitious if I devote my few minutes to a
888
discussion of the nature of reality. If noble Lords think that that is a subject about which no human being should talk, I can only say that we on these Benches are constantly talking about subjects about which no human being should talk.
I am prompted to speak by a sentence referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, from the Home Secretary's speech to the Police Federation, in which he said that he wanted judges who inhabited the same real world as he did. I do not wish to raise the question of whether that had a class focus or not; I simply want to talk about what that says about reality and how it is discovered.
It is important that the House reflect again on the fact that the constitutional and legal arrangements of our society do not come from nowhere. They are based on profound epistemological and ontological convictions—they are based on a set of beliefs about how human beings are to discover reality, and the capacity of any single human being or group of human beings to discover what is real, and good, and true. The wisdom that has produced the network of constitutional and legal arrangements already referred to derives directly from those fundamental convictions.
Out of those convictions comes an insistence that, if we are to discover reality, we must have a variety of perceptions of reality inter-playing with one another, and a variety of organs of society that present those convictions and perceptions to one another. The control of the perception of reality by one arm of government would represent a departure of the most fundamental kind from those convictions that are the base of our Parliament, our democracy and our society.
On these Benches, it is very hard not to feel a great deal of empathy with the Home Secretary in his position. I dare to say that we have some understanding of what it is like to be a person with a mission, and we have some understanding of what it is like to find that mission apparently frustrated by a very peculiar network—one that is hard to understand—of authorities and powers in an institution. The Church of England knows about that very well. Empathy with that frustration leads us to say that out of our corporate experience not out of my personal experience—has also come a wisdom of the need for some separation of powers. It is not conducive to the common good—to the discovery of reality, truth, beauty or anything else—for power to be vested in one part of the government and authority of any institution, least of all our country.
I therefore want to suggest in all humility to the Home Secretary that his sense of mission is entirely justified—that his conviction that the victims of crime need our protection as much as they have our concern is absolutely right. However, the way forward in discovering how to implement that mission must include a respect for the variety of perceptions and functions offered to the different organs of our society. It may in the short term—although I doubt it—appear to be a protection of victims for powers to be assumed

889
by one arm of government, but in the long term we shall find ourselves living in a society in which none of us is protected or can feel content.
From the Home Secretary's comment about the real world it followed, very logically, that he could go on to say that he wanted judges who helped the police to do their job. I do not. If the judges are to help the police to do their job, or bishops, company directors or politicians to do theirs, it will be by the judges doing their job. If those distinctions are not preserved, we shall be in peril, because the convictions from which I began, fundamental as they are, are also fragile. The past century has taught us a great deal about their fragility, and this century is continuing to teach us about their vital importance.
6.39 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, almost seven years ago, while only a shadow of what he was to become, the Lord Chancellor initiated a debate on the selfsame subject. It had approximately the same number of speakers as today's debate; but the allotted time was four and a half hours. Today, we have only two and half hours. Of necessity, I must concentrate on only a small—but very important—part of this subject matter.
The Lord Chancellor believed the 1996 debate to be "timely", coming as it did,
"when the country must believe that there is an unprecedented antagonism between the judges and the Government".—[Official Report, 5/6/96; col. 1254.]
It must be common ground that that precedent has been swiftly overtaken. We have currently the unprecedented hostility within government—with the Lord Chancellor, very rightly, upholding the rule of law and in particular the obligation of the judges to apply the provisions of European human rights legislation, whose incorporation into English law the Lord Chancellor, pursuant to government policy, enthusiastically sough, and, on the other hand, the Home Secretary criticising the judiciary "for undermining democracy" and being "out-of-date"—criticism which related specifically to the Lord Chief Justice, who very recently issued guidelines in murder cases.
The House of Lords recently decided, applying the European legislation, that the Home Secretary is acting unlawfully in seeking to play a decisive role in fixing the period that those convicted of murder must spend in prison. So frustrated is the Home Secretary at being deprived of this power (a deprivation long advocated by this House) that he is proposing in the Criminal Justice Bill, shortly to be considered by this House, to hobble judges to the imposition of minimum terms from whole life to 14 years depending on his subjective assessment of the seriousness of the categories of murder he has specified.
In so doing, he has shown: first, a profound disagreement with the former views of his department, which he has in no way sought to justify; secondly, a total lack of confidence in the Attorney-General's power to evaluate the adequacy of the length of time
890
murderers should be confined; and, thirdly, a total lack of confidence in the willingness of the Court of Appeal to substitute the just sentence in cases where the original sentence was unduly lenient.
In the limited time available I shall deal with those three points seriatim. As regards previous policy, the 1990 White Paper issued by the Home Office entitled, Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public, states:
"it is not the Government's intention that Parliament should bind the courts with strict legislative guidelines. The courts have shown great skill in the way they sentence exceptional cases. The courts will continue to have the wide discretion they need if they are to deal"—
I emphasise—
"justly with the great variety of crimes which come before them. The Government rejects a rigid statutory framework on the lines of those introduced in the United States, or a system of minimum or mandatory sentences for certain offences. This would make it more difficult to sentence"—
I stress—
"justly in exceptional cases. It could also result in more acquittals by juries, with more guilty men and women going free—
I stress again
"unjustly as a result".
On the second and third matter, I can deal with the position of the Attorney-General and the Court of Appeal together and quite shortly.
Under Section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, if it appears to the Attorney-General that the sentencing of a person in a proceeding in the Crown Court has been "unduly lenient", he may, with the leave of the Court of Appeal, refer the case to it to review the sentencing of that person, and on such a reference the Court of Appeal may quash any sentence passed on him in the proceeding and in place of it pass such sentence as it thinks appropriate to the case.
Murder cases cover a very wide spectrum of human behaviour from terrorist attacks down to the mercy killing of a greatly loved close relative who is suffering intolerable pain from a terminal illness. But there are many more serious cases, such as rape, robbery and arson, to name but a few, and for such cases the court has the discretion to impose life imprisonment.
It has been decided in recent times that the Home Secretary has no part to play in such sentencing. The trial judge fixes what has been known as the punitive part of the sentence; that is, the minimum period that the offender is required to remain in prison before being eligible for consideration by the Parole Board. The Parole Board's decision on whether or not it is necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner should continue to be confined binds the Secretary of State. In such cases the trial judge considers the matter in open court, permits representation on behalf of the offender, and his decision is appealable to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal has the power, and has on very rare occasions used that power, at the suit of the Attorney-General or on its own motion, to increase the sentence from a determinate period to life imprisonment. There is, however, not the slightest indication that the frequency or success of the Attorney-General's

891
application has given rise to any suggestion that the judges are failing in their duty to impose the just sentence.
We should now make the mandatory life sentence discretionary; or, if we retain it, we should assimilate it to the discretionery life sentence procedure which I have briefly described.
While fully aware that we send more offenders to prison and for longer than any other European country bar one, the Home Secretary, for party political purposes, seeks to exploit the public illusion that judges are soft on crime. That is grossly irresponsible. While accepting that in any democracy there will always be a measure of tension between the judiciary and the executive, the present position has become intolerable.
6.48 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, we are all well aware that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who initiated a debate on this subject in 1996, lost virtually no time after coming into office in the following year in introducing the Human Rights Bill. He is a proud and passionate defender of the values contained in the Human Rights Act, and of what he might describe as the sensible and balanced approach of the judges in adjudicating on challenges made under that Act since it came into force in 2000. He rounded off a public lecture delivered at the University of Durham last November by saying that the Act had,
"breathed new life into the relationship between Parliament, government and the judiciary, so that all three are working together to ensure that a culture of respect for human rights becomes embedded across the whole of our society".
I strongly agree with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who also said in that lecture that in a democracy under the rule of law, it is not mature for Ministers to cheer judges when a win is secured in court proceedings and to boo when a loss is suffered. I have some sympathy—or, if I may borrow from the right reverend Prelate, some empathy—with Ministers who see policy decisions for which they are accountable in an ongoing way to Parliament and ultimately to the electorate, upset by unelected judges. who are, in a sense, not accountable to anyone and certainly have no responsibility for the ongoing work of developing policy in a particular field.
The grounds on which judicial review can be sought for ministerial decisions are, to use the straightforward and simple words of the late Lord Diplock, that a decision is tainted with,
"illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety".
Parliament has never laid that down. To coin a phrase, it is a doctrine of the judges, by the judges and for the judges. All that Parliament has done is to endorse the machinery of judicial review in the Supreme Court Act 1981. I am not surprised if some Ministers—as we have heard, Labour as well as Conservative Ministers—may not always accept adverse court decisions with good grace and contentment.
892
I am an enthusiast for the growth of judicial review over the past 20 or 30 years, and I said so in that debate seven years ago, about which I have spoken. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, said then that all governments abuse power. I guess that he has the same view today as he had then. There needs therefore to be accountability on the part of governments, government departments and officials and agencies of all kinds, to an independent judiciary.
However, there are sometimes signs—it would be wrong if I ignored this entirely—that courts can overreach themselves. As other noble Lords have said, although it is very firm law that the judges are not supposed to question decisions simply on their merits, they therefore may not use irrationality as a basis for attacking decisions simply because they might disagree with them on the merits. They have not always been careful to maintain that distinction.
I shall not on this occasion repeat the examples that I gave in the previous debate because there is now a new factor, which is worth mentioning and which has expanded the scope of judicial review; that is, the Human Rights Act. The traditional basis for judicial review—if "traditional" is the right word for something fairly modern—of illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety has now been expanded by the principle of proportionality. Ministerial decisions can be challenged for not being proportionate to the legitimate aims of the legislation under which the decision was made.
If we assume that most judges, Ministers and officials are reasonable people—many noble Lords may think that that is a big assumption—surely there is often scope for differences of interpretation about what the law permits as being a proportionate application of a statute. Under the rules of judicial review, it must be the judges' interpretation that prevails.
It is therefore of particular importance that judges exercise what has been termed by others—it is not my phrase—a measure of self-restraint. I fully agree with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—again, I take his view from the lecture that I mentioned earlier—that the experience during the first couple of years of the Human Rights Act indicates that there has been a measure of judicial restraint—some might even refer to judicial deference—towards certain areas of governmental decision-making. In that regard, it can readily be seen that Ministers, officials or—dare I say it—regulators are thought to have some particular knowledge and experience.
Nobody will be surprised at judicial self-restraint in matters of national security, because that seems to have been so for a very long time. The cases show that the judges have also been willing to let Ministers determine, for example, planning policy and to apply it in particular cases without risk of judicial review, except for some extreme case of unlawfulness or procedural unfairness.
Because of the significant increment in judicial power granted by the Human Rights Act, together with the further development of the grounds for

893
judicial review, I sometimes wonder whether it is worth reviving the idea put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who, unfortunately, is not with us today. Seven years ago, he said that it might be useful to have administrative assessors sitting with the judge in what is now called the Administrative Court, to provide an element of expertise in administration.
Judges as well as Ministers are capable of making decisions that do not achieve a sensible balance between the demands of executive policy and the public interest on the one hand and individual human rights on the other. In my view, judicial review in general and the Human Rights Act in particular are part of the worthwhile process of better ensuring that balance.
6.56 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I cannot recall a time in the past half century when there was such a pressing need to defend our judges against ill-informed attacks, not only from one section of the media but, unfortunately, from the present Home Secretary. I refer to attacks that are politically motivated and orchestrated; attacks against which the judges are unable to defend themselves effectively with help from spin doctors; and attacks against which the Lord Chancellor, because of an institutional conflict of interest, is unable to provide effective protection.
Forty years ago, judges were rarely called upon to decide controversial cases involving abuses of power by Ministers and public officials. In those days, relations between the judiciary and Ministers were cosy and cordial. There was a culture of mutual respect within the establishment. Judges were submissive lions beneath rather than beside the throne of government and sometimes more executive-minded than the executive.
Forty years later, our constitutional arrangements have been transformed, in part by an enlightened judiciary in developing modern principles of public law to protect the citizen against the abuse of public powers; in part by the incoming tide of European Community law; and in part by the Human Rights Act.
A judge once famously reminded us that justice is not a cloistered virtue. In a free society it is healthy for judges to face public criticism and debate. However, the way in which the Home Secretary and some tabloid journalists attacked Mr Justice Collins three months ago exceeded the bounds of legitimate criticism and threatened judicial independence. The criticism was unfair and ill-informed. It displayed ignorance at the highest levels of government, not only about what the judge had decided but also about our system of parliamentary government under law.
The judge gave the Home Secretary permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. But Mr Blunkett could not contain his fury at losing the case. In the immediate wake of the judgment—I believe that it was on the very same day—and before its contents could properly have been digested by his advisers, still less explained to
894
him, he made his defiant statement on "The World at One" on BBC Radio 4, as my noble friend pointed out in his powerful introductory speech.
Later, the Daily Telegraph reported that the Prime Minister is,
"prepared for a showdown with the judiciary to stop the courts thwarting the Government's attempts to curb the record flow of asylum seekers into Britain. He has ordered new legislation to limit the role of judges in the interpretation of international human rights obligations and reassert the primacy of Parliament".
The Daily Telegraph also quoted the Home Secretary as saying:
"Frankly, I'm fed up with having to deal with a situation where parliament debates issues and judges then overturn them".
In an interview with the Daily' Telegraph the next day, Mr Blunkett said:
"If public policy can be always overridden by individual challenge through the courts, then democracy itself is under threat".
Meanwhile, the Daily Mail mounted two successive days' worth of vindictive and highly personal invective and misleading comment. The judge could not answer back and the Lord Chancellor, who heads the judiciary so as to protect judicial independence from political interference, did not speak out to criticise the Home Secretary publicly.
The Lord Chancellor is a staunch defender of judicial independence, and I have no doubt that he made representations in private, but he certainly did not succeed in persuading the Home Secretary to end his attacks. Nor did the Prime Minister do so. It has been left to my noble and learned kinsman the Lord Chief Justice to do so today in what is a historic statement. It is highly regrettable that it had to be made.
Mr Justice Collins was in due course vindicated by the Court of Appeal, but by then the real damage had been done to the relationship between the Government and the judiciary.
The Home Secretary learnt nothing from the episode, as my noble friend noted, and he wrote that bellicose and ill-informed article in the Evening Standard. Incidentally, in that article he prayed in aid two distinguished jurists—Professor Sir William Wade QC and my learned friend and colleague, Michael Beloff QC—both of whom have confirmed to me that he lacked their support for his views. The next day Mr Blunkett was reported as having taken a sarcastic swipe at the Lord Chief Justice in a speech to the annual Police Federation conference and to have told them that he likes,
"judges who help us and help you to do the job".
If democracy is under threat from anywhere, it is not from the judges but from a Home Secretary who infringes basic constitutional conventions and panders to the tabloid press and popular prejudice.
That is also true of Mr Blunkett's rhetoric about sentencing decisions. There is no objection to a sentencing council and sentencing guidelines, but there is to executive interference or coercion. There really is a dangerous slippery slope. Only a couple of weeks ago, the US Congress passed a law that will require a

895
report on any federal judge who sentences below the minimum in the sentencing guidelines to be sent to the Justice Department, no doubt so that Attorney-General Ashcroft may draw the judge's identity and conduct to the attention of the Congress. The Home Secretary has not gone so far—at least, not yet.
As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester said so well , it is not the function of the judiciary to help the Home Secretary or the police, but to be impartial judges protecting the citizen against the abuse of state power and upholding the rule of law.
It is 40 years since Professor VILA Hart warned, in Law, Liberty and Morality, against the fallacy of what he described as "moral populism"; namely, that the majority have a moral right to dictate how all shall live. Professor Hart wrote;
"This is a misunderstanding of democracy which still menaces individual liberty …The central mistake is a failure to distinguish that acceptable principle that political power is best entrusted to the majority from the unacceptable claim that what the majority do with that power is beyond criticism and must never be resisted".
The Home Secretary's brand of judge-bashing, with its class-based undertones, is both unfair and misconceive—a form of official bullying. It encourages a culture of disrespect for the independent judiciary, when the Home Secretary should use his great office to encourage respect for human rights and the rule of law. Perhaps I may say, respectfully, that I hope the Prime Minister will say to Mr Blunkett what was once said by another Prime Minister, Clem Attlee, to Harold Laski: that "A period of silence from you would be welcome-. That would enable the Home Secretary to reflect on the wise advice of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester, which I will always remember.
7.4 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, like all noble Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. Lord Rodgers, for initiating this important debate. It is a topical debate for reasons which are well known to us all. I do not intend to go into the more topical matters, already fully covered, in particular by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice, because this is a golden opportunity to consider the more general question of principle concerning the relationship between all three branches of government.
I want to start with the so-called principle of the separation of powers, a subject which is open to grave misunderstanding. I say "so-called principle" because the principle has never applied in the United Kingdom in a way that it does in France and the United States. The ereat difference between ourselves and the French is that they start with an abstract principle, most famously stated by Montesquieu, and then apply it rigidly like a straitjacket.
We in this country have always distrusted abstract principle. We prefer to go by what works well in practice. Alexander Pope said it all in,
"For forms of government let fools contest;
Whate'er is best administered is best".
896
One has only to look at the history of the House of Commons, for example, to see how true that is. There was a time when the King governed personally, but he needed to come to the House of Commons for money. He needed a majority in the House of Commons to get his legislation through. Now it is entirely the other way around. The majority in the House of Commons is the Government. It is therefore idle to talk about a separation of powers between the legislature and the executive when the legislature provides the executive and the executive controls the legislature. This is all quite unlike the position in the United States. Since the executive can get through whatever legislation it wants, there is no separation of powers in that respect, but it works and for that reason we have kept it as it is.
Then take the relationship between the legislature and the judiciary. The origin of the House of Lords as the final Court of Appeal is that the litigant could petition the Queen in Parliament. Since in days gone by—perhaps happily—there were not so many experienced lawyers in the House of Lords as there are now, Parliament summoned all the judges to advise it on the particular point in question. But it was the House of Lords, not the judges, which made the decision. Again, that worked well until more lawyers with experience were needed in the House of Lords. So the Government created Baron Parke, the first Lord of Appeal in Ordinary.
There was a good deal of' resentment at that time, but only because the House of Lords did not like the idea of life peerages. We have now become used to life peers, so that objection no longer lasts. There was never any objection to the thought that Baron Parke—Lord Wensleydale, as he became—was in some way out of place in this body as a part of the legislature.
So I ask: is there any objection now to judges, more particularly retired judges, taking part in the House of Lords? Even now there are part-time judges sitting in the House of Commons. They are called "recorders". No objection seems to be raised to their sitting in the House of Commons and as part-time judges. So is there really any reason why more senior judges should not sit in the House of Lords? To that I answer no, provided always they exercise all proper self restraint. If they have taken part in a debate, obviously they will not be able to sit subsequently in a case in which that particular issue is raised. So historically there was never any separation of powers between the legislature and the judiciary. I see no reason to introduce that now for the sake of some abstract theory.
I turn to the judiciary and the executive. Here the separation of powers is absolutely vital. And why? Not because of some abstract theory, but because it is the function of the judges to stand between the individual and the executive. The writ of habeas corpus is an obvious example. But habeas corpus is only one aspect of the matter. Whenever Parliament grants powers to Ministers, as it does so frequently, it is the function of judges to ensure that Ministers keep within the powers that they have been granted. In the area of administrative law it is the most important function that we have. We do it by judicial review.

897
It must be irritating—we all accept that—for Ministers, including the Lord Chancellor, to be told that they have acted unlawfully, but that is the very essence and heart of the rule of law. It is bound to create friction. Look at the friction that was created between President Roosevelt and the Supreme Court at the time of the New Deal.
Because of that risk of friction it is essential that both sides—I hate to use the word "sides" in this context—should act with the maximum of self-restraint and good will. It is essential that judges should realise, as I believe they do, that the Government have a job to do. It is essential that government should realise that judges have a job to do. I agree very much with what the right reverend Prelate said in that respect.
Of course Ministers will disagree with the decisions of judges from time to time, but when they do, it simply does not help to say—please do not let them say—that the judges are out of touch. We are not out of touch. We have no axe to grind at all other than to ensure that the law is enforced.
7.12 p.m.
Lord Plant of Highileld: My Lords, in 1941, in what subsequently became a much cited letter, a High Court judge wrote to Lord Atkins complaining that judges, far from being lions under the throne, as envisaged by Francis Bacon, had been reduced to squeaking mice under a chair in the Home Office. I doubt very much that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary or for that matter most of his predecessors over the past 20 years would regard them as squeaking mice and it is clear that the relationship between the judiciary and Parliament in both its legislative and its executive functions is now a matter of considerable controversy. For that reason I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, on his Motion, although its very timeliness is itself a cause for concern as it shows that things are not as they should be.
I want to suggest that current controversies are a symptom of something rather profound. It is important that what is usually called comity between Parliament and the courts should he preserved. Hitherto comity has been preserved, I think, by an assumption shared between the two institutions that Parliament made the laws and the courts applied them. In this sense it was what has come to be called a unipolar concept of parliamentary sovereignty. This assumption no longer holds. In an indirect, and rather crab-wise way, I think we are moving to what Lord Justice Sedley has called a bi-polar concept of sovereignty,
"of the Crown in Parliament and the Crown in the Courts—to each of which the Crown's ministers are answerable: politically to Parliament; legally to the courts".
If that is so we are on the move from a strongly majoritarian Parliament-based view of British democracy towards a much more constitutionalised and judicialised one.
898
We do not have to look very far to see how that has come about. It is through the growth and increasing scope of judicial review and the Human Rights Act. Both of those, which I support, impose constraints on the exercise of executive power and the question. particularly in respect of judicial review, is how the exercise of that power on the part of the courts is made legitimate. The fact is that many cases under judicial review and under the Human Rights Act are going to be politically controversial. So the question of legitimacy is important in the sense that the exercise of these powers may appear to conflict with the view of the Government which can lay claim to a democratic mandate.
In the early stages of judicial review I do not think that that mattered very much because the review was of actions taken by government and their agents as authorised by statute and the courts were therefore able to appeal to the express intention or will of Parliament in legislation. It could therefore keep closely to the concepts and principles embedded in the legislation while reviewing its operation in a particular case with respect to the various criteria under which the review could proceed.
However, it has been extended to the exercise of power in a much broader sense. The rub here is that the judges can no longer appeal in those cases to legislative intent to legitimise what they are doing. As ex hypothesi the judges cannot rest on legislative intent, what legitimates their capacity to review, particularly in relation to the somewhat elusive and difficult notions of rationality and proportionality?
In recent years in this context recourse has been made to the invocation of constitutional principles such as the idea of the rule of law in the Pierson case or an appeal to the basic right of access to the courts in the Witham case. One or two noble and learned Lords who sit in a judicial capacity in your Lordships' House have sought to make that point rather more generally and have not been slow in drawing the inference that the power of government has to he limited by principles of constitutionality as much as they would be in a polity with a basic constitutional document. 1 could give examples of that, but there is not time.
The defence of the use of such constitutional principles is not that they are based upon sonie kind of constitutional or jurisprudential theory, but rather that they are implicit in common law and in the legal and political traditions of the country. As far as that is the case I believe that it is a good thing and provides a good defence of the invocation of those kinds of principles.
That kind of characterisation of the role of judicial review would very much support the claim that we are now moving towards a bi-polar concept of sovereignty with government and indeed Parliament being limited by basic constitutional principles. Indeed it is not just constitutional principles, but what might be called constitutional substance, as the Thorburn case put statutes into an order of precedence which was not a disposition made by Parliament itself.

899
That of course is paralleled in the case of the Human Rights Act, particularly in relation to the strong construction requirement in Section 3 and the Section 4 requirement of the possibility of issuing a declaration of incompatibility. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, in the Poplar Housing judgment said that the judges should interpret the law in the context of the Human Rights Act and not legislate. "Amen to that", I say. But under Section 3 his judicial colleagues have in some cases moved towards the legislating rather than the interpreting end of that spectrum. I cannot go into the details, but the Mendoza case, the Offen case and a case arising out of the youth crime prevention legislation are examples of where the judges have read things into statutes retrospectively or changed the meaning of the words. In the Mendoza case they actually substituted words in the statute.
If we are moving towards a bi-polar constitutional democracy—something I welcome—it seems to me inevitable that judges will be put into controversial, political situations. They need to be very careful about their exercise of those powers and about the nature and sources of the principles that they use to guide them in those cases where there is no legislative intent to follow. They should indeed interpret and not legislate. They need to be trusted by the citizens of this country as they cannot in practice be made accountable to them.
The quotation from Francis Bacon with which I started said that the judicial lions should not check or oppose any part of sovereignty. If I am correct in following Lord Justice Sedley, the courts now share a degree of sovereignty. They need to be very careful indeed how they exercise that power in a democracy and what in fact will legitimise that exercise.
7.19 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, first I thank my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank for initiating the debate. I recall the time when he was leader of our home affairs team, a role in which he was most conspicuously successful. It was a happy team in which I was proud to have the parts of spare man. extra and "Lords, Ladies and attendants".
The Home Secretary, on the other hand, was, I think, a little over the top when, in an article in the Evening Standard, he said:
"Confidence in our criminal justice system is at an all-time low".
In 1388, all the judges were impeached and the Lord Chief Justice was executed. In 1641. after ship money, almost all the judges were impeached. In 1609, when King James I was arguing with Chief Justice Cooke, he threw a punch at him. I do not think that things have reached that pass yet. It illustrates a serious point; that in the first two of those cases the judges were in trouble for being too compliant with the executive; and in the third they were in trouble for being too uncompliant.
There has always been steering between Scylla and Charybdis. But, when I listen to people outside this House—and I include my street neighbours in Kilburn
900
as well as my academic colleagues—I hear a great deal more lack of confidence in the legislature and the executive than I do in the judiciary.
Since coming to this House, I have acquired a great deal more understanding and affection for every part of our political establishment. The only one for which I have acquired an increased respect is our higher judiciary. It has earned that many times over.
On 5th June 1996 I spoke about judicial review. I shall not do that again. I have made many speeches about judicial review. If anyone wishes they are perfectly welcome to follow the American principle and read that speech into the record of today's debate.
This year I had the privilege to give the annual lecture at Stratford-on-Avon for Shakespeare's birthday. The play for the year was "Measure for Measure". The play is a classic debate about the nature of justice between Angelo and Isabella. It illustrates a philosophical dispute about what justice is, which is eternal. It stretches from Plato and Aristotle at one end of the story to the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor at the other. It arises from the fact that Shakespearean England had the mandatory sentence, which led to the application of what I have come to think of as "Bingham's law" after a speech made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, on the Second Reading of the Crime (Sentences) Bill. He said that the attempt to abolish discretion in one place always led it to break out somewhere else.
The mandatory sentence is an attempt to abolish discretion. However, Tudor and Stuart courts and juries got around that by the use of verdicts, which usually undervalued the stolen goods to bring them below the limit of selling, or by the grant of benefit of clergy.
The debate between Angelo and Isabella in "Measure for Measure" is about mercy. In the specific context of the Shakespearean courts, which practised very much the kind of principles that Isabella and Portia were arguing, the debate is about how far sentences should be based on the details of the particular case and how far they should be based on a general formula. Angelo of course was an advocate of the formula. Some of his lines sound very familiar.
"We must not make a scarecrow of the law".
When exhorted to show pity, he says:
"I show it most when I do justice. For then I pity those I do not know".
They are good lines, but they do not appear to have persuaded the courts of the period. That mercy is not, as the executive then said, "foolish pity"; it is very carefully calibrated to the circumstances of the particular cases. It takes account of three things: the criminal's fondness for profits; how far it is a deliberately calculated approach; and how far contrition has been shown. For example, of those who stole food, 31 per cent of those convicted of felony were not executed. But of those who stole food for profit all were executed.

901
That is one example of a deliberate attempt to apply discretion to the facts of the case, which is the foundation of the doctrine of mercy for which Isabella pleads.
This attention to the individual facts of the case is a philosophy to which I have personally a profound devotion. But one cannot settle public policy simply on one's own devotions. So we need to think about a dividing principle. Until we have justice done by a formula coming out of computer and so long as we have courts hearing evidence, it must be the job of the judge who has heard the evidence to decide on the statement. One cannot understand what is going on in a court case without reading a transcript. Incidentally, I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, about the importance of reading judgments. So that must be a matter for the courts.
The duty of the executive is to catch criminals. If it were a little better at doing that, it would be in a rather better place to criticise. When Lord Jenkins of Hillhead was Home Secretary, I remember saying:
"At last we have a Home Secretary who understands that if you want to deter crime, you don't hang 'em, you don't flog 'em, you don't shoot 'em, you catch 'em".
I wish the present Home Secretary also understood.
The duty of legislature is of course to lay down general rules because one cannot have discretion without general rules. One returns to the practice of King John before Magna Carta when he deprived the man of his lands, in the words of the official record,
"because we were cross with him".
One must have the general principles and they must interact with the discretion. How that should be done is best set out by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in the Renton report of 1974 on the preparation of legislation; that Parliament is to lay down the general principles; it is to do it in a general form which allows the statute, as one allows the child, to grow up and not be kept perpetually in leading strings. That was the answer of a good parliamentarian and a good lawyer. I think that it should stand.
7.27 p.m.
Lord Hope of Craighead: My Lords, for reasons which are no doubt obvious to your Lordships, I was not at all certain that it would right for me as a serving Lord of Appeal in Ordinary to contribute to this debate. The first part of its subject matter—the relationship between the judiciary, the legislature and the executive—is so closely related to the work on which I and my colleagues are engaged day in and day out that I do not think that I should say anything about it, although I have listened with very great interest to what has been said by so many noble Lords on this most important topic.
However, the second part—judicial participation in public controversy—raises a number of quite different issues on which I feel able to contribute some thoughts which may perhaps be of interest. So it is on that limited chapter that I wish, in these few remarks, to concentrate.
902
I should explain that my qualification for making these remarks is that I was, for seven years, between 1989 and 1996, Lord President of the Court of Session and Lord Justice General for Scotland. Those combined offices impose on a single judicial figure, which for that period happened to he me, the responsibilities which are borne in England and Wales by the Master of the Rolls and the Lord Chief Justice. The holder of these offices is the head of the judiciary in Scotland. That position brings with it, of course, numerous responsibilities, one of which is that of representing the judiciary as a whole in discussions with the executive.
When I began my period of office the practice was for these discussions to take place very largely behind closed doors. There was inevitably much to discuss. Sentencing policy was a regular topic. The administration of the court system was another. Politics came into it, of course, because I was engaging in discussions with the executive. But I did not see myself as engaging in political or public controversy. I believed that I was putting forward thoughts and ideas on behalf of the judiciary in order to assist the executive in policy making. That was the reality of cooperation, of which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, spoke.
However, as time went on, I sensed that there was a distinct and increasingly pronounced change in the atmosphere. Criminal justice had already reached the top of the political agenda in England, and it was not long before that development was felt in Scotland, too.
At about the same time, the late Lord Taylor of Gosforth became the Lord Chief Justice of England. He was already a prominent figure, well used to dealing with the media, due to his work on safety at football grounds. He adopted a quite different approach to the media from that which had been adopted by his predecessors. I think it no exaggeration to say that, with much skill and great charm, he brought the judiciary out into the open. He sought to de-mystify the judges, and his personality was such that he made great strides forward in that endeavour. Needless to say, I felt that, in my small way, I had to do my best north of the Border to follow his example.
I suppose that it was inevitable that putting a more public face on the judiciary would attract the attention of the media. The fact that we were willing to be approached and, from time to time, to be photographed and to give interviews was welcomed. I believed then, and I still believe, that that was the right thing to do and that we all owe a great deal to Lord Taylor of Gosforth for his initiative. But there is no doubt that it led, step by step, to the position where much of the debate which in my early days was conducted behind closed doors now takes place in the open, and—far too often, no doubt—is conducted through the media. I was already conscious before I left office as Lord President that important policy initiatives of which I had had no previous notice were being announced to the media, and that I was being called upon by the press to react to them on behalf of the judiciary.

903
What then are we make of the situation in which we now find ourselves? The first point that I should like to emphasise is that judges do not seek to engage in public controversy. The initiative does not lie with them. Politics is not their business, nor is it their business to engage publicly—off the Bench, that is—in controversy. Their business lies in judging such cases as may be brought before them to the best of their ability. On the other hand, issues do from time to time arise that affect their work and it is inevitable, as the public have such a strong interest in those issues, that they become the subject of public controversy.
Judges would not be human if they did not have opinions on those issues. I felt that it was my business as Lord President to consult the judges, to listen to what they had to tell me and, as best I could, to represent them in such discussions as were thought necessary. My function, it could be said, was administrative and representative—not judicial, in the strict sense. The advice that I gave to judges at all levels, and especially to sheriffs, the county court judges, who often felt especially vulnerable to public criticism, was that they should not attempt to deal with those issues themselves. They should make their views known to the senior judges through whom, in a suitably detached way, their concerns might be expressed.
Inevitably, that approach focuses attention on the Lord President—the Lord Chief Justice—as the judges' representative. What it achieves is detachment. It insulates the vast majority of judges from that process, because it is through the Lord Chief Justice that the views of the judiciary as a whole are communicated. The value of that approach should not be underestimated.
The second point is that the perceived participation of the judiciary in public controversy is just the tip of an iceberg—perhaps an unfortunate metaphor in this most heated of contexts—which is represented by the extent to which judges at all levels engage with the executive, at its invitation, in issues that are developed through discussion and in due course become government policy. It is to the credit of the executive, and of the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, in particular, that the judiciary is widely consulted on a whole range of issues of concern to government. That exercise took up a good deal of my time when I was Lord President, and I have no doubt that that is just as true today as it was in my time.
I suppose that it is inevitable that some of that process becomes known to the public. Just last weekend in Scotland, extracts from the response of the judges to a government consultation paper on the treatment in court of child witnesses were published in a Sunday newspaper. The article was accompanied by a library photograph of the judge who had prepared the response. The views in the response were portrayed as controversial, as no doubt they were. But it was not the judges who had asked for that to be published, nor who had sought pubic controversy.
904
We could, no doubt, reverse the whole process towards greater openness which a succession of judges including the present Lord Chief Justice have been pursuing for more than a decade. We could close the shutters and turn out the light. Whether that would entirely remove judges from participation in public controversy is debatable. It is questionable whether it would be worth while. I for one would not want to go down that route at all.
The value of the representative function that senior judges, the Lord Chief Justice in particular, perform on behalf of the judiciary is invaluable. For myself, I applaud the fact that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, has contributed to this debate, and I am sure that I am not alone in expressing my profound admiration for what he has done and is continuing to do on the judges' behalf in that most demanding of all judicial roles.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank on introducing this debate. It is timely, as are all other debates in your Lordships' House on the constitution. Those need to be held at frequent intervals, in view of the current state of constitutional disrepair into which the UK has been allowed to drift. Running repairs are urgently needed but, if they are not forthcoming, there need to be regular reviews, such as this debate affords.
I wish to cast a wider look at the topic of the Motion, as other noble Lords have done. The character of the constitutional system of the UK has changed drastically in the past 25 years in both its formal and its informal composition. Things are now so out of kilter that the contemporary situation is parlous.
The most serious problem is the lack of any radical reform of the House of Commons. That colours everything. It should be the main mechanism for holding the executive to account, which it has not been for some time now. The Commons should be at the operational heart of the constitution. Recent Back-Bench revolts have suggested themselves to some commentators as signs that the Commons is reasserting itself. Welcome though some of those revolts have been, they are merely sporadic outbursts. They serve simply to tease the hopes of those of us who are fully paid-up members of the constitutional reform movement.
Unbridled presidentialism is now the operational basis for British government. That is forcefully demonstrated in the recent report, Parliament First, subscribed to by a cross-party group of senior MPs. Unless the relatively moderate reforms that it proposes are implemented—and there is little likelihood of that—the relationship between the executive and the legislature will remain lopsided.
Constitutional deterioration has come about largely because of the mind set behind the prevailing paradigm in which modern British government operates. Its mood can be gauged by some of the

905
statements made by members of the governing elite. I shall cite three examples. A recent head of the Civil Service observed that,
"the constitution is what we do".
which must have made Dicey spin in his grave. Peter Mandelson stated four years ago that,
"the age of representative democracy as we have come to know it, may be coming to a close".
David Blunkett, who has already been mentioned in the debate, when Secretary of State for Education and Employment, defined the role of the then DFEE as,
"regional headquarters, with headteachers being its branch managers".
Those quotations—I could cite many more—show how old principles and boundaries are being allowed to atrophy, to be replaced with targets, performance tables, benchmarks and the like. It should occasion no surprise that many of the old, formal institutions and conventions have been allowed to wither in favour of the burgeoning number of new, informal agencies. Task forces, hived-off executive agencies, quangos and tsars have increasingly assumed the tasks of government. No real thought has ever been given as to how those can he rendered accountable or their existence properly codified. There is a vital need to bring them within the constitution.
The chaotic character of the UK constitution and the growing weakness of the legislature have inevitably placed a greater responsibility on the judiciary to adjudicate on the actions of government. As the distinguished legal scholar, Dr Robert Stevens, has recently written in his hook, The English Judges, because of the increasing centralisation of power under all governments,
"the judges have grown more important because others have become less so".
The increasing size and, more importantly, influence of the judiciary was inevitable in view of the tentacular growth in the apparatus of the British state and the concomitant enfeebling of Parliament. It is at least welcome, because, as the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, remarked, it is the last significant bastion left to defend the rights of the individual.
The judiciary has, perforce, been brought into contentious issues that have led to a series of clashes between judges and Ministers. As other speakers have said, this has been particularly noticeable in the area of sentencing policy. It has reached a crescendo with the present Home Secretary, who seems to rail daily against what he sees as the irresponsible interference of the judges in his work. He is threatening to limit judicial discretion by imposing mandatory sentences for certain classes of crime, and other provisions for fettering judges' power. His public criticism of Mr Justice Collins' ruling against the Home Office on asylum law prompted me to table a Starred Question on the matter. Frankly, it was disproportionate and quite uncalled for. The contretemps last week between the Home Secretary and Sir Oliver Popplewell was as unprecedented as it was unseemly.
906
There is a certain historical inevitability about these ministerial/judicial clashes. They arise from the fact that constitutional modernisation has nowhere near kept pace with the ever-burgeoning powers and agencies of the state. They will continue until we contrive a satisfactory new settlement regarding the judiciary's constitutional role in contemporary circumstances. The need urgently to address these questions is paramount. One commends the proposals advanced by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Bingham and Lord Stey n, in this regard.
Another factor making for the historical inevitability of these clashes is the corporation mindset to which I referred previously. It is one that is oblivious to matters of form, established manners and protocols. Changes and modernisation are assuredly needed from time to time, and old ways of doing things may need to be abandoned. But any replacements should still be put into an ordered, coherent framework that facilitates openness and public accountability. Recent governments have utterly and wilfully been disdainful of the basic principle of democratic constitutionalism.
Successive British governments have never reflected in anything like a holistic way on the constitutional implications of their actions. They delude themselves into thinking that state institutions and practices evolve in a fashion consistent with the theory of Edmund Burke. Such muddling through simply builds up into a huge muddle, which is precisely what our constitutional arrangements are in today. Those arrangements need to be looked at in the round, preferably by a Royal Commission; but that will never happen. I would even settle for a task force, but that is equally unlikely. As it is, we shall have to make do as best we can with regular debates, such as the one being held tonight.
It is a huge irony that while British governments preach the virtues of representative democracy and the rule of law abroad, they neglect to attend to their refurbishment at home.
7.42 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I, too, am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank for introducing this important and highly topical debate—a debate that is indeed even more topical than it was when the Motion was originally tabled.
What is the proper role of the judiciary? I believe that the most important part of the role of members of the judiciary is as protectors of the rule of law. The rule of law is an absolutely vital element in any civilised society. It means a system of making laws that is rational, transparent and not arbitrary. It means a system of enforcing laws and protecting rights that is fair, open and accessible. We cannot have a rule of law without a judiciary. The judges are people who enforce the laws and, to some extent, make them through their interpretation of statutes and through the development of common law.
We can have the rule of law without democracy—that was true, for example, of the old British Empire—but it is surely not possible to have democracy without

907
the rule of law. Society without the rule of law ceases to be a democracy. That is why in a true democracy the elected representatives of the people must recognise that there are limits on their powers. That was recognised by the founding fathers of the USA when they set up an independent federal judiciary—a judiciary that was independent because its members had life tenure and because they were not answerable to Congress or to voters for their decisions, something that the present Administration seem to be keen on reversing.
The American Supreme Court, as interpreter of the Constitution, can declare Acts of Congress void as being unconstitutional. In the United Kingdom there is no power in the courts to declare Acts of Parliament unconstitutional. But the corollary of that is that the legislature and the executive must exercise self-restraint in exercising their powers. Politicians must not challenge the rule of law, even if there is public support for their doing so. That way lies the tyranny of the majority, which can be as bad as the tyranny of a single tyrant.
I call attention in particular to what Professor Herbert Hart said, as quoted by my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill. That is why I agree with those speakers in the debate who have been critical of the Home Secretary. So far, no speaker has supported him, with the limited exception of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. The noble Lord, Lord Plant, was absolutely right to point out that self-restraint is required on both sides. I wait with interest to hear the voice of the Lord Chancellor's Department in the person of the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland.
I believe that it is fair to say that the Home Secretary has not himself expressly challenged the rule of law, but by his attacks on judges—some of them, unfortunately, highly personal—he has stirred up a populist clamour against the judiciary. He is adding his voice to a campaign that is already being generated by part of the tabloid press. I accept that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has defended the judiciary, as we would expect of him. We are grateful for that. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, that the role of the Lord Chancellor should change. However, that is an issue for debate on another day.
It is true that judges are far more interventionist than they were, say, 40 or 50 years ago. When I was a law student, I remember being taught about the ancient remedies known as the writs of certiorari and mandamus, but those impenetrable Latin names have now been swept away and replaced by judicial review. The judges are, rightly, more active in challenging executive decisions that are irrational, reached by an incorrect procedure, or made outside statutory powers. But that inevitably brings judges into the political battlefield. Judicial review and the role of the judiciary is, therefore, a legitimate subject for public debate, but that debate must be rational and restrained; and it must not be conducted through megaphones.
908
So far, I have spoken about judges as objects of public controversy, but what about judges speaking on controversial issues? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, made an extremely valuable contribution on this point. We should remember that the opening-up of this right of judges to speak in public was due to the efforts of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who scrapped the Kilmuir Rules, which prevented judges from speaking out in public.
It is entirely appropriate and welcome that two serving members and two former members of the senior judiciary have spoken in tonight's debate. They have all made important contributions. But I am sure the others will forgive me if I say that the contribution made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice was of quite exceptional importance. It is one to which I hope many politicians in this country—not the Home Secretary alone—and the press will pay very close attention.
As noble Lords will know, the policy of my party is that the Appellate Committee should be replaced by a supreme court which is separate from your Lordships' House. But, again, that is a matter for a different debate. While the present system continues, it is right that serving members of the judiciary should use your Lordships' House as a forum to express views that directly concern the role and functions of the judiciary or that engage the rule of law.
I should add a footnote: there is an important boundary in this matter that should be observed by serving judges who are Members of your Lordships' House. They should think carefully about speaking on political issues, especially where speaking out might disqualify them from sitting as members of the Appellate Committee when it considers those issues. But, on issues such as those covered by this debate, leaders of the judiciary not only may, but must, speak out.
It is vital that politicians respect the judiciary, which has an essential role as guardian of the rule of law. Intemperate attacks on the judiciary by people in authority will undermine that role. That must not happen. I hope very much that this debate will contribute to ensuring that it does not.
7.51 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, this has been a memorable debate, with some outstanding contributions. We owe a great debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, for introducing the topic. Having spoken on the subject in authoritative terms almost exactly seven years ago, he did so again today. I have compared the two speeches. The one phrase from his speech seven years ago that the noble Lord left out—no doubt he was daunted by the array of lawyers in front of him—was:
"Good lawyers almost always make bad politicians".
The noble Lord omitted that axiom, and we are all very grateful to him for doing so.

909
It is a timely debate, as the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, and the noble Lord introducing the debate, told us. Indeed, the word "timely" was used by the noble and learned Lord the present Lord Chancellor when he introduced the debate on 5th June 1996.
I have been fascinated by the debate about the separation of powers. We have had some very interesting speeches. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. gave the historical perspective. However, he ended up by referring to the "so-called" principle of separation of powers, and I can understand why. The noble Lord, Lord Plant of Highfield, who has considerable experience in these matters, also delivered a very interesting speech. He ended by reminding us that judges should interpret and not legislate. That has been very much a theme of the debate.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, in opening the previous debate, said:
"Parliament makes the laws, the judiciary interprets them and the judiciary develop the common law. Parliament also confers all manner of powers on the executive and other bodies, and it is for the courts to ensure that those powers are neither exceeded nor abused but exercised lawfully".
How right he was then, and how right he is now. In 1776, John Adams said:
"The judicial power ought to be distinct from both the legislative and executive, and independent upon both, that so it may be a check upon both, as both should be checks upon that judicial power".
That has been very much the debate today.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, put the situation in historical context. He also delivered an entertaining speech, which I enjoyed enormously.
On the whole, it is accepted that the doctrine of separation of powers works well, although, as the noble and learned Lord reminded us, its strict application is not always possible. A slight blurring at the edges often occurs, as several noble Lords commented. We are now in a situation where the edges have been blurred too much.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, reminded us of the importance of the rule of law preventing the tyranny of the majority. I am sure that he did not refer only to the media and the tabloid press; we must all exercise some restraint.
Much has happened since 1996. We have had the Human Rights Act 1998. The noble Lord, Lord Borne, reminded us how the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor fought so hard to introduce that legislation. As the Minister will know, I have on many occasions paid tribute to the reforming zeal of this Lord Chancellor. We all benefit considerably from that.
We are of course in the real world. It was also very interesting to hear the discussion on the nature of reality led by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester, for which we are all very grateful. We all try to live in the real world, but sometimes we do not see it quite as clearly as the right reverend Prelate does. In the real world, I wish that more people would listen to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, when he
910
said that the framework of sentencing must allow judges to dispense justice. How important a contribution that was in this debate, with all the noble Lord's experience. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, reminded us that the prime objective must be first to catch criminals before we engage in great esoteric debates on sentencing.
I am afraid that most of the debate seems to have been directed against someone whom I know very well—David Blunkett. He was my pair in another place for many years, and I have tremendous respect for him. It probably should not come from me, but no other Conservative Front Bench Members are present, so I shall speak in the hope that they do not read my remarks in Hansard: I think that he is a very great man in many different respects. If we are attacking the Home Secretary, we are attacking the Government, because I know many Cabinet Ministers share the Home Secretary's views. So we should not isolate the Home Secretary as we have done perhaps too much in this debate.
The last straw for David Blunkett appeared to be the recent controversy over the Government's ending of the presumption of support for in-country asylum applicants. The Home Secretary launched an appeal against the High Court's ruling that the policy breached applicants' human rights. He told the BBC's "World at One" programme:
"Frankly, I'm fed up with having to deal with a situation where Parliament debates issues arid the judges then overturn them".
Those words have been echoed throughout the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, gave him a reason. He said that he had spoken off the cuff on a number of occasions. I remember speaking off the cuff when I was in government, but I do not recall many who ever did. I think that the Home Secretary was speaking his mind and that of many of his colleagues. It is a matter of regret that they have these views. I hope that the Government will listen very carefully to the points made in this debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, had very good advice: stay silent, stay calm, and take a more mature view of these important issues. The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, said that a period of silence would be welcome. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, said that surely there must be a better way for the Government to get across their views. I hope that we will have a chance to debate more extensively some of the ideas put forward by my noble predecessor as Secretary of State for Wales, Lord Morris of Aberavon, as he has great experience of these matters.
The most important contribution was that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and I am so glad that he said what he did. I shall now willingly give up a couple of minutes of my speech to allow the Minister her full speaking time. The noble and learned Lord expressed judicial concern about the tone and content of the debate. I say to the Minister that I hope the Government are listening.
8 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, for introducing this debate so eloquently and I endorse what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral: it has been most memorable. After having listened to the heat of the debate, I want also to thank the noble Lord for reminding us that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is indeed, in so many ways, a great man.
The issues we have discussed and debated today are of fundamental importance. That has been brought home to us not only through this debate, but also by the experiences over the past 13 years or so of those countries seeking to rebuild their democratic institutions after decades of absolutist rule. An independent judiciary in a healthy relationship with the other constitutional powers is one of their first goals, and one of the hardest to achieve. We take it for granted at our peril. I want to assure noble Lords that this Government jealously guard and honour that independence, as is proper.
Much of the debate has been critical of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. However, he may well he grateful for that because he has said that he would like to -stimulate debate". He has certainly achieved his goal this evening. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester expressed empathy and warmth of understanding for my right honourable friend and I thank him for that. He can rest assured that power is not vested in one part of the institution of government. It does indeed demand and receive respect for difference of perception, and that is honoured. The distinction to which the right reverend Prelate referred will be preserved and its fragility respected. I thank also my noble friend Lord Borrie for the sense of balance that he brought to the debate. It was good to hear a noble Lord on these Benches echoing the cool and calm judgment that the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, sought so much to exhort.
It is right to acknowledge that there is nothing wrong with vigorous and healthy debate, in this area or in any other. It takes place against a background which is absolutely clear, in which the independence of the judiciary is acknowledged, respected and valued by government as a whole—and by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary as much as by any other member of the Government—as one of the cornerstones of our liberty. Many would think it more worrying if judges always felt obliged to agree about everything with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, or vice versa. Luckily, we seem to be in no immediate danger of that.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, my noble friend Lord Plant, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, and not least the noble Earl, Lord Russell, all referred to the historical ebbs and flows of the relationship. I looked forward with joyful anticipation to the contribution of the noble Earl because I was confident that he would bring to your Lordships a certain acuity
912
in terms of the historical perception. He was right to remind us that, compared with the position in 1388, things really are not that bad. My right honourable friend understands the need to catch criminals. To that end, I should like to reassure the noble Earl that this Government have rather a good record of doing that and I think we are becoming increasingly good at it.
Some time ago the Secretary of State, during a period of heightened concern about national security, issued a warrant authorising the security services effectively to burgle the house of a suspect, search for evidence and carry away anything useful they might find. The practice was believed to be authorised by legislation and had been followed for some years previously. However, in the particular case, the suspect sued for trespass. The Lord Chief Justice eventually found that the Act did not have the meaning the Government said it had; that the Secretary of State had no power to issue such a warrant; that considerations of national security and the practice of his predecessors were not enough to give him the power he claimed; that his agents were indeed trespassers; and that his purported search warrant was wholly illegal and void.
I can reassure noble Lords that I do not refer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf; it was the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Camden. The Secretary of State was the Earl of Halifax. The relevant legislation was the Constables Protection Act 1750. The year was 1765 and the case, as some of your Lordships will doubtless remember—at second hand, at any rate— was that of Entick v Carrington. So while some things may have changed over the quarter of a millennium that has passed since then, others have very definitely stayed the same.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, spoke of the "cosy cordiality" which characterised the relationship between the executive and the judiciary 40 years ago. I hesitate to say that it may not always have been so described or experienced by those who lived and practised through that period.
Many issues were raised in the debate and I have only a limited time in which to respond. I shall address as many points as I can. First, however, I want to deal with three general issues.
I agree that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, made an important and powerful contribution, one which the Government take extremely seriously. I shall take this opportunity immediately to confirm to the noble and learned Lord that, when he referred to the five issues on which there was agreement between the judiciary and the Government, he was absolutely right about them. I shall say also that we are fortunate in having a judiciary that is not only well qualified and well equipped for its role, but carries with it the traditions of integrity and independence acquired during practice at the Bar or as solicitors. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, was right to say that our judiciary was held in high regard internationally—rightly so. Our judges are robust, and so they should be.

913
At the moment, the higher judiciary in this country—I say this with the greatest respect—is probably of the highest quality that we have ever enjoyed. Judges and magistrates are in the operational front line. Their daily business is resolving disputes that others have failed to crack, whether over alleged criminality, money or parental access. They see life,
"red in tooth and claw"—
bleak, despairing and mundane. One can see that by going into any court in the country.
Secondly, there is the relationship between the judiciary and the legislature. In every good marriage, the partners complement each other. Like Beatrice and Benedick, they do not have the same view on every subject: there is a tension. I think that the noble and learned Lords, Lord Ackner and Lord Lloyd of Berwick, referred to that tension. But it can be a creative tension that keeps the relationship alive and vital. The absence of that tension might even be a symptom that all was not entirely well.
So it is between the three constitutional powers. All, to a degree, are jealous of their prerogatives, but they are required, in practice, to co-operate if effective government is to be delivered. Judges are sometimes accused of invading the legislature's turf. It is my experience that, on the contrary, they are very sensible of the respective constitutional roles. In 1980, your Lordships' House, in its judicial capacity, affirmed that it was the judges' duty to apply statutes, however unpalatable and whatever their perceptions of where the public interest lay. Lord Diplock pointed to the risk of judges straying beyond their constitutional role as interpreters of the enacted law. I join my noble and learned friend Lord Morris of Aberavon in quoting the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman. He said:
"a judge must be obedient to the will of Parliament, as expressed in its enactments".
That issue was underscored when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, made his valuable contribution this evening.
Lord Diplock also pointed out that legislation being considered by a court might have injurious consequences that Parliament had not anticipated when it was passed. However, he said:
"if this be the case it is for Parliament, not the judiciary, to decide whether any change should be made to the law as stated in the Acts"
There can be no objection to a judge saying that a statute will not or does not work. Judges have direct practical experience of the administration of justice that makes their contribution of high value.
Much debate was provoked by Mr Justice Collins's decision in the case concerning the entitlement of asylum seekers to asylum support. This evening, the issue was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, Lord Windlesham and Lord Plant of Highfield, among many others. In his judgment, Mr Justice Collins said:
"I made it clear that I could not go behind the words of the Act which Parliament had enacted. Whether the reasons which have led to its enactment are good or bad is not for me to decide".
914
In a newspaper article, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary commented:
"I respect the role of our judges to interpret the law. But there has to be a balance between"—
Earl Russell: My Lords, has the Minister looked at the debates in the House on the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill? If the Home Secretary had done so, he would not have been nearly as surprised as he was by Mr Justice Collins's judgment.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords. I cannot speak for my right honourable friend, but I am relatively confident that the issue excited so much of his attention during that period that he could not have failed to look at much of it. Of course, I cannot comment directly, as I am not in a position to give your Lordships an answer on that.
My right honourable friend said that there was,
"a balance between interpreting the law and completely rewriting a law which has been debated and voted for in our democratic Parliament".
Those two formulations—that by the learned judge and that by the Home Secretary—are of the same principle. It is the role of Parliament to pass laws that set a framework for sentences and the role of the courts to operate within that framework in considering individual cases.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that,
""to put legislative straitjackets on the judges' discretion to sentence for serious crimes is almost always a mistake".—[Official Report, 5/6/96; col. 1256.]
Those are not my words; they are the words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in the debate seven years ago. Those words will come back to haunt him.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I do not think that they will haunt him. Of course, we would assert that this is not what this Government are seeking to do. I say right away—
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. Would the Minister agree with me that it is not desirable for a senior Minister to go on the radio on the same day as a judgment before it could possibly be interpreted to him and to make a powerful statement about it? That is not a wise exercise of public power, is it?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I absolutely hear what the noble Lord says. It is not for me to comment on that. But it is right that the Home Secretary made his feelings felt. I think others have commented on it in this debate. I have not heard anyone, in this debate or outside, disagree with the statement of principle that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary made in response the next day—that is, the comment in the article. Neither have I heard anyone dispute what was said by the learned judge. Both were saying the same thing.

915
My third general point concerns the relationship between the judiciary and the executive. A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, made the point that, here again, self-restraint is the hallmark. One would expect no less of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, who I see in his place, than to be scrupulous, and so he was in opening his judgment in a recent case. He said:
"The question arises, as one of law not policy, whether there is a power which, compatibly with the European Convention on Human Rights, the Secretary of State may properly exercise, and the answer must turn on how, on a proper legal analysis, exercise of that power is properly to be regarded".
This would seem to me, with respect, to be a model approach.
For a government, of course, those checks can be, from time to time, uncomfortable. But the press too often misunderstand that judicial review is not an appellate procedure. That point was made very strongly by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, in his opening address. The court does not substitute its opinion for that of the decision-maker on whom Parliament has conferred that power. The court rules only on the legality of a decision, not on its correctness.
The Government seek a partnership with the judiciary. I, too, welcome the contribution made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, who outlined very clearly how that relationship has developed in consultation and how the debate has been better informed by the way in which that partnership has evolved. The Government welcome that partnership and rejoice in it. The separation of powers does not imply only that each should challenge the other. In relation to the way in which the proper interests are challenged, there should also be a working together; a working in harmony.
The criminal justice reforms are central to government policy and there can be no doubt that they are needed. Over £80 million a year is wasted through adjournments, delayed and cracked trials. Only 43 per cent of trials in magistrates' courts are effective. We are also concerned to achieve greater consistency in sentencing. Evidence from around the country suggests that there is some way to go in this area, especially in magistrates' courts. The Sentencing Guidelines Council, to be chaired by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and with a majority of judicial members, will have a crucial part to play in delivering these reforms.
I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, that this is not a cosmetic exercise and it is not intended to diminish the importance of the necessary exercise of judicial discretion. That work will be added to by the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee. The Government are accountable to communities, victims and witnesses for their delivery of these reforms. We have to challenge the status quo in order to deliver. But I reassure the noble Lord, Lord
916
Dholakia, that we understand fully the importance of the role of the judge and the exercise of judicial discretion.
The Government have been in discussion with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and other members of the judiciary on the development of the policy relating to the criminal justice system, and we shall continue to do so. There have been a number of meetings with Home Office Ministers and officials since early last year on the Criminal Justice Bill and more recently on sentencing reform. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has agreed to several changes to the legislation to meet concerns expressed by the senior judiciary.
Home Office officials are now working on a draft protocol on consultation with the judiciary about legislation. A senior judge sits on the National Criminal Justice Board—endorsed by my right honourable friend—which will be taking forward these and other criminal justice reforms. We are building a partnership, which is as it should be. Certainly, I can say—perhaps I may also say personally—we rejoice in that partnership and have reaped many benefits from it.
When your Lordships' House debated this issue in 1996, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, affirmed that,
"the role and independence of the judiciary would be vigorously upheld by the next Labour Government". [Official Report, 5/6/96; col. 1313.]
It has been and it will continue to be.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: M y Lords, the debate has run its course. I wish that I had time to thank all the speakers, but I have no choice but to fall upon a period of calm and silence. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Clergy Discipline Measure
8.20 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Winchesterrose to move That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Clergy Discipline Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, the Clergy Discipline Measure before your Lordships' House this evening represents a major revision of the disciplinary procedures of the Church of England. It is the result of very long and careful consideration of the General Synod and comes to the House with the strong support of the General Synod and the Church of England, after having been found expedient by the Ecclesiastical Committee. It is with confidence that I commend it to this House for approval.
The current arrangements for clergy discipline are contained within the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963. Its procedures, modelled in some ways

917
on those of criminal courts, have been found to be inflexible, expensive and slow. The result has been that the 1963 Measure is rarely used, which has had serious consequences. A significant number of complaints have been left unresolved; discipline has tended to be exercised informally and on a voluntary basis; and a cleric's resignation has been a frequent outcome, not always appropriately.
That situation is unsatisfactory, not least from the point of view of the clergy themselves. if they are to be respected and trusted, a manifestly credible, fair and transparent system for administering discipline is essential on those rare occasions in which we fall short of the standards rightly expected of us.
Accordingly, in 1994 the General Synod established a working party to review clergy discipline and the working of the ecclesiastical courts. There followed an extensive consultation and an examination of good practice in other Anglican provinces, other Christian churches and the professions and employment in the United Kingdom, which led to the report Under Authority. Legislative proposals were then developed and taken through a long and careful process of revision in the Synod. The Measure that resulted from that lengthy process commanded the support, on its final approval in November 2000, of 100 per cent of those voting in the House of Bishops, 99 per cent in the House of Laity and 90 per cent in the House of Clergy, in which only 23 voted against final approval, with 200 voting for it.
In drawing up the Measure, the Church has sought to construct procedures which are fair to all parties; are capable of applying to all types of clergy, whatever their rank, experience or circumstances; are easily understood and flexible; and encourage as speedy a resolution as is consistent with the needs of justice. We firmly believe that the procedures in the Measure will meet all those requirements and enable genuine complaints to be dealt with effectively, while excluding those that are trivial, malicious or vexatious.
In detail, the disciplinary procedure under the Measure, which relates only to cases of misconduct and not to matters of worship or doctrine, will be activated by a written complaint to the bishop. Once received, the complaint will have to be examined by the diocesan registrar, a practising lawyer, who will decide whether the complainant has a right to complain under the Measure, whether it involves a disciplinary matter and whether the evidence supplied supports the complaint. On the basis of the registrar's assessment, the bishop will then decide whether the complaint should be dismissed. If he decides not to dismiss it a number of courses are open to him, including taking no further action, leaving the complaint on the record, seeking to promote conciliation, or imposing a penalty with the cleric's consent. The remaining option is to refer the complaint for investigation with a view to it being brought before a bishop's disciplinary tribunal if the President of Tribunals, again a lawyer, agrees that there is a case to answer.
In practice it should seldom be necessary to follow that last course of action. In those rare cases where a complaint does proceed to a tribunal, the case will be
918
heard by a tribunal of five members—two clergy, two lay people and a legally qualified chairman—allocated from provincial panels. Their decision will be by a majority using the civil standard of proof. Appeals will continue to lie to provincial courts of appeal.
As regards penalties, the Clergy Discipline Measure will give more flexibility than does the 1963 Measure. The most severe, for use in the most serious cases, is prohibition for life, which involves a permanent ban on exercising any clerical function. Others include prohibition for a limited period, removal from office, revocation of a licence, requiring the cleric to refrain from some offending behaviour, and. lastly, giving a formal warning. The Measure also provides for the bishop to be able to impose some of those penalties after certain proceedings in the criminal or divorce courts—whose findings are treated as conclusive for the Church—and gives him a new power of suspension.
A closely similar process is made available for complaints about bishops and archbishops. Among its other provisions, the Measure also provides for the establishment of a new commission, the clergy discipline commission, to give general advice on the working of the Measure and to issue codes of practice and guidelines, and for the maintenance of an archbishops' list—a confidential record of penalties imposed under the Measure and other matters.
In drawing up these new procedures the Church recognises that disciplinary proceedings can have very serious implications for clergy even where the complaint is about a relatively minor matter. We have therefore been concerned to ensure that the rights of the clergy are properly protected. To that end the draft Measure was subject to a detailed scrutiny by leading counsel specialising in human rights law. Counsel was satisfied that the requirements of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, conferring the right to a fair trial, were met by virtue of the rights of appeal to the provincial courts. But he identified ways in which, had that not been the case, the Measure as originally drafted might not have been fully consistent with human rights requirements. A number of changes were made as a result; and we are therefore as satisfied as we reasonably can be that the Measure is fully compliant with the Human Rights Act.
The proper protection of the human rights of the clergy was of course a matter to which the Ecclesiastical Committee was entitled to give the fullest consideration, and it did so. One of the principal issues it addressed, at pages 55 and following of the committee's report, was that of the standard of proof where a complaint is heard by a tribunal. We explained to the committee that the choice of the civil standard. as opposed to the criminal standard which applies under the 1963 Measure, was arrived at after thorough consideration and much debate in the revision committee for the Measure and in the Synod as a whole.
The civil standard is increasingly used in the disciplinary procedures of other professional bodies. In our view it strikes an appropriate balance between

919
the interests of the wider Church and the public in not allowing misconduct by clergy to go unchallenged and the right of clergy to a fair hearing and a safe decision. This is because the level of proof required will vary according to the seriousness of the allegation and the implications for the cleric. Thus in the most serious cases the standard of proof required will be indistinguishable from the criminal standard.
This understanding of the position was accepted by the Ecclesiastical Committee, which was accordingly content to accept that the adoption of the civil standard of proof was appropriate. In its examination of our representatives and in its report the committee addressed other matters but none was such, in its judgment, as to render the Measure inexpedient. In so far as the committee made recommendations for consideration by the Church, we are grateful for them and shall give them very careful consideration in the implementation of the Measure if it passes into law. The committee's decision, by a substantial majority, to find the Measure expedient reinforces my confidence that the Synod's proposals embodied in the Measure will commend themselves to this House.
In conclusion, the Measure is the fruit of very long and careful consideration by the Synod of the needs of all those who have an interest in this important area, not just clergy, their bishops and the lay people of the Church but also the wider public. We believe that it strikes a fair balance between their different interests and that in doing so it will give the Church a fair. credible and open system for dealing with disciplinary issues. I beg to move.
Moved, That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Clergy Discipline Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of Winchester.)
8.32 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for introducing the Measure. I speak on this issue because, as some noble Lords will know, I have an interest as a former official for the union to which a number of clergy belong, Amicus, MSF Section.
The union has been concerned for some time to try to ensure that its members have the same employment rights as other employees. As is well known, that is not the case at the moment. I am not an expert in these matters; I speak from a briefing provided by the union. But one problem is lack of employment security, which, of course, extends to security of homes as well.
The clergy are in a unique and sometimes invidious position as public figures and by reason of their employment conditions. They are open to allegations which can easily be made without any supporting evidence and which are sometimes difficult to disprove. Because of the public nature and character of ordained ministry, it is often enough for allegations to be made for someone's life's work to be destroyed without the prospect of redress or reinstatement.
920
Allegations repeated in a public hearing, in the solemnity of what appears to be a Crown Court, attended by the world's media, generally end the ministry of any cleric whether acquitted or found guilty. The 1963 system ensured the maximum interest by the media and gave what are in effect matters of Christian discipline the character of serious criminal misconduct. Enormous power rests in the hands of the bishop and his legal advisers which I am advised has sometimes been exercised oppressively and unjustly.
The new Measure attempts to regulate the involvement of the bishop with the administration of justice although it does not remove him from making decisions in a process in which he is involved in his own right. However, the prospect of a civil tribunal with officers not appointed by the bishop and out of the glare of the media is less of a threat to those who are determined to have their day in court and to vindicate themselves against allegations.
The second aspect of the clergy's position which needs consideration is that once removed from their employment in paid ministry they have no alternative employers to whom they can turn. They have lost their tied housing, their income, their ministry and all prospect of further service in what is, after all, very much a vocation.
I am advised by our members that there is a so-called caution list maintained by the archbishops, circulated regularly to their episcopal colleagues, on which names of clergy appear—not only those who have been formally disciplined under the 1963 Measure or have criminal convictions according to the law of the land. but those to whom their bishop has taken some exception. Clergy can be threatened with the list as a means of demanding conformity, whether legitimately or oppressively. Some modest regulation of the list is introduced in this Measure, although our members tell me that it does not go far enough.
I gather that the most important positive reform introduced by the Measure is a new section in which, for the first time, it becomes practical for anyone, clergy or lay, to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the bishops themselves. The threshold provided by the requirements of the 1963 Measure was set so high that it was practically impossible for a bishop to find himself on the receiving end of a complaint. In the new Measure it will be easier for proceedings to be commenced by a wide range of parties, including those who consider themselves to have suffered from the actions of a bishop. The briefing I received asks that attention be drawn to the new canon law, which the General Synod has also approved to accompany the new Measure.
The proposed amending canon 24 will have the effect, if approved, of imposing the provisions of the new Measure not only on serving clergy and bishops of the Church of England—that is an appropriate use of the powers of the Synod—but on all those who have ever been ordained, including those who have resigned or retired from active ministry, those who have been deposed, and even those who have repudiated the Church of England and been accepted into the

921
ministry of another Church or even of another faith. Our members believe that that is not appropriate and possibly a breach of the human rights convention, despite what the right reverend Prelate said.
It is clear that the new Measure is not without shortcomings, and there will be reservations about it on points of detail by clergy. However, the prospect that bishops would deal with clergy with whom they were dissatisfied in a relatively open way, using a process more recognisably close to that which employees in ordinary walks of life might face, is a step in the right direction. The union believes that it goes some little way to meeting the kinds of arguments that it has been putting forward on behalf of its members.
The Measure still falls a long way short of full employment rights for clergy, however. Some clergy will be in a vulnerable situation, and the Measure may not improve matters for them. Clergy of the Church of England who lack the parson's freehold will still not be protected in the same way as those who have the freehold. There has been a lengthy consultation process in relation to the DTI's review of atypical workers' rights, but it has not so far resulted in a decision to grant clergy full employment rights in accordance with the campaign in which the union is still engaged. Meanwhile, as I said, I welcome the new Measure as a step in the right direction.
8.38 p.m.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I have had the honour of being a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee for some years, and would like to take the opportunity to raise two points for consideration. The first arises from the fact that the committee has no power to amend a draft measure, even in the most obvious case. The function of the Ecclesiastical Committee is confined by statute to drafting a report to Parliament stating the nature and legal effect of a proposed measure and its views on the expediency of the measure. It then communicates the report in draft form to the legislative committee of the General Synod, and finally presents the report to both Houses, if the Legislative Committee wishes. The final step is for Parliament to submit the measure for Royal Assent, if so resolved on Motion. Nowhere along this long path is there any power for the Ecclesiastical Committee to amend a draft Measure, however obvious it may be that an amendment is needed.
This point arose in stark form in the present case. Archbishops were omitted by mistake from a certain section. There was no doubt whatever that this was an accident in drafting. It was clear from the Notes on Clauses; it was clear from the statements of the representatives of the General Synod who appeared before us. The mistake did not matter all that much in the present case, and the Ecclesiastical Committee did not reject the draft measure on that ground.
Had the mistake been more serious, I am advised that the draft Measure would have had to be returned to the General Synod for correction and that the delay might have been at least six months before the measure finally became law.
922
I do not suggest that the Ecclesiastical Committee should have any general power to amend. I only suggest that there should be a limited power to correct an obvious and admitted mistake in wording, in order to avoid the laborious and time-consuming process otherwise involved.
Let us suppose that the word "not" were omitted by accident from an important clause. Supposing it were abundantly clear from the Notes on Clauses and from statements made by representatives of the General Synod appearing before the Ecclesiastical Committee that the word "not" should be there. It seems absurd that the draft Measure should have to go back to the Legislative Committee of the General Synod, and then to the General Synod, and back once more to the Ecclesiastical Committee in order to put matters right. What a palaver for just correcting an admitted mistake!
My second point relates to the size of the Ecclesiastical Committee. The committee is required by statute to consist of 30 members, subject to casual vacancies—that is to say, 15 from each House. I have examined the reports of nine meetings of the committee. It is usually not possible to tell from the reports how many members of the committee voted on the expediency of a draft Measure. But I can say that in one case only 12 members attended and voted—12 out of 30.
It is, I believe, obvious that if a committee has a very large membership, the sense of responsibility of members towards the work of that committee is in danger of being diluted. In the case of a small committee, individual members are likely to feel a greater responsibility to attend meetings. It may also be possible for the committee Clerk to arrange days that are convenient to most or all members. I therefore suggest that the members of the committee should be reduced from 30 to perhaps 14 members, drawn equally from each House.
My two suggestions—a very limited power of amendment and a reduction in the size of the committee—would require statutory authority. If those suggestions commended themselves to the Government and the General Synod, they might perhaps be the subject matter of a Private Member's Bill without upsetting the Government's legislative programme.
8.46 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, I agree with every word that the right reverend Prelate said and with his comments supporting the Measure that is before us.
This is an important Measure; there is no doubt about that. It was considered at very great length by the Synod. It was agreed unanimously—or by an overwhelming majority—in all three houses of the Synod. It is, on any view, a huge improvement on what was there previously. For the first time, for example, it deals separately with disciplinary offences and does so in a way that seems—to me, at any rate—to he fair to the clergyman and the complainant. It was considered

923
at unusual length in the Ecclesiastical Committee, as one can see from the minutes of the two meetings that we held; the report extends to some 25 or 30 pages.
The main points for consideration arose under Clauses 1, 18 and 38. Those points were all discussed at great length in the Synod, and the Synod representatives, including the right reverend Prelate, appeared before the Ecclesiastical Committee to give us the benefit of its advice and help, and they answered questions at great length. I do not suggest that that was done at inordinate length; it was entirely appropriate that that was done. It was made clear at the outset of the hearing that the Synod wished the matter to be taken slowly because it was concerned about its importance. At the end, the Ecclesiastical Committee found, by a majority of 10 votes to two, that the measure was expedient. It was for the Ecclesiastical Committee to perform that task under the terms of the 1919 Act.
I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, will remember that Amicus MSF applied at an early stage to be allowed to give evidence before the Ecclesiastical Committee. We considered whether we could do so consistently with the provisions of the 1919 Act. We were advised by our legal adviser that we could not.
The noble Baroness also raised the undoubtedly important point about whether the clergy should be entitled to the ordinary employment rights as between an employer and employee. That may fall outside the scope of our debate. That is not to say that it is not an important point that must be considered at some stage.
I wish that there was a way under the existing Act by which we could correct obviously accidental errors, especially when they are agreed to be errors, without what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, called the palaver of going back to the legislative committee, back to the Synod and then back again. It is obviously a cumbersome process, but we find that it is impossible to envisage that on the legislation as it stands. Section 3(5) specifically provides that the legislative committee—that is, the committee of the Synod—shall have no power to vary a Measure of the Church Assembly either before or after conference with the Ecclesiastical Committee. Therefore, there is no way in which that can be done without the primary legislation that my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman envisages.
The same applies to the size of the committee. I fully understand the reasons that the noble and learned Lord urges; in particular the obvious point that the larger the committee the more likely it is that people will think that others can do the work for them and they need not attend. But that is not always the reason: more recently, a reason has been that with the rearrangement of the timing in the House of Commons, Members who have been present at the beginning of discussions of the Ecclesiastical Committee find that they have others to attend. It is an interesting point, but one which cannot be dealt with by us without primary legislation.
924
My noble and learned friend Lord Brightman, having been one of the two dissentients and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, was the other. I am sorry that he has decided to speak in the gap rather than put his name down in the usual way. But that was clearly his privilege. I give the Measure all the support I can.
8.54 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thought that four minutes was all your Lordships could bear, so I shall speak for four minutes. I have the fairly recent honour to serve on the committee. I shall not speak to a Measure which I decline to support or oppose the Motion. I am content to rely on the assurance of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester as to implementation. But, as in the case of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, I want to take some short points in proposals for improvement of the exercise of our statutory functions.
The first relates to attendance and the membership of 30. Everything the noble and learned Lord said was right. On our first meeting, 22 out of 30 members attended, but later it had to be adjourned because there was not a quorum of 10. At the second meeting 16 members out of 30 attended. At the end, a member who was leaving the room had to be recalled to establish a quorum for a vote.
That is not a satisfactory situation. My notes arc curious. Without consultation with the noble and learned Lord, they say, "Six or eight aside; say 16", which is not far off the 14 of the noble and learned Lord. And there should be an obligation, an honour, to attend and to remain in attendance.
My second point is that the remit of the Act of 1919, as to the constitutional entitlement, must include the concepts of natural justice as judicially established. whether or not discussed at the Synod. Paragraph 63 shows that one matter of considerable importance to the noble and learned Lord and to myself was not discussed. There is no power to amend. I am not suggesting that there should be. I agree with everything that the noble and learned Lord said. I was going to propose a new procedure under which our clerk could send reasoned reservations with draft amendments to the appropriate authority for consideration before our first meeting in the interests of constructive and informed debate on due notice. That can be discussed at the first meeting.
It would be helpful if the relevant extracts from the minutes of the Synod could be produced. It would have saved about a quarter of an hour of my questioning at one stage of the proceedings. One could have seen the extract from the notes.
So I believe that there is a case for a new procedure and a case, without having any formal power to amend and if there is agreement in the Joint Committee, for embodying that agreement in codes of practice in implementation of the statute. True, it will require primary legislation, but I make that suggestion.
I also suggest that no snap vote should ever be taken without notice in the absence of members who have raised serious reservations. That would ensure that

925
there is some representative decision. A representative decision of 30 is hardly ever achieved and it assuredly was not achieved on this Measure.
My last point is that I know that estate commissioners attend as members of our committee. But should they attend? Should an estate commissioner attend, to move a snap motion or to vote for approval? They are, unlike other members of the committee, not there without some preconception. 1 suggest that that should require some consideration on the Floor of the House. This is a procedural criticism which is in no way personal and in no way concerned with the right honourable gentleman Mr Stuart Bell. I hope that the ideas—we have not discussed them—of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, will take root.
8.58 p.m.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, am I allowed to speak?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am advised that the noble Lord is entitled to speak, but briefly.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I shall be very brief. I am a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee. I was not planning to speak in this debate but the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, has reminded us that this deprives people of life and liberty. What has brought me to my feet are the points raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. The Ecclesiastical Committee is there to protect the rights of the citizens. There are weaknesses in the system. We should listen to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said. It is terribly important. They are a minority of individuals but we must pay attention to their interests. They lose their houses, their jobs; they lose everything.
Laws must be drafted absolutely correctly. We do not want any of the matters to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, referred. More care should be given by the Church and by everyone else because, above all, we Christians are concerned about individuals. That is all I want to say.
9 p.m
Lord Hardy of Wath: I echo the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington. I spoke only briefly during the committee's consideration of the Measure. The right reverend Prelate may recall that I expressed some anxiety about hard worked priests. There are many of them. One might have one priest representing and serving six, seven or eight parishes. There could be enormous pressures and that could easily be the subject of a malicious complaint.
I was satisfied that the Measure was unlikely to uphold a malicious complaint or draconian action quite unfairly being taken in such cases. However, it leads me to say that I hope that consideration can be given to the point advanced by my noble friend this evening and on previous occasions. There must be
926
some change, both to provide the flexibility to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, referred in terms of the legislative perfection of measures of this kind, and to ensure that in the 21st century the clergy are not denied natural justice by a refusal of adequate representation.
9.1 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we have been debating the appropriateness of the Ecclesiastical Committee at least as much as the appropriateness of the Clergy Discipline Measure. I have one or two points to make on that. There are problems about the concept of the "representativeness" of the Ecclesiastical Committee, which is drawn from Members of both Houses. The Ecclesiastical Committee should operate its powers with the maximum of restraint.
As regards membership, I was one of those who was absent from the last meeting of the Ecclesiastical Committee, which happened to coincide with a meeting of the joint Standing Committee on the EU convention. I felt it was my duty, as someone who follows European matters, to attend that committee.
Perhaps I may tell the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, that the committee, on what many of us thought was an important issue from the outset, failed to start on two occasions for lack of a quorum. It struggled for several months to manage a quorum and to get any notice whatever. Noble Lords can imagine the sour feelings that some of us had when, all of a sudden, the political editor of the Sun arrived and it was splashed all over the newspapers that the world and British sovereignty was coming to an end when some of us had struggled for several months to try to attract the attention of both Houses and the press.
There are always problems about the weight of business on different committees in this House. I suspect that we will struggle particularly with Members of another place to get them to attend in the strength which has been suggested would be appropriate.
We have, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester said at the outset, a Measure before us which has received a long and careful scrutiny. It had had nearly 10 years consideration—and six years with the Synod—before it came to us. I have visited Synod on a number of occasions. I was struck by the greater seriousness of its debates than I sometimes witness in another place, although not of course in this Chamber.
The balance of opinion on the Ecclesiastical Committee should be as far as possible to give Synod the benefit of the doubt, although quite properly it should consider whether there are holes in the proposed Measures. We recognise that some delicate issues are addressed. What is proposed is a backstop power which ideally will be used only on the rarest of occasions.
I have a little difficulty with the proposition advanced on behalf of Amicus by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, that there should be full employment rights for the clergy on the same basis as all others, just

927
as I have struggled in my own professional life with the argument about whether university teachers—and, indeed, schoolteachers—should have full employment rights on the same principle as everyone else. As teachers, we have a special care for our students that requires higher standards of conduct. Similarly, members of the clergy have a special care, duty and obligation in the way in which they match their private to their public lives that unavoidably demands higher standards of them than of others.
We also recognise the intense pressures of contemporary life both on members of the clergy themselves and, as one or two noble Lords have said, from a tabloid press that is always looking for scurrilous allegations and willing to listen to malicious complaints. As the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, said, they are often entirely unsubstantiated but nevertheless must be answered. One recognises the difficulty for the Church as a hierarchy in handling those situations.
The Measure has got the balance right. It applies to the whole of the Church, from top to bottom; it sets out a careful balance of measures and of discipline; and it attempts to provide a balance of fairness to both sides. On that basis, I welcome the Measure.
9.6 p.m.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord. Lord Brightman, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and the noble Lords, Lord Pilkington and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, have all been much concerned with the Ecclesiastical Committee and its size. That reminds me of the saying that the world is run by the people who turn up. Perhaps that is what we have heard tonight. For myself, I shall confine my comments to the question of the Measure.
We on these Benches support this Measure, which fills a vacuum in the current employment arrangements for clergy. I am grateful for the clear exposition given by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester in moving the Motion now before us. Indeed, I should like to take this opportunity to thank him and his team for the articulate and helpful assistance that they gave the Ecclesiastical Committee during our two meetings on the Measure. As a member of that Committee—an interest I now declare—I know that I for one benefited enormously from the help that they gave us, both orally and in writing. I join with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, in that commendation.
In view of what has already been said by the right reverend Prelate and others, and in view of the exhaustive explanatory material published with the Ecclesiastical Committee's report, I shall not detain your Lordships long, but I should like to offer the House a few reasons why the Measure deserves our wholehearted support.
First, it offers clergy a well-thought-through and comprehensive scheme for professional discipline, which current arrangements simply do not provide. Every profession needs a fair, intelligible and
928
accessible scheme for the regulation of professional conduct, which is what the Measure will offer. Under its provisions, which will apply to all clergy, frivolous and unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct can be swiftly considered and set aside. As we have heard, alleged misconduct of a more serious character can be fairly and properly determined.
Where adjudication is required, that will be performed by an independent tribunal, operating in much the same way as an employment tribunal. That must be right. I was interested to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, speak so eloquently in expressing her reservations and yet, at the end, welcome the Measure as a step in the right direction.
Secondly, the whole system lays great emphasis on conciliation and proceeding by consent. That is another feature that we find attractive. Thirdly, I draw the House's attention to the meticulous way in which the Measure has been prepared and in which the Synod considered disciplinary practices elsewhere. As a result, this Measure now offers to Church of England clergy the kind of disciplinary scheme which is taken for granted by most other professions in the United Kingdom; and, indeed, which is enjoyed by their fellow clergy in many other provinces of the Anglican Communion. This is another reason why we support the Measure.
The Measure has been a long time in the making. As we have heard, it is now some six years since the Synod's working party first reported. It has been thoroughly scrutinised by the Synod, with the equivalent of Committee, Report, and Third Reading stages. It has been overwhelmingly approved by the Synod's three houses. It has been found expedient by the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament. We on these Benches see great merit in these proposals, and wish them well. We agree that they should be presented for Royal Assent.
9.11 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, both expected and unexpected—the latter were, none the less, welcome—and to all who have attended the debate.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. for her interest. However, if I may presume to say so. there were times during her speech when she appeared to be ill served by her brief. It seemed to me that those who produced it had not read the Measure with the utmost care and had certainly not attended the debates in order really to understand the issues involved.
I do not believe that the Archbishop's list, which is described and given statutory basis in the Measure. or the preceding Archbishop's list and its predecessor, the caution list, have been open for about 20 years to the kinds of critique described by those who produced the noble Baroness's brief—a brief from which she distanced herself at points. The bishops regard it as absolutely straightforward that we, too, are brought clearly within the ambit of the measure.

929
The move that brings retired and other clergy within the ambit of clergy discipline seemed to the Synod to he proper. granted that in any diocese—or at least in some, such as mine and, I suspect, Hereford—hundreds of retired clergy function week by week as clergy. A structure that did not include them within the clergy discipline Measure would be bizarre. As Amicus and many others have long been asking, this Measure gives to clergy who are licensed but not beneficed the same disciplinary structure, and, therefore, the same safeguards as are available to the beneficed clergy.
I was also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, for his response in relation to the character of our particular calling. He reasonably used an analogy with his own. It did not seem to the Synod, nor to me, that the issues would be well served were we simply to look to the general range of employment tribunals. The issues would not be well served; the clergy would not be well served; and the public would not be well served. Amicus representatives among Synod members had ample opportunity to make their case to the Synod. However, it needs to be said that, to a very large extent, they did not persuade the Synod.
Clearly the questions raised about the Ecclesiastical Committee by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, are neither matters for us this evening, nor for me, to comment on in any detail. There is an issue about the situation in which an error of drafting in a Measure is widely agreed to be such, both by the Church's representatives and by the Ecclesiastical Committee. However. I very much doubt whether that would be worth the huge effort involved in seeking to review the whole process. Goodness knows which cans of worms might be opened for Parliament and for the Church were such an attempt to be made. I should imagine that all sides would think a great many times before setting out on such a path.
The question of the size of the committee received an appropriate response from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. The comparison between the two matters seemed rather significant. I am very grateful for the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. I am also grateful for his chairmanship, as, I am sure, are the members of the Ecclesiastical Committee and the representatives of the Synod.
It is important to take up one of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. I will not respond to the other points, because they relate to how Parliament wishes to do its business—though it would doubtless consult the Church. The noble Lord commented on the presence of the Second Church Estates Commissioner as a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee—one commissioner, not, as I felt he was suggesting, more than one. Presumably, that is a
930
parliamentary question rather than a Church matter. At present, there is one member of the Ecclesiastical Committee appointed by one of the Houses of Parliament who is also a member of the Synod, and in the past there have been more than one. In that respect, those members have two bites of the cherry. That is the case for one distinguished Member of another place at present.
I welcome the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington. His point that the committee exists to protect the rights of the citizen is of profound validity. But, given what the noble Lord has said this evening and at other times, it is important to state that the citizen—whom I take the Ecclesiastical Committee to be required to have in mind—is not only the cleric but the public. As with other codes of professional discipline, the aim of the Measure and the intensive process over the years has been to hold as carefully as possible in tension the rights of the range of individuals wits involved—both clergy and public. It is among the particularly difficult responsibilities of a bishop daily, and under the Measure, to hold the two in appropriate tension.
The noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, said that we wanted none of the things that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. referred to—I think that I quote him correctly. However, it is important for the record to say that the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, referred to the absence of the word "archbishop" from a clause. We highly regret that absence.
That gives me an opportunity to assure the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, in response to his first point, that the representatives of the Synod have taken seriously the points made by the committee that are recorded on pages 2 and 3 of the report. I have no doubt that those points will be clearly considered over the next years of implementation, or through miscellaneous provisions Measures, to see how they can be approached.
I take note of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath. Of course we are concerned to respect natural justice and I believe that that is safely in place. To some extent the noble Lord retracted his point about rural clergy, who are to he considered and defended just as carefully, along with their parishioners, as any other sort of clergy and parishioners. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, for her attention to this matter.
Finally, I thank all members of the committee, its staff and our own staff, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, for his skilled chairmanship.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past nine o'clock.

  Belfast Agreement: Ulster Scots Language
  Belfast Agreement: Ulster Scots Language
  Northern Ireland: Carryduff Primary School
  Northern Ireland: Carryduff Primary School
  Northern Ireland Civil Service: Equality Officers
  Northern Ireland Civil Service: Equality Officers
  Northern Ireland Fair Employment Legislation
  Northern Ireland Fair Employment Legislation
  Northern Ireland Fisheries
  Northern Ireland Fisheries
  Northern Ireland: Vehicle Testing
  Northern Ireland: Vehicle Testing
  Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast
  Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast
  Lisburn and Antrim Railway Line
  Lisburn and Antrim Railway Line
  Cross-Border Implementation Bodies
  Cross-Border Implementation Bodies
  North/South Ministerial Council
  North/South Ministerial Council
  Peace II Funding
  Peace II Funding
  Northern Ireland Health Service: Hospital Beds
  Northern Ireland Health Service: Hospital Beds
  EC Aid to Poorest Countries
  EC Aid to Poorest Countries
  Burma
  Burma
  Guantanamo Bay: UK Detainees
  Guantanamo Bay: UK Detainees
  Iran: Arms Embargo and UK Exports
  Iran: Arms Embargo and UK Exports
  Income Support: Actively Seeking Work Rules
  Income Support: Actively Seeking Work Rules
  Health and Safety (Fees) Regulations 2003
  Health and Safety (Fees) Regulations 2003
  EU Proposed Disability Directive
  EU Proposed Disability Directive
  Rural Economies and Communities Research
  Rural Economies and Communities Research
  Euro: Treasury Studies
  Euro: Treasury Studies
  Royal National Throat Nose and Ear Hospital
  Royal National Throat Nose and Ear Hospital
  Iraq
  Iraq
  Non-residential Property
  Non-residential Property
  European Convention on Human Rights: Breaches
  European Convention on Human Rights: Breaches