Sitting of 27 November 2003

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

Business of the House
Mr. Oliver Heald: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for the next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): Mr. Speaker, you informed the House yesterday of the subjects for debate on the Queen's Speech. The business for next week will therefore be as follows:
From Monday 1 December to Thursday 4 December, continuation and then conclusion of the debate on the Queen's Speech, with Divisions expected on the final two days.
The provisional business for the following week will be:
MONDAY 8 DECEMBER—Remaining stages of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill.
TUESDAY 9 DECEMBER—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, followed by a debate on fisheries on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
WEDNESDAY 10 DECEMBER—A debate on European Affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
THURSDAY 11 DECEMBER—Estimates [1St Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on child care for working parents, followed by a debate on people, pensions and post offices. Details will be given in the official Report.
At 6 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
Mr. Speaker, the House will wish to be reminded that the next meeting of the Standing Committee on the Intergovernmental Conference is on Monday 1 December at 3.30 pm.
Mr. Heald: As the Leader of the House knows, the Prime Minister launched his great conversation with the nation yesterday, but within hours the Leader of the House went on "Newsnight" and refused to debate with other parties. Does that mean that the conversation does not include Opposition Members?
The Leader of the House will also know that the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown) has suggested that the Prime Minister might like to extend the conversation to include Labour MPs, in particular because 128 Labour
126
Members have signed early-day motion 7 on university top-up fees:
[That this House recognises the widespread concern about the effects variable tuition fees and the perception of debt may have on access to universities, particularly among students from families on modest or lower middle incomes; notes that there are alternative models of funding higher education, which the Department for Education and Skills has considered and which do not involve variable top-up fees; and calls on the Government, therefore, to publish full details of these alternatives to facilitate proper, informed debate and understanding before proceeding with legislation to reform the higher education funding system.]
If the conversation is to include Labour MPs, are we to expect an early statement from the Secretary of State for Education and Skills?
Will the Home Secretary be making an early statement abandoning his plan to put the children of asylum seekers into care? That is clearly an obnoxious proposal, with no support, and it should be withdrawn.
Can the Leader of the House confirm whether there was a printing error in the Queen's Speech? Is it really the case that the Government are to put forward a Bill for a referendum on the euro, when we all know that they have no plans for such a referendum this side of a general election? Surely, the Bill should have been for a referendum on the Euro constitution, especially in the light of recent information that Britain would lose the right to determine its own foreign policy. Would the right hon. Gentleman like to contemplate his previous remark that that was merely a tidying-up exercise?
The shadow Leader—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shadow?"] Sorry, it was a freudian slip, Mr. Speaker; the right hon. Gentleman is soon to be shadow Leader. The Leader of the House will know that concerns have been expressed that no Bill on mental incapacity was announced. Can he explain what has happened to that? Were all the Bills anticipated for the Session announced in the Queen's Speech? If not, can he list what we are to expect? For example, I understand that the gender recognition Bill, which was not in the speech, was given its First Reading in the other place today. What is the true Queen's Speech? Where are the other measures and what is to happen to them?
The Leader of the House will be aware that our armed forces are greatly overstretched at present. Recent reports suggested that some of the oldest and most illustrious regiments, such as the Black Watch, may be under threat. In an interview in The Times yesterday, the Defence Secretary denied wholesale redundancies, but can the Leader of the House tell us when the House will hear what the true position is? Will the statement on the Defence White Paper be made on 11 December? If not, can he tell us when it will be made?
Finally, there is considerable concern on both sides of the House about the new sitting hours, which have also led to the Catering Committee reducing hours in the Refreshment Department. What representations has the Leader of the House received about that? Is he prepared to undertake research into Members' views with the idea of producing a consultation paper—say, before the summer break—and to make a commitment that the

127
matter will be fully debated, perhaps in September? Can the right hon. Gentleman at least make his views known on the process of review?
Mr. Hain: I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman is getting up to speed in his job as shadow Leader of the House. I look forward to enjoying jousts with him.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the Government's great conversation. He knows the protocol that has been adopted with regard to programmes such as "Newsnight" by Ministers of all parties over the years. Frankly, the idea that, when we engage in debate, as I am doing now, with Conservative Members, the Liberal Democrats and other Opposition Members, we are afraid of debating or having a conversation with them—[Interruption]—the conversation—is ludicrous—[Laughter.] Conversation with them is absolutely ludicrous.
Why is the big conversation important? No Government in living memory, if ever, have undertaken such a degree of consultation on the future big challenges facing Britain and, indeed, the whole world. When well into their term of office, the Tory Administration—the Thatcher and Major Governments—ran out of ideas, ran into trouble and fell out of touch with the people. I should have thought that, by contrast with that record, people would welcome the fact that we are saying in this big conversation with every citizen that we want to know their views on big issues that confront the country—for example, how we will fund pensions for an ageing population. Indeed, I know that that conversation will be welcomed when the Prime Minister launches it tomorrow, because people want a form of politics that engages them. The hon. Gentleman should be concerned that the whole Westminster bubble in which Opposition Members, Government politicians and the media live is completely divorced from the issues about which most people are concerned. The big conversation is about engaging with the people on the future challenges for the country.
We know where the Opposition stand on student fees. They want to deprive 250,000 students of the opportunity to go to university. The dividing lines, therefore, are clear. We are trying to find a better way of funding higher education than exists at present, for future years when there will be a funding shortfall. What do the Conservatives propose? Their solution is to cut out the opportunity of 250,000 students to enjoy university education. We want a more highly educated work force because we know that Britain's future lies in having a highly skilled, highly educated work force in a knowledge-based economy. That is the big debate before us.
The disgraceful, opportunistic way in which the hon. Gentleman and the Leader of the Opposition yesterday misrepresented the Government's policy on asylum obliges me to explain the Government's policy to the House. Let us look at our proposals.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have announced to the House that we are discussing the business for next week. We must concentrate on that.
Mr. Hain: I was asked, Mr. Speaker, whether there would be debates on this subject next week. Of course
128
the Government's legislation will be discussed during the Queen's Speech debates and there will be an opportunity to raise these issues. In anticipation of them, let me make a succinct rebuttal of the hon. Gentleman's point. We are talking about asylum seekers who have lost their appeals. The Government are saying that we will pay for return air tickets for the whole family and provide a rehabilitation allowance to settle them in their country of origin. I should have thought that most fair-minded people would say that that was a reasonable attitude for the Government to take. It is firm, but fair. Or is the hon. Gentleman's case simply to let open the doors to all asylum seekers and let them stay here even if they lose their appeals? If that is Conservative party policy, perhaps the shadow Home Secretary will announce it next week.
Yes, there will be a Bill on a draft referendum on the euro. We need to be prepared to make a decision on joining the euro on meeting the five tests. The hon. Gentleman asked why there was no referendum on the constitution. We have gone into that argument time and again. The fact is that the negotiations have not yet been concluded. We are negotiating hard and all our red lines will be met.
Yes, there will be a mental incapacity Bill and yes, there will be a gender recognition Bill. All Governments have additional Bills, and draft Bills in our case, in their legislative programme that are not in the Queen's Speech. It is a regular occurrence. There is nothing new in that.
A defence White Paper will be issued on 11 December. The Defence Secretary made it crystal clear in The Times this morning that old regiments will not be abolished. As he said. he would expect to have the same sized armed forces in five years' time as today—about 103,000 trained soldiers. The issue is whether we reconfigure our defence forces in order to meet the challenges of the future. That is what this is about.
The hon. Gentleman asked about sitting hours and catering. I was as surprised as everyone else to receive the letter from the Chairman of the Catering Committee about the new arrangements. The Chairman and indeed the Committee as a whole are keen to hear the views of hon. Members and will respond to them. The Chairman has assured me that that will happen. He listened to hon. Members' views in respect of the Smoking Room, where the hours that were originally proposed have been readjusted but the same cost savings achieved.
I put this point to the House, because it is an important matter for hon. Members. There is a £6 million subsidy for catering in the House. I do not think that taxpayers should be subsidising to the extent that they are.
Mr. Peter Luff: It's the hours.
Mr. Hain: I am coming to the hours. I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that his argument does not stand up. I do not think that taxpayers should be subsidising catering in the House to the tune of £6 million. I am not suggesting that we should have the kind of commercial rates that are charged around Westminster. We should have reasonable rates, especially for the 4,000 people who work here, not just

129
Members of Parliament, but taxpayers will find it hard to understand why they are subsidising meals—heavily, in the case of the Members' Dining Room—to the tune of £6 million in total.
That is in the end a matter for the Catering Committee, and not a matter for me, but I want to refer specifically to the hours issue. The truth is that demand for catering has gone up since the hours have changed.
Mr. Eric Forth: What?
Mr. Hain: Indeed. The right hon. Gentleman will be interested in the facts that have been provided for me from the Refreshment Department. Demand for the Members' Dining Room has increased by 5 per cent. since the hours have been changed and demand for cafeterias has increased by 13 per cent. The most dramatic increase in business has been in the use of meeting and conference rooms in Portcullis House, which have experienced an increase in demand of more than 50 per cent.
Mr. John Bercow: These are statistics from the Chancellor.
Mr. Hain: These are statistics from the House authorities. Excluding banqueting, which is not subsidised, catering income in the first 10 months of 2003, coinciding with the change in hours, increased by 16 per cent. against the same period last year.
Right hon. and hon. Members may have legitimate questions—I have myself—about the proposals from the Catering Committee, which came rather out of the blue and have been adjusted since, but it has nothing to do with the sitting hours, as those figures conclusively show that catering income and demand in the key areas have gone up since the hours have been changed.
Mr. Paul Tyler: The Leader of the House said that the Prime Minister will make an announcement tomorrow about his so-called conversation with the nation. Will that statement be made in the House, and if not why not? Surely, as representatives of the nation, Parliament must be involved. Can the Leader of the House confirm that the current legislative programme, including the proposals on student fees, will be among the subjects discussed during those conversations, and if not why not? What is the point of them if people are not allowed to comment on issues of immediate topicality?
Surely a practical way in which the Leader of the House could help the House at this stage in the parliamentary year would be to give us a simple, straightforward list of the Bills and draft Bills that are coming forward, each with the sponsoring Department. That is not available to us—or indeed to anyone else. Will he look at that simple, practical proposition?
In relation to the so-called Lords reform Bill, some weeks ago at business questions, I asked the Leader of the House whether he had seen the exchange of letters between the outgoing Lord Chancellor, the Secretary of State for DCAff, and the Chairman of the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform, the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). Now that the
130
Leader of the House has had time to study that correspondence in detail, perhaps he would be kind enough to clarify its significance.
For example, the Leader of the House will recall, as I pointed it out to him, that the Committee—if it is to be reconstituted—is given a very wide remit. Will he now confirm that there will be a draft Bill on House of Lords reform for that Committee to look at before any final decisions are made about the format? What is the point of having a Committee of both Houses of senior parliamentarians to look at the proposals if the Bill is already set in concrete? Can he confirm that there will be plenty of time for that Committee to consider that Bill, and will he give us an undertaking that its views and recommendations will be published before the Government come forward with the Bill itself? What will be the remit when that Committee is reconstituted, and when will it be reconstituted? Will there be a motion before the House to ensure that the Committee is given the widest possible remit to meet the requirements of the Lord Chancellor?
The Leader of the House will recall, because we were on the same side, that on 4 February the House voted soundly to defeat the proposition for an all-appointed House of Lords, despite the support of the then Lord Chancellor and the Prime Minister. He will also remember that more than half of MPs voted for a 100 per cent., 80 per cent. or 60 per cent. elected House. When will he stand up for the views of MPs against the undemocratic dinosaurs of Downing street?
Mr. Hain: The Labour party's big conversation will be launched tomorrow by the Prime Minister at the party's policy forum in Newport in south Wales. I do not want to spend too much time on this matter, but it will deal with the big challenges facing Britain. That is the importance of it. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the fact that the Government, in the mid-term of their second term of office, are looking to the decades ahead and consulting people about the big issues facing Britain. We are a Government and a party who face the future with fairness and firmness, but Opposition parties do not seem to be interested in the future.
The issue of student fees will doubtless come up, as it did in some of the interviews and conference calls that I did yesterday on the Queen's Speech. We need to engage people in a debate about the future of higher education. The Liberal Democrats' alternative method of funding higher education is more tax increases across the board—[Interruption.] Well, we know where the dividing lines are—tax increases from the Liberal Democrats, cuts in student numbers from the Conservatives and the Labour Government saying that we need to find a different way to move forward.
On the issue of a list of draft Bills and Departments, the hon. Gentleman will have seen the Queen's Speech and he will be able to align the Departments with the Bills. He asked about the views of the Secretary of State for DCAff. I am a decaff drinker myself, although in my trade union days my horny-handed colleagues used to prefer caffeinated coffee. If the hon. Gentleman was referring to the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and House of Lords reform, I confirm that we are committed to that and, indeed, the Bill was announced yesterday. The consultation paper that the

131
Lord Chancellor issued has been widely consulted on. He has written to the Joint Committee, we have taken account of the views that have been expressed and, in due course, the Bill will come before Parliament. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the House of Lords voted for an all-appointed Chamber and it will be interesting to see whether it will do a somersault over its earlier decision.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is apparent that many of my colleagues are already engaged in the big conversation and are spreading the message from one end of the country to the other? I have been engaged in it this morning at Chelsea royal hospital, and I have some good news. That hospital is so good that the doctor told me at my cancer check-up at 8 o'clock this morning that I do not need to go back for another 12 months. That was a good Christmas present and the best sort of conversation. The health service is doing so well that it has helped to cure me of cancer and has got me a new United Nations heart. I cannot go wrong with the health service. Keep putting the money in. Unfortunately all those people I met at the hospital this morning did not find a BBC reporter waiting to talk to them when they came out. That is because the NHS is a great success story, and that is the conversation that we should have.
Mr. Hain: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to having many such great conversations with my hon. Friend, who is a brilliant exponent of all sorts of big conversations. The point he makes about very good treatment in the health service under this Labour Government is one that all Labour Members—and, if they are honest, Opposition Members—will acknowledge. People who use the health service overwhelmingly find it an excellent health service, whose nurses, doctors and consultants give fantastic support, and I am glad that my hon. Friend has been able to praise it.
Mr. John Hayes: The British public and the House are surely entitled to expect consistency from their Government, but in respect of house sales and purchases, the Government are being very inconsistent. We are told that the housing Bill will contain a proposal for a seller's pack, to make house selling and buying easier, yet simultaneously we are told that the Chancellor is considering raising stamp duty, which will make buying and selling houses more difficult. Can the Leader of the House confirm that the Chancellor will make that clear in his pre-Budget statement—or are the Government planning to make an earlier statement, so that this inconsistency can be cleared up and those who have profound concerns about these matters can have those concerns put to rest?
Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait for the publication of the Bill and any Government statements that might or might not accompany it, but there is no inconsistency at all. We all want a modern housing market, able to cope with the demands of the coming decades and to provide a much better deal for
132
home buyers and home sellers. That is the objective. The present system is far too complicated and rigid and it is important that we free it up, so that house sales and purchases can be more easily accommodated to the needs of home owners.
Mr. Clive Betts: May I welcome the inclusion of the housing Bill in the Queen's Speech? Can my right hon. Friend give any indication as to when its Second Reading will be? If there is to be any delay, will he arrange for a more immediate debate on the very welcome proposals to license houses in multiple occupation? This is a measure, for which many Labour Members have argued for several years, to deal with some of the worst properties and some of the most vulnerable tenants—a measure which the Conservative party resisted over and over again when in government.
When Ministers come to the House to consider this issue, will my right hon. Friend ask them to look again at the definition of HMOs? It is rather complicated. It could exclude some of the worst properties and some of the most vulnerable people, and it would be a shame if this excellent measure were in any way compromised by a technical deficiency.
Mr. Hain: I welcome my hon. Friend's question. I cannot give him a date for the Bill's introduction or Second Reading yet, but it will be coming forward and I am glad that he welcomes it. I know that the issues he has raised will be listened to carefully by the Secretary of State, not least because of my hon. Friend's long-standing experience and expertise—I know his constituency concerns on this issue. However, I am sure that he will welcome the fact that there is £5 billion more of Government investment in affordable housing—double what it was in 1997.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Everybody will have been delighted to see the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) here this morning and will have been particularly glad to hear what he had to say, but it is clear that most of his colleagues on the Labour Benches do not find the new hours very convenient. Will the Leader of the House think again on this one? All we are asking for is a conversation with Parliament, followed by a vote.
Mr. Hain: There will be a conversation with Parliament followed by a vote, because that was the decision that Parliament took when it said that it wanted to change the sitting hours for the rest of the Parliament. Then there will have to be a review, and I will be considering how to take that forward.
I am aware of the concerns of the hon. Gentleman, who is a long-serving, experienced and senior Member of the House. This is an issue on which there are strong concerns on both sides of the argument, and my duty as Leader of the House is to take the issue forward in a way that recognises the strong feelings on both sides rather than prematurely rushing into a decision which, in my view, would not be in the interests of the House and could be highly divisive. We will keep the issue under review, and I will obviously wish to consult the hon.

133
Gentleman and all Members of the House as we take this matter forward, in time for the decision that we are obliged to take before the end of this Parliament.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: Would the Leader of the House accept that he has two very heavy and important responsibilities—first, his responsibilities, as Leader of the House, for the Government's legislative programme, and secondly, his responsibilities to the House as a whole, not just to the Labour Government of the moment? Would he try to get the two more in balance, because to my mind it is critical that his interest in the well-being and proper functioning of the House should be more evident than it is?
In that connection—you referred to this in your statement yesterday, Mr. Speaker—will the Leader of the House find a very early day for a debate on the Sessional Orders and Resolutions report of the Procedure Committee, which the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, the Serjeant at Arms, the Clerk of the House and the Home Office all consider to be important, and which, I believe, a majority of Members of the House likewise consider to be very important?' Will he find an early day for that very important debate?
Mr. Hain: It is an important issue, and I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman's definition of the role of the Leader of the House. He knows that my door is always open to him, because he has come through it regularly, and we have lots of conversations, given his important role as Chairman of the Procedure Committee. I welcome his report and I am grateful to him for his work and that of his Committee. Of course, Mr. Speaker has expressed a view, which we will need to take closely into account. A decision will be needed on this matter in the light of the Committee's important recommendations, which we will obviously study carefully.
Matthew Green: Will the Leader of the House find an early date for a full debate on farming? The dairy industry is in continual financial crisis and tuberculosis is spreading among cattle. There is a debate about whether the new payments under the common agricultural policy should be based on the historic or the area-based system, and the House should have an opportunity to be involved in that debate. Is this not the time for the Government to prove that farming is not a forgotten industry for them?
Mr. Hain: Farming most certainly is not a forgotten industry, as is evidenced by our continuing support for the rural community and by the priority given it by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I will certainly draw to her attention the hon. Gentleman's concerns, because they are important issues. Of course, he could apply for a debate. Given where we are in the parliamentary calendar, I cannot promise him an early debate, but we will take close note of his concerns.
Sir George Young: Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) and the response that was given, the Leader of the House will
134
know that paragraph 22 of the Procedure Committee report includes a recommendation that the Government introduce legislation to deal with Parliament square. Does he agree that, in a country where there is ample opportunity to protest, it is wholly inappropriate that there is an unsightly demonstration and placards in one of the most historic landscapes in the country? Will he commit the Government to introducing the necessary legislation, so that we can resolve that issue once and for all?
Mr. Hain: We will have to resolve that issue. We have to balance the rights of people to protest and express their views—I have done a bit of that myself in my time—with the rights of Members of Parliament to proper access to the Palace and to go about their business normally. It is to balancing those rights that the Committee has helpfully drawn our attention; we need to take that forward, and I shall do so in close consultation with you, Mr. Speaker, and other hon. Members, not least the Committee Chairs.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: Chairmen.
Mr. Hain: Committee Chairmen in the case of the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) and the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), who have a direct interest in this matter, which needs to be resolved sooner rather than later.
Mr. Speaker: I call the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Peter Luff: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am most grateful—I won the jackpot.
Mr. Bercow: What it is to be well known.
Mr. Luff: Indeed.
May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the last Hansard of the last Session—Thursday 20 November, part 2, which contains the large number of written answers given at the end of the Session? Does he really think that the answers given by the Home Office are adequate and enable the House properly to do its job of scrutiny? By rough calculation, 302 questions asked of the Home Office were answered on 19 and 20 November, 285 of which received the answer:
"I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library."
I accept that some of those questions were difficult and would have required some time to answer. Other Departments have used that tactic, too, but the Home Office has done so much too often, and it denies those outside the House the results of effective scrutiny by the legislature. Please do something about it.
Mr. Hain: I got to know the hon. Gentleman well on an overseas trip a few years ago, and I can confirm that he is a decent and amiable Conservative—though that has probably finished his career for good.

135
I will draw his point to the attention of the Home Secretary. The Home Office is a large Department with considerable responsibilities, but equally, it is the right of Members of Parliament to have their questions properly answered.
Mr. Eric Forth: Although we shall shortly have a pre-Budget statement from the Chancellor, the Leader of the House knows that that allows only about an hour or an hour and a half for Members' questions. There are headlines today such as "Negative equity to peak in 2006 says consultancy" and "Brown faces risk of raising taxes", which was endorsed by no less a body than the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Given that, and the fact that, since 1997, central Government employment has risen by 200,000 and local government employment by 150,000, while manufacturing employment has fallen by 600,000, when are we going to have a debate about the Government's disastrous record on employment? In view of those shifts in the pattern of employment and the dire warnings being issued by reputable bodies outside the Government, when are we going to have a debate?
Mr. Hain: Disastrous record? The Government have presided over probably the longest period of sustained growth, low inflation, low interest rates and high employment of any Government in living memory, if not ever. If that is a disastrous record, I would like to see what a successful record is like. The truth is that the Government have been successful economically and in other ways. The right hon. Gentleman complains about the level of public investment, but that is not surprising coming from a Conservative, because the Conservatives want to slash public spending by 20 per cent. At this point in the economic cycle, with world trade conditions being stagnant and with virtually every one of our economic competitors either in recession or stagnant, we have seen not just high consumption, but high public investment. Over the cycle, we shall have to stabilise public spending and investment and ensure that private investment fills the gap, as it is already starting to do, with an upturn in manufacturing reflecting another good success story under the Labour Government as compared with the decline in manufacturing in virtually all our competitor nations.
Mr. Michael Jack: Will the Leader of the House re-examine the policy that determines when Ministers come to make statements before the House? I ask that because in the last few days we have learned that, instead of dealing with the difficulties of getting tax credits, the Inland Revenue is, on account of mistakes, demanding the repayment of overpayments of moneys. Secondly, we have recently learned that the new computer of the Child Support Agency has gone on the blink to the extent that further misery will be visited on many of our constituents with deeply personal issues. Will the Leader of the House ensure that we have the chance to probe Ministers on such matters? Finally, will he confirm whether there is any truth in the rumour that the Prime Minister will be at Speaker's Corner on Sunday to take forward the great conversation?
Mr. Hain: The Prime Minister, other Ministers, and indeed the whole of the Labour party will be involved in a great conversation with the whole of the public right across the country—
Mr. Forth: Where?
Mr. Hain: That will no doubt include the constituency of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), if he wishes to take part in it.
On Ministers making statements, when they are to be made, Ministers will make them in the normal fashion. There have been some hiccups in the tax credit administration. but the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) would not want to detract from the fact that this is an overwhelmingly popular measure that has brought huge income and benefit to those on low incomes. I accept that if there have been administrative hiccups, they need to be sorted out.
As to the Child Support Agency's computer, big computer projects are often difficult to bed down. That is true in the private and the public sector. The problem is being sorted out. There have been some problems, but the right hon. Gentleman exaggerates them enormously.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: The Leader of the House will have been as disappointed as I was to hear that Benjamin Zephaniah has turned down the offer of an award for his poetry—an offer that I am sure was made purely on artistic merit. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on poetry, which we should encourage? There is already one budding poet in the House, who wrote the immortal words:
"She came in the night …
Breasts rising as I feel the urge to bite.
Who would mess with this amazing sight?"
Perhaps we could encourage poetry in the House by instituting a poet laureate of the House of Commons. It would show an inclusive and forgiving nature in the Government if the author of those lines were to be the first recipient of such an award.
Mr. Hain: I am tempted, but on reflection, I will not be seduced.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the Leader of the House arrange an early debate on means-testing? I am not just talking about the increasing number of pensioners who are means-tested in every fashion, but middle income earning middle Britain and the sort of people who pay full prescription charges, full council tax, full payment for school meals and full tuition fees. They are the sort of people who pay full for absolutely everything. Now we hear that access to free school buses, a tradition in this country, will be means-tested as well. When are the Government going to stop kicking middle Britain?
Mr. Hain: This business of means-testing goes back to the 1930s when it was punitive. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that giving people on low pensions and low incomes an entitlement to extra benefits through tax credits and pension credits is the equivalent of means-testing, that is a joke. The truth is that the Conservatives oppose such support for people on low incomes and low

137
pensions, because they plan to scrap it. We are putting in extra resources to make work pay and to make sure that thrifty pensioners who have worked hard all their lives can benefit and enjoy retirement.
On school buses, the hon. Gentleman has completely misrepresented—as have the newspapers—what is proposed in the draft Bill, which he will have an opportunity to subject to pre-scrutiny. The Government are seeking to deal with an issue. First, there is much traffic congestion during the school run. Traffic is up by about a fifth, so we want to try to get more children to go to school in buses and out of cars. Secondly, there is the question of child safety. The issue is complicated by the fact that school transport is generally not provided for journeys of less than three miles, so how, do we change the regulations and configure school transport in a way that, especially in rural areas, provides for a better deal? That is what the proposal is about and the hon. Gentleman should not seek to mislead the House—inadvertently, I am sure—in the way that he has.
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: May I bring to the attention of the Leader of the House an item from yesterday's Gracious Speech that I hope there will be no rush to bring before the House, namely the Civil Contingencies Bill, which is currently published in draft? It will be apparent to anyone who has read the draft Bill that it poses a very real threat to civil liberties in this country and that it is widely drawn in that it would give wide powers to the Government. Indeed, many of the definitions in the Bill, such as that of an emergency, are widely, loosely and dangerously drawn. I understand that the Joint Committee that examined it is due to report tomorrow and I hope that there will be plenty of time for the Government to consider the terms of that report before the Bill comes to the House for Second Reading.
Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman will have a chance to raise whatever detailed points he wants, but it is extraordinary that he is effectively saying that people in this country who stand in danger of being blown up by terrorists or attacked by suicide bombers should not have proper civil contingency arrangements in place. If that is what he saying, he will no doubt vote against the Bill. If he has constructive amendments to move or thinks that some detail could be better, we will consider his suggestions.
Nobody should be in any doubt that this country faces a terrorist threat that is very serious indeed even when compared with the worst days of the IRA. We therefore need proper civil contingency arrangements in place and systems prepared to allow us to deal with that. That is what the Bill will do.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on post offices so that a Minister could explain to me why the Post Office proposes to close 80 per cent. of the post offices in Belper? It wants to close four of the five post offices that serve the people of Belper, so how on earth can the Government give a commitment that pensioners will still be able to collect their pensions from a post office when the Government will leave only one post
138
office serving more than 20,000 people? That cannot be right. What are the Government going to do to instruct the Post Office to alter these disastrous proposals?
Mr. Hain: We will certainly not privatise the Post Office in the way that many Conservatives have advocated. The Post Office obviously uses criteria for local post office provision and, as I have said on many occasions before when answering questions in this slot, I find the decline of local post offices extremely regrettable, but it is a long-term trend. If the hon. Gentleman wants a debate about the subject, there will be one on 11 December, as I announced only a few moments ago.
Sir Sydney Chapman: May I take the Leader of the House back to an aspect of the business that he announced for the next two weeks? He said that, a week on Monday and for part of the following day, the House will be asked to consider the remaining stages of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. He will know that the Bill had a rocky, long and rather strange ride during the past Session and that it was sent back to Committee. How much time on the Tuesday will be devoted to the Bill before consideration of the other measure that he announced? Will that time be only for Third Reading or will Report continue on Tuesday?
Mr. Hain: The conclusion of the remaining stages will take place over two days—a long day on Monday and part of a day on Tuesday. The consideration on Tuesday will be followed by a debate on a fisheries motion, which the House expressly asked for before the Christmas recess, to which we agreed. There will be plenty of time to address the issues. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Bill's purpose is to end the bureaucratic logjam that has existed in the planning system and to allow businesses to invest more easily in enterprise to go forward in a better way so that communities may prosper more effectively. He will find that we have allocated plenty of time to address the remaining stages.
Mr. Bercow: Given the serious concerns that have already been expressed about the Government's intended asylum policy and the evident and extreme discomfort of the right hon. Gentleman, who is a distinguished humanitarian, when trying to defend it today, may we have an urgent statement on the Government's plan to chuck asylum seekers' children into care and break up families simply to boost the breast-beating, sabre-rattling, macho-posturing, he-man image of the Home Secretary? That crypto-fascist policy will be deservedly rejected by the fair-minded majority of the British people.
Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman knows that there will be a debate on home and constitutional affairs next Tuesday. He is a distinguished parliamentarian, if I may pay him that compliment, and his intemperate outburst is wide of the mark. As I have said before, the proposals that the Home Secretary has brought forward are to be considered for situations when people have lost an appeal—sometimes multiple appeals—and gone through the whole process, when they are due to go back to their country of origin after being provided with air

139
fares and a rehabilitation allowance, and when we have said that if they choose to leave their children behind, they will be looked after. What more can we do? We have an obligation to ensure that legal migrants who come here are safely accommodated and can find their own way in British life and that those who are here illegally are returned to their country of origin. That is precisely what we are trying to do in a humane and sensible fashion.
Gregory Barker: May we have an urgent debate on the national roll-out of the digital transmitter network? In large parts of my constituency in East Sussex, digital television and radio are not available. No date has been set for that availability and it is well nigh impossible to get answers about when a date might be set. What is more, many of my constituents still cannot receive Channel 5 on a free-to-view analogue basis and some cannot even get Channel 4. With Christmas schedules plastered across the media, many of my constituents rightly feel cheesed off.
Mr. Hain: if I am right, the problem in the hon. Gentleman's constituency is the south downs. I know that, in my area in south Wales, valley communities also find it difficult to get digital transmissions. We, as a Government, are committed to the nationwide roll-out of digital and I shall certainly draw the points that he raised about his constituency to the attention of the Secretary of State.
Mr. Andrew Turner: Will the Leader of the House think back to the answer that he gave my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff)? Written answers are printed in Hansard not only for our benefit but so that the public may read them. Will he arrange for answers that are laid in the Library to be made available to members of the public?
Mr. Hain: I will certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's precise point more carefully, but frankly, I would have thought that that is done already.

Points of Order
12.19 pm
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you instruct the Serjeant at Arms to investigate urgently whether the monitors in the offices of Labour Members are working? Only two Labour Back Benchers asked the Leader of the House questions, which I think represents 0.4 per cent. of the parliamentary Labour party, compared with more than 14 of my hon. Friends. There was also a good attendance by the Liberal Democrats. Something is obviously wrong with the monitors.
Mr. Speaker: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the monitors are fine. There is nothing wrong with them.
Mr. George Osborne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the Prime Minister's response yesterday to the Leader of the Opposition's reply to the Queen's Speech, the House heard him refuse to give way to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) because he was from Scotland and the Prime Minister was referring to an English matter. You charitably described that as a slip of the tongue by the Prime Minister, but has he confirmed that? In the forthcoming legislative programme, controversial measures may get through only with the support of Scottish Labour Members.
Mr. Speaker: I remember that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) got his way yesterday when the Prime Minister gave way.
Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do you approve of doughnuts? You will have noticed that, mysteriously, even as we speak, a number of Labour Members have appeared and are sitting just behind the place from which the Foreign Secretary is about to orate. Do you approve of or deprecate that habit, or is it simply a strange coincidence? Perhaps you could tell us.
Mr. Speaker: I will not be drawn into that argument.

BILLS PRESENTED
  CHILD TRUST FUNDS
  Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Secretary Blunkett, Mr. Secretary Clarke, Mr. Paul Boateng, Ruth Kelly and John Healey, presented a Bill to make provision about child trust funds and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Monday 1 December, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed. [Bill 1].

  NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS AND STATUTORY PAYMENTS
  Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Murphy, Mr. Secretary Smith, Ms Secretary Hewitt, Mr. Paul Boateng, Dawn Primarolo, Ruth Kelly and John Healey, presented a Bill to make provision relating to the payment and administration of national insurance contributions and

  141
  the provision of information in connection with the payment of statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay, and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Monday 1 December, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed. [Bill 2].

  EUROPEAN PARLIAMENTARY AND LOCAL ELECTIONS (PILOTS)
  Mr. Christopher Leslie, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Secretary Darling, Mr. Peter Hain, Mr. David Miliband and Mr. Denis MacShane, presented a Bill to make provision for piloting in certain regions different methods of voting at the European Parliamentary general election in 2004 and at certain local elections held at the same time; and to enable consequential alterations to be made to voting procedures at local elections.
  Pursuant to Orders [29 October 2002] (Carry-over of Bills) and [21 October 2003], the Bill was read the First and Second time without Question put; and ordered to be considered on Monday 1 December, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed. [Bill 3].

  SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT (CONSTITUENCIES)
  Mr. Secretary Darling, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Murphy, Mr. Peter Hain, Mrs. Anne McGuire and Mr. Christopher Leslie, presented a Bill to replace Schedule 1 to the Scotland Act 1998 making new provision in relation to the constituencies for the Scottish Parliament: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Monday 1 December, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed. [Bill 4].
  ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION (TREATMENT OF CLAIMANTS, ETC.)
  Mr. Secretary Blunkett, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Straw, Mr. Secretary Darling, Mr. Secretary Murphy, Mr. Peter Hain, Beverley Hughes and David Lammy, presented a Bill to make provision about asylum and immigration: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Monday 1 December, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed. [Bill 5].
Orders of the Day

  Debate on the Address
  [SECOND DAY]
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [26 November],
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:
  Most Gracious Sovereign,
  We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects. the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament—[Mr. McFall]
  Question again proposed.

  International Affairs
  12.23 pm
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): The House last debated foreign affairs in the Queen's Speech debate almost 30 months ago, in June 2001. I had just taken over as Foreign Secretary and thought that my new job might be rather quieter than my job in the Home Office. However, it was not, and the world is less certain and more dangerous today than it has been for decades. Since our last Queen's Speech debate, we have seen the appalling attacks of 11 September; Britain has had to join in military action in Afghanistan and Iraq; and there has been the ever more violent intifada in the middle east. People's awareness of global insecurity is probably greater than at any time since the Cuban missile crisis in the early 1960s.
  Last week I saw for myself in Istanbul the carnage and destruction wrought by the terrorist attacks on the British consulate-general and the HSBC bank building on 20 November. Ten consulate-general staff, British and Turkish, and 23 other innocent people lost their lives. I know that the thoughts of all of us in the House are with the families and friends of all the victims. Let me pay tribute to all those, both diplomats sent from the United Kingdom and UK local staff, who work in often dangerous circumstances at our missions abroad.
  Here in the UK, we have had to live for more than 30 years with terrorism. We know all too well from that experience how everyday life could and can be tainted by the fear of terrorist attack. However, over those decades we have refused to bow to the terrorists and let that fear take over. We have to show the same resolve and determination now with the global threat—and fact—of terrorism that we all face. That means, not least, that we must show understanding and support for our allies, such as Turkey, who are facing terrorist threats. We need to balance carefully the advice that we provide for the public. Where we have intelligence of a specific threat, we will advise the public against travel to certain countries or regions abroad, but as far as possible, we will avoid blanket advice against travel. We must not do the terrorists' work for them. Life has to go on.
  The attacks in Istanbul showed yet again how terrorists claiming to act in the name of Islam have perverted a peaceful religion and, in doing so, claimed

  143
  many innocent Muslim victims. Muslim religious leaders around the world have condemned the attacks. Even extremists have been shocked by terrorism into changing their views. Only last Sunday, a leading militant cleric in Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Nasir al Fahd, publicly retracted fatwas that he had previously issued in support of terrorists, in shock at the attacks in Muhaya earlier this month. Killing innocent people, he said, was not jihad; suicide bombers were not martyrs.
  Terrorism is an international threat, and it requires a concerted international response. However, it is not the only threat to our security today. Combating weapons proliferation is also a priority of our foreign policy. Like terrorism, it requires concerted international engagement. As the House will be aware, I visited Tehran last month with my French and German colleagues, with the aim of bringing home to Iran the seriousness and urgency of international concerns about its nuclear programme. As a result of that visit, Iran said that it would co-operate fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency, and it undertook to suspend uranium enrichment and reprocessing. Those are welcome promises. The key, of course, will be Iran's willingness to keep them.
  I know that the House will also welcome the adoption by consensus on 25 November of the IAEA resolution, based on a French-German-UK draft, in respect of Iran. That was the result of the intensive diplomatic consultations that followed our visit. We and our partners look forward to continued co-operation with Iran. Already our approach, based on international unity and constructive but critical engagement, has brought us further forward than many had imagined possible.
  International action backed by strong institutions, such as the United Nations and the IAEA, is essential to combating proliferation. The Government are committed to strengthening the multilateral system and to making it more effective. That also means that we need to be prepared to follow through resolutions with action, as we did in the case of Iraq, which had defied UN Security Council mandatory resolutions for more than a decade.
  Mr. George Osborne: That action in Iraq took place without the support of many European Union countries. I welcomed the fact that the Government decided to proceed with the United States in defiance of those European countries. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that on the current draft of the European constitution it would be almost impossible for the UK to take similar action in future?
  Mr. Straw: The Iraq issue showed that Europe was split down the middle. It is important that we do not get the idea that it was Europe versus the US with the UK tagging along. At least as many countries in Europe supported the position—among the 25—as opposed it. On the specific issue raised by the hon. Gentleman, I do not accept his interpretation of the draft text, but I make it clear that we do not accept the idea of qualified majority voting for foreign policy decisions—except in a
  144
  specific way that is in the current draft text, which was published at the end of July—and we will resist it.
  Defeating terrorism and tackling the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction are vital to protecting our security, but we also need to pursue longer-term goals that will create a more stable world and tackle state breakdown and the conditions in which violence and extremism can thrive. The world today is too interlinked and interdependent for us to be indifferent to insecurity in any region, however remote it may appear to be.
  The events of 11 September 2001 brought the violence and chaos of what was then seen as a distant country about which we knew very little—Afghanistan—to New York, to Pennsylvania and to the heart of the American Government in Washington. Part of our response to the threat from Afghanistan was military action against the Taliban regime and the terrorists whom it harboured. But building lasting security there has meant following that up with equal efforts to help Afghanistan to move towards stability and democracy. Our efforts are paying off. Four million Afghan children are back at school, including girls and young women who were denied an education under the Taliban; the economy grew by an estimated 30 per cent. in 2002–03; and more than 2.5 million refugees have returned. Next month, the Afghans will decide for themselves a new constitution, to be followed by elections next year.
  I returned last night from a two-day trip to Iraq. In Baghdad, I met Ambassador Bremer and General Sanchez, Sir Jeremy Greenstock and many of the staff of the Coalition Provisional Authority, and President Talabani and his leading colleagues in the governing council. In Basra, I met General Lamb, the British General Officer Commanding, many of his staff and that of CPA South, Italian military personnel and Danish police advisers, and Judge Wael Abdul Latif, Governor of Basra.
  I am proud of what the coalition has been able to achieve so far in Iraq, and I expressed my gratitude for the American contributions to Ambassador Bremer and General Sanchez. They will, I know, not mind my expressing my especial pride in and gratitude for the extraordinary work of British military and civilian staff across Iraq. To a man and a woman, these are people of calibre and commitment who are, as I saw, dedicated to making a better Iraq for the Iraqis. I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I express my thanks to their families and loved ones, who have experienced months of separation and inevitable anxiety.
  Despite the terrorist attacks, Iraq is making good progress. With the welcome acceleration of the political process announced earlier this month, an elected Iraqi Transitional Government should be in place by July 2004. By the end of 2005, Iraq should have a new constitution approved by its people, and national elections. Only last week, Iraq took another important step towards a normal relationship with the international community after decades as a pariah state under Saddam, when the UN oil-for-food programme was formally wound up and its responsibilities handed over to the Iraqi governing council and the Kurdish regional government.
  It is easy to forget that only nine months ago, the stifling tentacles of Saddam's regime extended into every corner of life in Iraq, and his murderous habits are

  145
  chillingly recorded in the more than 250 mass graves now discovered, containing just some of the 300,000 poor souls killed or missing under Saddam. Today, the Iraqi people can read, say, buy, and watch what they want. Public sector pay has been massively improved: the real income of police officers has tripled, the Governor of Basra told me. The Iraqis have a new currency in their pockets and goods in the markets to buy with it.
  More than 14,000 reconstruction projects have been launched. Almost all 240 hospitals and more than 1,200 clinics are open, as are almost all schools. More than 200 newspapers have appeared. Satellite dishes, which were illegal under Saddam's regime, are now freely available and widely used, as I saw in my helicopter trips over Baghdad and Basra. Electricity production, which was something of a story in the immediate aftermath of the major military conflict in March and April, has surpassed pre-conflict levels. Building a free, prosperous, democratic and stable Iraq should make a powerful contribution to lasting security across the middle east, as was well recognised in my discussions with the leading members of the governing council.
  Jeremy Corbyn: I am pleased that my right hon. Friend mentioned the numbers of dead discovered in Iraq. Will he comment on the current security situation? What is his estimate of the number of American, British and other soldiers who have died since March, the number of Iraqi soldiers and civilians who have died, and the number who are suffering because of depleted uranium and cluster bombs used during the conflict?
  Mr. Straw: I do not have those figures to hand, but I shall be happy to supply them to my hon. Friend. Yes, sadly, there have been casualties among British, American, Italian and other coalition forces, and there have been a greater number of casualties among Iraqi people. However, I think my hon. Friend will find that since the end of the conflict, a large number of the Iraqi victims have been subject to violence, not by coalition forces, but by other Iraqis, former loyalist elements and outside terrorists. Overwhelmingly, it is Iraqis who have been killed in the major terrorist incidents. If my hon. Friend wants to go in for this kind of calculus, and if he looks at the number of people who have died even over the past six months, including during the military conflict, and compares that with the numbers routinely killed under Saddam Hussein, he will see that Iraq today, notwithstanding its difficult security situation, is a safer and better place than ever it was under the murderous Saddam.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: On that very point, can the Foreign Secretary advise the House through which countries he believes foreign terrorists are getting into Iraq?
  Mr. Straw: I discussed that matter with General Sanchez, General Lamb, other military advisers and others during my two days in Iraq. The borders of Iraq are huge and relatively porous, and even with the best policing, which Iraq does not have at present, some people would still come through. Of all the borders, the most probable route is through Syria. I accept that there
  146
  is work to be done by the Syrian Government better to understand that their interests, as well as the interests of everybody else in the middle east, lie in clamping down on terrorism and on that element, which is adding to the disruption in Iraq.
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: I will, then I must make progress.
  Mr. Blunt: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will agree with the statement of the Labour leader of Reigate and Banstead borough council, Councillor Michael Ormerod, who said that the action on Iraq
  "was presented as part of the 'war on terrorism'. It has done nothing to prevent terrorism; terrorism has increased."
  Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the intervention in Iraq, the case for which I support, and the replacement of Saddam Hussein's regime did not have anything to do with international terrorism, which has increased as a consequence, and did not have anything to do with weapons of mass destruction, except at the margins?
  Mr. Straw: My apologies to the hon. Gentleman. I had not caught up with the remarks of the leader of Reigate borough council.
  Mr. Blunt: The leader of the Labour group.
  Mr. Straw: A great man, but that does not alter the truth of what I just said. My apologies to him, too. I am glad to know that his Conservative Member of Parliament takes such notice of him. That shows that Labour is leading the way, even in Reigate.
  The decision that we took for military action was based on Saddam Hussein's flagrant violation of United Nations resolutions, and on what was assessed not by us and the US alone, but by the whole international community in resolution 1441 to be a threat posed by Iraq to international peace and security, by reason of its defiance of the UN, its long-range missile systems and its proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. I am convinced that the judgment made by the international community a year ago this month was correct then, and it is correct now.
  I never claimed, nor did the Prime Minister, that there was any direct link between al-Qaeda terrorists and those of the Saddam regime. Indeed, I remember a number of questions from the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) in which he asked me about that. I said, accurately, that the Saddam regime had been sponsoring and harbouring terrorists operating in Israel and the occupied territories. There is no question about that: the regime paid a pension to the families of suicide bombers.
  As for whether terrorism has increased since, and as a result of, the conflict, the figures on terrorist incidents are there to see. The claim that there is a connection—that the terrorism has been caused by the conflict and that, as a result, the coalition is somehow indirectly responsible for it—I regard as complete nonsense. I do not accuse the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) of this, but sometimes it appears that some commentators

  147
  think that 11 September happened not in 2001, but in 2003, or that the bombings of the US embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam happened not in 1998, but in 2003. For six or more years, there has been a build-up of terrorism by international terrorists—al-Qaeda and its associates. The only criticism that we might level at ourselves is that we did not take that threat seriously enough until 11 September 2001.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Straw: May I first make some progress?
  Building a free, prosperous, democratic and stable Iraq should make a powerful contribution to lasting security across the middle east, but we also need urgently to make progress on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which feeds an environment of hatred and despair in which terrorism thrives. The road map published by the Quartet of the EU, the US, Russia and the UN sets out an international consensus, endorsed by Israelis and Palestinians, for what a just solution to the middle east conflict should look like: two states living securely side by side. We continue to call for both Israelis and Palestinians to fulfil all their commitments under the road map, which has just been explicitly endorsed in Security Council resolution 1515.
  David Winnick: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Chris Bryant: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: Let me make a little more progress. then I shall give way.
  In the wider middle east region, we are determined to work harder to build lasting stability. Stability does not mean no change: it means changes in the right direction, towards economic development, greater democracy and greater protection of human rights. As many hon. Members pointed out last week after my statement on the Istanbul attacks, the example of Turkey shows how mistaken it is to argue that there is somehow an incompatibility between Islam and a democratic, vibrant and secular society. However, in the Arab world, human development is worryingly low, as Arab authors themselves have pointed out in two recent UN reports. With our partners, the Government will continue to promote better governance and reform across the Arab world by funding grass-roots projects aimed at building up capacity locally, by encouraging our international partners to do the same, and through dialogue with Arab leaders.
  Mr. Barnes: I tried to intervene at the end of my right hon. Friend's remarks about the reconstruction of Iraq, before he turned to his important comments about the Arab-Israeli situation. Is not the Foreign Office to be complimented on the role it is playing in Iraq in working with and facilitating the development of the new free trade union movement? Why are the Americans not acting in a similar way? Are there links between the
  148
  Foreign Office and the American equivalent that can be used to get the Americans to follow the line taken by the Foreign Office?
  Mr. Straw: I am grateful for those remarks. My hon. Friend did part of his national service in Iraq and knows the country better than most hon. Members, and I pay tribute to him as one who has prompted our work on trade unions. We have strong, continuous links with our American colleagues, and I promise that I shall follow up that issue with them.
  Richard Ottaway: I agree with the Foreign Secretary that the success of the Israel-Palestine road map is key to peace in the middle east. Does he agree that more robust intervention than is currently happening is needed? There are problems of dispute resolution, and a third-party authority with genuine powers is needed to drive the process forward.
  Mr. Straw: We need more robust intervention. We must make it clear that third-party intervention is required, but achieving that and getting both parties to accept it will be difficult. However, I support the recent courageous decision of the United States Government to stop loans to the Israeli Government as long as they continue to build the security fence. On my way to Iraq on Tuesday, I flew over Israel and saw the security wall, which, in some places, completely surrounds Arab towns and villages, imprisoning their people. We all understand the security threat to Israel, but I think I speak for the whole House when I say that that is not the way in which it should ensure its own security.
  David Winnick: I welcome what my right hon. Friend has just said, but does it not emphasise that the wretched existence that Palestinians have had to endure for years on end should stop? Unfortunately, despite all the promises about road maps and the rest, the United States in particular simply refuses to take the necessary action and take Israel to task. Unless the United States takes that line, the wretched existence and humiliation that Palestinian men, women and children suffer every day will simply continue. We should demand more than words.
  Mr. Straw: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, but I am not in any doubt about the American Government's commitment to pursuing the road map. They expect, as we do, movement by the Israeli Government and by the Palestinian Authority regarding the continued operations of terrorists from their territory.
  In Africa, too, we are helping to lay the foundations for lasting stability, which means promoting good governance and democracy, as African leaders themselves recognised in the NEPAD—New Partnership for Africa's Development—initiative launched in partnership with the G8, which will be followed up at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting at the end of next week. We have important assets with which we can achieve our foreign policy goals: permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council and membership of more international organisations than any other country except France; excellent armed forces; a widely

  149
  respected and growing aid programme; the network available to us through the Commonwealth and the English language; and our strong relationships across the world.
  The Government's foreign policy rests on two pillars—our relationship with the United States and our membership of the European Union. It is false to argue, as people sometimes do, that we have to choose one or the other. Our future security and prosperity depend on both working together to pursue our common interests. Our membership of the European Union is essential for our security and prosperity. More than 3 million British jobs in over 800,000 British companies depend on it; almost 60 per cent. of our exports are to the rest of the EU; and EU co-operation is vital if we are to tackle cross-border issues such as the environment, illegal immigration and organised crime.
  Mr. Eric Forth rose—
  Mr. Straw: I am always happy to give way to the right hon. Gentleman, but, if he will allow me, I shall continue for a little.
  Given all that, I find it quite bizarre that the Conservative party—the party that took us into Europe in 1973, helped to create the single market in the 1980s and signed the Maastricht treaty in 1992, created the concept of EU citizenship and a common foreign and security policy and extended qualified majority voting to 30 new policy areas—should now argue that Britain should turn its back on Europe. I am the first to accept that the EU is not perfect, which is why we are at the forefront of calls for reform, but we can deliver only by active engagement with our partners. Isolation and withdrawal will result only in marginalisation.
  The expansion of the EU in May will be an historic milestone of which we in Britain can feel justifiably proud. After all—I know that this point will be uppermost in the mind of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—it was our Prime Minister who led the calls for enlargement to take place before next year's European elections, and that is now being achieved.
  Mr. Forth: On that very point, will the Secretary of State confirm that if the proposed EU constitution is not proceeded with—as a result, I hope, of our Government's actions—an enlarged EU will be capable of functioning perfectly well under the Nice treaty?
  Mr. Straw: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman asked that question. He will recall that I spelt out the Government's position at paragraphs 26, 36 and 107 of our White Paper, and in a major debate on the White Paper on 9 September 2003, and what I said is as true today as it was then. I said:
  "It needs to be understood that the argument for the changes is to make enlargement work. However, if it happened that the Convention process ran into the ground and one country or another did not ratify it, then, to put it bluntly, it would not be the end of the world. We would have to get by with Nice. My objection to Nice is that it is unsatisfactory and inefficient".—[Official Report, 9 September 2003; Vol.[410, c. 181.]
  It would not, as I said, be the end of the world. We need to apply ourselves to how to reform the institutions in order to make the EU work better. I do not recall the
  150
  right hon. Gentleman suggesting that Nice was a paradigm of perfection, any more than Labour Members suggested that.
  Enlargement will create a market of 500 million consumers—by far the largest single market in the world—but, of course, it will represent something more than that. It will represent the triumph of democracy and human rights in Europe, and the affirmation of a common European destiny.
  Mr. William Cash: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Straw: Allow me to make a little progress.
  Romania and Bulgaria should soon also be ready to join the EU, and in due course I hope that Turkey will do so too, but for enlargement to operate effectively there must be a change in the way in which the EU works.
  I present my apologies to the House, Mr. Speaker, because I have to leave before the close of the debate to fly to Naples for a further two-day session of the IGC. I am particularly distressed about that because I shall miss the winding-up speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), and I should like to add my congratulations to those that he has already received on his long-overdue promotion to the Front Bench. May I say, without a word of hyperbole, that faced with the choice of two days in Naples talking about the finer detail of the Convention text and listening to the hon. Gentleman's speeches, I would go for the latter any day.
  Even more important than that, I am having to miss, I think for the first time in 24 years, the annual dinner of Blackburn Labour party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] It is a terrible shame, and good comrades in the party will miss my pre-Christmas speech.
  Tomorrow and Saturday, we shall be considering the current proposals from the presidency in respect of part, but not all, of the text. The document has been made public and I should stress that the text itself makes it clear that this is not a final document. It says that
  "the current document is intended to evolve in light of subsequent discussions".
  Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. I can assure the House that there will be ample further occasions to discuss the constitutional treaty over the next few weeks. There will, of course, be the usual pre-European Council debate on 10 December, and I shall appear before the IGC Standing Committee on 1 December and the Foreign Affairs Committee on 11 December. I make this plea for those Conservative Members who are so worked up about the draft Convention to come to the IGC Standing Committee and contribute to the discussion. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), to whom I present my condolences for his brutal removal from the Front Bench in the coup d'état that took place just a few weeks ago, is an assiduous attender, but very few other Conservative Members are.
  Mr. Cash: I am not in the slightest bit concerned about what happened on that occasion, and I am very happy to be here on the Back Benches. Having said that, the Foreign Secretary may recall that around 16 September we had an altercation on the question of the supremacy, as he put it, of international treaties over

  151
  national laws. Does he agree that, if the European constitution was to go through, and if, subsequently, a British Act of Parliament, clearly and unambiguously, was to make provision for the repeal of that constitution, the United Kingdom courts would be under an obligation to give effect to that subsequent domestic Act of Parliament?
  Mr. Straw: I have always acknowledged that Parliament is supreme, and I have written to the hon. Gentleman, as I have written to his colleague, the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), about the issue. He needs to understand that, if we sign up to international treaties, they take precedence in our domestic law, and, where necessary, we have to have domestic legislation in order to implement them, which we expect of our partners. What on earth is the point of signing up to an international treaty with another country, only to find that that other country has not incorporated the treaty's obligations into their own domestic law where that is necessary? If Parliament were to pass an Act of Parliament renouncing the Convention, and if the Convention became the new treaty of the EU, the Act would have to be observed—but let us all be clear that the consequences of that would be to renounce our membership of the EU.
  Happily, one of the many benefits of the draft constitution before the IGC was written with the hon. Gentleman in mind. For the first time, we have ensured—something that the Conservative Government never provided—that there is proper provision for a member state to withdraw from the EU. The issue is not whether it can be done, but whether it is right and proper and in this country's interests. I speak for a united Labour party in saying that that would be against Britain's interests. Yet again, the hon. Gentleman's remarks and his brutal removal from the Opposition Front Bench illustrate how divided the Conservative party still is on Europe.
  Donald Anderson: My right hon. Friend is missing Blackburn and going to Naples on Friday and Saturday, and there is then the IGC on 12 and 13 December. Does he believe in miracles? Does he believe that there is any realistic prospect of the many problems being resolved by the IGC?
  Mr. Straw: No, I do not believe in miracles. I think that the chances are reasonable, but such things cannot be predicted.
  Chris Bryant: Talking of miracles, I wonder how my right hon. Friend hopes that we shall resolve the issue of whether God will be in the final draft.
  Mr. Straw: My understanding of ecclesiastical law—it is a little known fact that I was pupilled to an ecclesiastical lawyer—is that one can sort of resign one's holy orders, but once a cleric, always a cleric. If money were being taken on this, I suspect that there would be nothing in any final treaty on the issue of Judaeo-Christian heritage, but we cannot be certain.
  These parliamentary occasions follow a pattern. Since May, there have been seven debates or statements in the House on the IGC or the Convention. I have twice given
  152
  evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee and once to the IGC Standing Committee. The Minister for Europe has also given evidence to the IGC Standing Committee. There have been two reports on the Convention or IGC by the European Scrutiny Committee, and 13 reports by the Lords European Union Select Committee.
  I hope that the IGC will agree a constitutional treaty that modernises the way in which the EU takes decisions in preparation for a union of 25 or more. I also believe that national Parliaments should, for the first time, be given a formal role at the EU level and that the new treaty should make an explicit acknowledgment that the EU's power derives from its member states, ending the hopes of those who seek the creation of a federal United States of Europe. I have already set out the position on the draft in the White Paper and in the House on 9 September. If we can get agreement, as I hope and believe we should, the new treaty should be a good result for Britain and for the EU. As with previous EU treaties, the Government will lay a European Union Bill before the House in order to enact the treaty in UK law.
  Britain is more influential today because of the active and engaged foreign policy of the Government. I was struck by a recent poll published by a German magazine, which showed that the German population rated Britain as the most influential nation in Europe, above France and Germany itself. Furthermore, the rating was seven times greater than when the last such poll was taken, when Britain's score was only 4 per cent. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] It was in the last full year of Conservative Government in 1996—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] Thank you for the cue.
  Next week, I shall lay before the House a strategy setting out how we see the world developing over the next 10 years—the main threats and the main opportunities that we expect to face. It will set out the Government's agreed medium-term international priorities and will stress the interlinked nature of today's world and the need for us to work more closely together, both within government and with our international partners, to deliver our goals. Whether it is limiting the flow of drugs to British streets, promoting British trade, tackling illegal immigration to our shores or creating a cleaner domestic environment, delivering national outcomes requires an international role.
  More than ever before, our destiny as a confident, progressive, prosperous and secure nation requires an active and engaged foreign policy. Whether or not internationalism was ever an idealist luxury, today it is an essential part of pursuing our national interests. Withdrawing to the sidelines of international debate, as some advocate, or isolating ourselves from the international scene as a way of avoiding the effects of global change, would simply undermine the way in which we cope and adapt to that change, and undermine, too, vital British interests. Withdrawal and isolation are not the road to national liberation, but instead the road to national ruin.
  Since 1997, the Government have pursued the active and engaged foreign policy that we need in today's world. Thanks to the Government, Britain is today a

  153
  leading player in the European Union, a solid and staunch ally of the United States and a strong and committed supporter of the United Nations and of the system of international law. The United Kingdom is delivering a greater commitment than ever before to action on world poverty and development, and is a country prepared to put all its assets, including, where necessary, our armed forces, behind the goals of enforcing international law and promoting justice and democracy.
  This is our record and it is one of which I am proud—and it is an agenda that we will continue to pursue with vigour and determination.
  1.2 pm
  Mr. Michael Ancram: I welcome the Foreign Secretary back from his travels; it is good of him to look in on us between flights, before he heads off again this afternoon. It was a little unfair of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who has left the Chamber, to talk about doughnutting. I thought it was rather touching to see the affection that Labour Members feel for the Foreign Secretary; on his rare visits to this place, they like to surround him with close protection. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] Having heard what he had to say, they have now, with relief, managed to get away for their lunch.
  The Gracious Speech is, as ever under the Labour Government, paved with good intentions: tackling the underlying causes of conflict and extremism; working to reduce world poverty; effective debt relief for developing countries committed to reform. They are all there. They are great aspirations, and as such I commend them. However, aspirations come cheap under this Government; it is their actual delivery that is lacking.
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: Is not my right hon. and learned Friend surprised that the Foreign Secretary made no mention of Zimbabwe in a speech on international affairs? There is a deep and growing crisis in that country, yet we heard nothing from the Foreign Secretary about how we might increase pressure on Mr. Mugabe and his regime by extending sanctions and perhaps even by encouraging South Africa to do something about the supply of energy to Zimbabwe.
  Mr. Ancram: As ever, my hon. Friend has with great prescience taken some of the words that I was going to use later. He makes a good point, not only about Zimbabwe but about some of the other issues that were omitted from both the Queen's Speech and the Foreign Secretary's speech.
  As I was saying, it is the delivery of the Government's aspirations that is lacking, which may explain the strange lack of direction in the speech that we have just heard. The Foreign Secretary's theme, which he tried to establish at the very end of his speech, was one of active engagement, if I understood it rightly. His general themes were those of purpose and success. However, they are hardly borne out by reality. We see Europe at odds with itself, the Commonwealth no longer able to deliver on its basic principles, and the United Nations gridlocked at crucial moments. That is the reality, but it is not the one about which the Foreign Secretary spoke today.
  154
  To be fair, there are exceptions; for example, the fight against terrorism. I will not call it a war, because a war honours its combatants and there is no honour in terrorism. There is only the blackmail of fear seeking to force concessions that cannot be democratically won; at the cost, as we saw so tragically in Turkey last week, of the lives of innocent victims—our consul-general, Roger Short, and two of his staff, Lisa Hallworth and Nanette Elizabeth Kurma, among them. We pay tribute to all those who lost their lives, and we offer our thoughts and prayers to those who are injured or left behind.
  The Government have been right in their response to terrorism. Although there are certainly serious questions to be answered about the levels of intelligence and security in relation to the suicide-bombing of the British consulate, and I have tabled those questions, I acknowledge the refusal of the Government to be cowed by those evil attacks. Indeed, I welcome the Government's commitment in the Gracious Speech to effective action on tackling the threat of global terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. The fight against terrorism is worthy because it faces up to the most dangerous international threat today. That threat must be pre-empted before it is realised.
  Pre-emption may sometimes be military, but by no means inevitably so. It can also be economic, to pre-empt impending humanitarian disasters within which future terrorism may find shelter. The developing world needs a fair deal if it is to compete with the developed world. Cancun exposed a major problem with global trade: rich countries are over-prepared and over-represented, leaving poorer countries with very little voice. The playing field must be made more even.
  In May, the Opposition proposed an advocacy fund that developing countries could use to provide themselves with quality legal and economic advice on trade issues. We looked to the Government to take that up, so it is a matter of great regret that there is no reference to it in either the Gracious Speech or the Foreign Secretary's speech today. That is an opportunity missed.
  The Gracious Speech mentions the millennium development goals, which the Government are way off meeting. There was no mention in either speech of the fact that, as the Chancellor was recently forced to admit, in sub-Saharan countries, on present trends, it will take 126 years to meet primary education targets, 147 years to meet extreme poverty targets and 162 years to meet child poverty targets. Those figures show that yet again an opportunity has been missed.
  Pre-emption can also be political and diplomatic. Recent progress in both North Korea and Iran demonstrates the value of strategically planned and internationally co-ordinated pressure, backed up by regional political clout. Friendly but necessarily circumspect influence has helped to lead to the current and very welcome ceasefires in one of the most dangerous of all global flashpoints: India and Pakistan in Kashmir. I visited the line of control last year and experienced the tension. Encouraging genuine dialogue at different levels, matched by a clear determination not to take sides, is the best service that we, as old friends, can render in that dispute.
  We supported the war in Afghanistan because it was aimed at al-Qaeda and its supporters, the Taliban; but al-Qaeda needs constant attrition if it is not to re-grow

  155
  and rearm. For all the success about which the Foreign Secretary spoke, there were worrying signs when I visited Kabul this summer that a lowering in the profile and intensity of the fight against terrorism in Afghanistan has led to a reappearance of terrorist organisations. Along with a resurgence of opium poppy production, there are storm signals that renewed levels of commitment in Afghanistan are urgently required if the objective of a more democratic, stable and above all anti-terrorist Afghanistan is to be achieved.
  We welcome the undertaking to promote peace in the middle east. I am a long-standing friend and admirer of the people of Israel. I also have great affection and sympathy for the Palestinians. I can understand the fear each has of the other, but I can see the potential for peaceful coexistence in two viable and secure states to the west of the Jordan. Fear breeds the violence of the intifada on the one side and disproportionate reactions, including the security fence, on the other. Against this there is the moral high ground of the road map, within which each can offer the other a genuine hand of friendship, along with the resumption of dialogue that alone will secure peace and a lasting settlement. We must more directly help to promote the principles of that road map and encourage that dialogue. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) that there is a need for a constructive third party to help that process along. But first the duress of terrorism must be removed. There can never be a sustainable settlement negotiated with guns on the table, guns under the table or guns outside the door.
  We continue to support military involvement in Iraq. The Government were right to take action. If not this year, action would almost certainly have had to be taken in the not too distant future when the risk and cost would have been far greater and the danger considerably more far-reaching. What was done was right, legal and necessary. Seventeen United Nations Security Council chapter VII resolutions establishing Saddam Hussein as a threat to international peace and security confirmed that. The ending of a vicious reign of terror may not of itself have been a reason, but from what I saw when I visited Baghdad in July it was certainly a most worthy outcome. I welcome the genuine, if somewhat belated, progress now being made in Iraq and sincerely congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his visit. I join him in paying tribute to our armed forces for their work not just in Basra, but in other areas of that country.
  The overall objective, which we will continue to support, must be the establishment of a representative Iraqi Administration, presiding over an acceptable and sustainable level of security. While speed of transfer of sovereignty to Iraqis is important, there must be no short cuts. To leave behind an unstable Administration incapable of preserving public order would be to betray everything that we have sought to do and would create a great danger for the future.
  There is, however, in what has happened in Iraq one blot, and that is the conduct of our Government. While we await the outcome of the Hutton inquiry on one part of that conduct, I would not seek to pre-empt the detailed findings. What is already clear is that the Government did not play straight. The intelligence
  156
  information in the dossier of 24 September 2002 was, according to an insider, "over-egged". The second dossier of 3 February 2003 was described by the Prime Minister to the House as "further intelligence", when it was nothing of the sort. A number of claims were made, largely by the Prime Minister and not least after the conflict was ended, about evidence of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. While we still cannot be sure about WMDs, we can be pretty sure that the claims of evidence of their existence do not stand up; otherwise we would have seen that evidence by now. All that undermines confidence and leaves a bad taste in the mouth. The case for military action was sound. There was no need to manipulate the truth. That is why we have called for and continue to call for a comprehensive independent judicial inquiry to ascertain the facts.
  The truth is that this Government, for all the words of the Foreign Secretary today, have not got a foreign policy, nor indeed ever had one. A foreign policy means identifying national interests, recognising limitations, setting out objectives, matching them with available resources and being true to one's word. Labour Members need not take such criticisms from me. The Foreign Secretary confirmed today that next week the Foreign Office is for the first time to set out in a White Paper its long-terms strategic goals. Those were the words used by a spokesman for the Foreign Office this morning. Is it not appalling that the Foreign Office has only just woken up to the fact that Britain's foreign policy must be based on long-term strategic goals? Surely that should have been happening all along.
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: Before my right hon. and learned Friend moves on from Iraq, may I point out another blot in the Government's conduct? While there are literally millions of Iraqis still waiting for better services and a better infrastructure, is he aware that the Foreign Office has now appointed a gender equality adviser on about £150,000 plus a year and other expenses? Surely this is political correctness gone mad and a ridiculous insult to the Iraqi people.
  Mr. Ancram: That certainly indicates two things: first, the Government's priorities in relation to what is happening in Iraq, and secondly, how bad the planning was for the post-war period in Iraq, if it was planned for at all, that they should have to make these arrangements now.
  Mr. Straw: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say in which year between 1979 and 1997 the previous Conservative Government published a strategy paper of their foreign policy?
  Mr. Ancram: We did not need one because we understood—[Laughter]—the principles which go to make up a foreign policy. Let me inform the House of a little more about the White Paper. An official in the Foreign Office talked about the purpose of this. He said:
  "The exercise is intended to focus our resources on what our priorities are. That means you need a much more formalised process of defining what your priorities are."
  He went on:
  "The number of things we are dealing with at once is unprecedentedly high, so that does mean that you have to think very carefully."

  157
  After seven years this Government have realised that they have to start thinking very carefully. Their foreign policy over the past seven years has all been catch phrases and soundbites. In 1997 we had the "ethical foreign policy". That did not last long before it ran on to the rocks. Two years ago the Prime Minister gave us
  "the moral duty to act",
  which was closely followed by
  "healing the scars on the conscience of the world".
  They, too, have passed on. In the Gracious Speech there is no sign of a consistent foreign policy: just one more soundbite. It talks about helping
  "war-torn countries … to seize the opportunities for development which peace can bring".
  What on earth does that mean in practice? Yet more words. No shape, no direction, no purpose—just a series of reactions, or in some cases a shameful lack of reactions, to events as they happen.
  Chris Bryant: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is accusing the Government of a foreign policy of catch-phrases and of not doing anything in concrete terms. Is not the truth of the matter that the Conservative Government let Kosovo bleed and only this Government took action?
  Mr. Ancram: If the hon. Gentleman had been in the House, he would have heard the detailed debates on the Balkans and our discussions on the strategy and priorities in that area. We have here a Government who make much of their active engagement, but there is no philosophical strand behind what they are doing, no purpose and no direction.
  I was coming to the omissions from the Gracious Speech, because they are indicative of the way in which the Government approach foreign affairs. Where is there any mention of Zimbabwe? I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) about the horrors perpetrated by the tyrant Mugabe on the suffering people of that once thriving land. If we believe in releasing oppressed people from despotism and restoring democracy, why does that belief seem to disappear into the sands of the frontiers of Zimbabwe?
  Why when the people of Zimbabwe look to us for international leadership to end the deliberate starvation, murders, beatings, ethnic cleansing, abuse of human rights and suppression of free speech—all of them hallmarks of Mugabe's brutal regime—are we so feeble in our response? Why are we so half-hearted about targeted sanctions? Why do we not do what the Americans have done and take action against those who bankroll Mugabe? Why do we continue to baulk at raising Zimbabwe in the UN Security Council? Why do we always walk by on the other side? The time for appeasing Mugabe is over. Quiet diplomacy has failed. It is time to play hardball.
  David Winnick: The Mugabe regime is absolutely disastrous. No one is likely to disagree with that, but can the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain why we stood on the other side when the genocide took place in Rwanda, where it is estimated that some 800,000 people perished? I do not remember any call from the Conservative Government of the time for intervention.
  158
  Why did we show such indifference to what was happening in Bosnia? The reason I supported the action in Kosovo. apart from anything else, was to demonstrate that what we did not do in Bosnia we should do in Kosovo, and we did—congratulations to the Government.
  Mr. Ancram: If the hon. Gentleman went to Zimbabwe, as I did, he would discover one thing, which filled me with shame. The people of Zimbabwe, black and white, said to me, "You know this country. You were involved in it. You have something to do with what is happening now. You have a responsibility to take action." They heard the Prime Minister say at his party conference that he would not tolerate the behaviour of Mugabe or his henchmen and then they saw nothing happen at all. They feel betrayed. I felt shame because they feel betrayed by a British Government.
  The Gracious Speech refers to the celebrations that will mark the 100th anniversary of the entente cordiale with France, a country not over-renowned for its cordiality to us. Why then is it silent about celebrations to mark the 300th anniversary of British sovereignty over Gibraltar? The Government should be seeking to rebuild the shattered bridges of trust with the people of Gibraltar, who have always been loyal to this country. It should be a natural instinct to want to celebrate 300 years of British history and to reassert British sovereignty over the Rock. I understand that the big day will be 4 August. What plans have the Government to mark that great anniversary, and who will attend on behalf of the Government? Will the Foreign Secretary be there? Will the Prime Minister be there? Can the Foreign Secretary undertake before the House that the Government will not seek to dissuade the Queen or any other member of the royal family from taking part?
  Mr. Cash: Will my right hon. and learned Friend note that it appears that the Government are not intending to take part in, or for that matter to make provision for, proper commemoration of the anniversary of the Normandy landings? Does he agree that the Government should make such provision?
  Mr. Ancram: Indeed. This year will be a great test of the Government's patriotism, pride in the history of this country and belief in the importance of Britain. We will see over the next 12 months just how sincere their protestations about believing in Britain are.
  May I come to Europe, or more specifically, the proposed European constitution? Over the past few weeks, the Government have been all over the shop. We have been told constantly by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary that that wretched constitution is essential to make the enlarged Europe work. As of Monday this week, it is apparently merely "highly desirable". For months, we have been told that the constitution does not involve fundamental change. Now we are told that, unless it is changed, the Government will veto it. The Foreign Secretary proclaims that the constitution
  "equips the Union with the machinery it needs to embrace the challenge of enlargement",
  yet a
  "senior government source close to the negotiations",

  159
  the words used in the newspapers on Tuesday, otherwise known as the Foreign Secretary, suggested totally the opposite. We have had a week when, in the mouth of one man, two totally contradictory positions have been put forward. It will be interesting to see how he negotiates when he gets to Naples and whether he has made up his mind when he gets there.
  No wonder the promised roadshows to sell the constitution have never seen the light of day. The Foreign Secretary would not know what to sell or how to sell it. It would be charitable to suggest that he and his team are merely incompetent and confused. It would not be the first time he has changed his mind on Europe. In October 1979, this great pro-European opposed the accession of Greece to the EEC because it would be
  "bad…for the idea of wider European co-operation which some of us seek as an alternative to membership of the EEC."—[Official Report, 30 October 1979; Vol. 972, c. 1057–8.]
  Three years later—I love the language that the Foreign Secretary used in those days—he was at it again, urging upon this House
  "disengagement from this extravagant, inefficient, and wasteful madness."
  What wonderful words. He went on.
  "That is the only sensible basis for our relations with Continental Europe."—[Official Report, 23 July 1982; Vol. 28, c. 714.]
  And he calls us viscerally anti-European! That was what I suppose we can call the first Straw. Now we have to deal with the last Straw.
  The Foreign Secretary talks about red lines. He knows that references to tax harmonisation, a single foreign and defence policy and social security are small parts of the treaty as it stands, if they are there at all. They are arguments that the Government should certainly win. He hopes that the British people will believe that he has fought for them and won, and that somehow, therefore, the constitution is all right; but the British people will not so easily be fooled, and even if those red lines had real merit, the Government must explain why, after months of negotiation, the red line on foreign policy and indeed on other matters appears in the latest Italian proposals to be moving in totally the opposite direction.
  We do not believe in red lines. Like the Prime Minister three years ago, we do not believe that the constitution is necessary or desirable. We just want to get rid of the constitution, but we have a right to test the Foreign Secretary's position. If he were serious about red lines, he would tell us what specifically he wants to see put in the constitution and what specifically he wants taken out. Where among the so-called red lines is the Chancellor of the Exchequer's call three weeks ago for tax harmonisation to be explicitly excluded? Where is the prohibition on making the charter of fundamental rights legally binding, as promised by the Prime Minister on 15 October 2000? Where is the specific prohibition of the creation of a defence capability outside NATO? Where is the removal of the "escalator" clause, which if left intact will allow the EU to take control of defence and foreign policy without any reference back to national Parliaments?
  160
  If red lines are to be credible, they must be more than the red herrings paraded this week. If the Government really meant business, those would have been included in the off the record briefing that we heard on Monday. This matter is too serious for smoke and mirrors. That is why in the end the British people must be allowed to decide in a referendum.
  A Bill to allow for such a referendum on the new treaty should have been in the Gracious Speech. There is a referendum Bill in the Gracious Speech. It is on the wrong referendum. It is on the single currency, which will not happen, rather than on the constitution, which the Government for all their smoke and mirrors are apparently determined will happen.
  It is a measure of the contempt that this Government have for the intelligence and good sense of the British people that there is not to be a referendum. We believe in trusting the British people and we will continue to campaign to allow them to have their say.
  I make no bones about the fact that we are opposed to this or any European constitution. That is our red line. It is not just a matter of detail, although losing control of our asylum policy and perhaps of our oil are of immense importance. This constitution is a step change away from the Europe of nations towards a single European state. The rest of Europe knows it. As the Belgian Prime Minister said only yesterday, the constitution will be the "capstone" of a "federal state". He knows it. We know it. Only the British Government deny it. It is time that the Government came clean.
  We want a Europe that is a genuine partnership of sovereign nations, which recognises differences as strength and not as weakness. We want to see the completion of the single market and the implementation of the Lisbon agenda. We want real deregulation. We want to promote greater accountability. We want to restore the primacy of the national Parliaments in the European Union, with power emanating from them and not from Brussels. We want a Europe for its peoples and not for its elites.
  We want a Europe that can genuinely work in partnership with the United States; the phrase is mentioned in the Queen's Speech. That means creating a Europe with the flexibility to do so. It does not mean imitating the Prime Minister by being pro-American one day and pro-European the next. It does not mean, either, the fudged language of the Anglo-French summit on Monday, where we had the incredible spectacle of the French President praising the military capability of NATO—a military alliance in which the French refuse to participate and which it remains their intention to corrode. Nor was it served by the bland way in which the Prime Minister dismissed fears about the creation of a European military capability outside NATO, both in operational and planning terms.
  We on this side of the House value NATO as the cornerstone of European security. That phrase used to appear in the Gracious Speech, but—interestingly—it was not present this year. We believe that the wholehearted commitment of the United States to NATO is vital, and we deprecate the tacit anti-Americanism that motivates some European leaders to seek a separate European military capability. It is not good enough for the Prime Minister to give repeated assurances about the primacy of NATO when

  161
  indications from Paris and Berlin suggest a totally different intent. Playing fast and loose with NATO is dangerous for this country, for the transatlantic partnership and for the security of Europe.
  The Foreign Secretary's speech was the speech of a man who has lost his way in a Government who never had one. As usual, he was long on rant and short on reason. He faithfully replicated the almost total lack of direction in national matters that marked the Gracious Speech. That lack of direction is now damaging our country. It is overstretching our armed forces, undermining our security, squandering our reputation for reliability and trustworthiness abroad and doing Britain down. Let us hope that this empty Gracious Speech marks the beginning of the end of this failing Government. For the sake of our country, that would not be before time.
  1.31 pm
  Donald Anderson: I wish first to make a few general remarks about the Gracious Speech. I had the privilege of being brought up in a household that had on the wall the old National Union of Railwaymen slogan "Unity is Strength", and in the House I have always worked on the principle, "If in doubt, vote Labour." I have no doubts about the majority of measures in the Queen's Speech and I shall vote enthusiastically for Bills to protect the vulnerable, whether from domestic violence or from the danger of losing all or part of the pensions to which they have contributed.
  With some doubts, I shall even support the Government on top-up fees. Surely we all agree that we need to channel further resources into higher education if we are to open the doors to more students. Conservative party policy is to restrict or freeze access, and I hope that it will say so honestly in its manifesto. The Liberal Democrats believe that the general taxpayer should pay, and I hope that they will also say so honestly—and with costings—in their manifesto. Top-up fees may be the least unsatisfactory method of providing increased access, as long as we protect those from less prosperous homes.
  I have more fundamental doubts about the proposals for civil partnerships. The state has an interest in reinforcing the status of marriage and should do nothing to undermine its status. Making partnerships the legal equivalent of marriage sends the wrong signals.
  I shall now address the key parts of the Queen's Speech in relation to foreign affairs, including Iraq, the intergovernmental conference and our system of alliances. At the time of the state opening of Parliament last year, one issue dominated the international agenda—Iraq. Resolution 1441 was passed some five days before the Gracious Speech, and it was a high point for the international community. The unanimous vote and the international consensus put pressure on Saddam Hussein's regime. Since then, we have seen momentous developments in foreign affairs, which culminated in the Iraq war in March.
  The question now is whether we should dwell on the conflict and the steps leading to it or look forward and move on. Both the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Intelligence and Security Committee produced reports on the run-up to the war, reaching broadly similar
  162
  conclusions on the role of intelligence. Most people would accept that the current situation, however imperfect, is an improvement for the people of Iraq. Without the intervention in March and April. Saddam Hussein would still be in power, and almost certainly preparing the succession for one of his two sons. The focus must now be on reconstruction and the future of Iraq.
  The present violence is likely to continue. Resolution 1511 has not been translated into sufficient changes on the ground. Many of the hugely sensitive issues have yet to be tackled, including the distribution of power between the centre and the regions, and the role of Islam in the future governance of Iraq. The governing council of Iraq and its successor will have to tackle those issues.
  Jeremy Corbyn: Is my right hon. Friend concerned that the Iraqi governing council. which was largely appointed by the Americans, is busy handing over state assets to any international buyer that comes along, and is limiting levels of taxation on international and local corporations to 15 per cent.? The council assumes that the people of Iraq want an unbridled free-market, capitalist economy in the future.
  Donald Anderson: I hear what my hon. Friend says, but no one can doubt that the situation is substantially better and that rapid steps are being taken towards a Government for Iraq chosen by the people of Iraq, not appointed by the occupying powers. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that that would be a substantial step forward, as we seek to win hearts and minds in Iraq. I also recommend that he read the recent report of the International Crisis Group. Much remains to be done, but in the longer term we can be positive about much of the future of Iraq, especially because of its national resources—its oil, its agriculture and its human resources, which have enormous potential.
  In June next year, sovereignty should pass to a more representative authority, although the occupying power will remain responsible for security. Therein lies one of the problems—how the relationship between those responsible for security and those responsible for the governance of Iraq will be arranged. We will need to wait until the next Queen's Speech to see how successful the reconstruction and the succession of power have been. It is a battle we dare not lose. The battle is against terrorism and the wreckers who blow up UN buildings, destroy pipelines and wreck police stations and the civil infrastructure. They should not be allowed to win. It is in the interests of all of us to succeed and to end up with an Iraq that, while probably not a model of democracy in the region—as was initially trumpeted—is far better governed than it was under Saddam Hussein.
  At the time of the Queen's Speech last year, the European Convention on the constitution had been meeting since February. It produced its report in July this year and we are now trying to see whether the cacophony of different views can be reconciled. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was good enough to accept that it would be miraculous if the two-day meeting in Naples this weekend and the intergovernmental conference in December—however much it is extended—could reconcile the opposing views. The prospects are not good, because there are clear dividing lines on the future of Europe, which were

  163
  revealed this week in the collapse of the European Union's stability and growth pact and the Italian draft, which was mentioned by the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) and is light years away in several areas from being something that we would be disposed to accept.
  Chris Bryant: My right hon. Friend mentioned the collapse of the stability and growth pact. Does he believe that what has happened this week is likely to lead to faster reform of the pact, and that such reforms might be in Britain's interests, especially if we subsequently want to join the euro?
  Donald Anderson: Well, that is a possible scenario, but it does seem very clear that the doubts expressed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer have some substance in the light of what has happened this week.
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell: In sharp contradiction of what the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has just said, would the right hon. Gentleman not agree with me that the stability pact's treatment by France and Germany demonstrates that the euro remains above all a political rather than an economic construct, and that these other countries will always put their national domestic economic interests ahead of the greater interests of the European Union?
  Donald Anderson: Clearly, both interpretations can be well founded. The jury is out, as the dust settles, on the direction in which the pact will move. The extent to which the big players, France and Germany, will be enabled to have their way is one of the problems that will have to be resolved at the intergovernmental conference. Another factor is the way in which the European Parliament and the Commission are opposing the Council with charges of backsliding since the Convention was agreed in July, particularly with regard to the proposal by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other ECOFIN leaders on the role of the Parliament over the budget. Spain and Poland are trying to ensure that the Nice arrangements on the weighting of their votes will be maintained, but there is a key difference over structural co-operation, which is institutionalised, and enhanced co-operation, which is more ad hoc. There are other differences. Obviously there must be a procedure for amendment for minor matters, but the passerelle clause, clause 24.4, which would allow, with unanimity, a move to qualified majority voting in key areas, clearly could bypass national Parliaments and needs to be opposed.
  Perhaps most important of all is the European security and defence policy. Since the chocolate summit in April, there has been some retreat by the four countries concerned—France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg—but the Prime Minister made a compromise at Berlin about six weeks ago and the Government may well be making a similar compromise at Berlin today. Surely the correct hierarchy is to have NATO first, NATO being the only institution for collective defence, then the carefully negotiated Berlin plus, whereby the European Union may use NATO
  164
  assets, and then, if there is to be planning, first the national Governments who are able to do that, notably France, Germany and ourselves, and then, if there is to be a separate planning unit at all, it should be sited at Mons, at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, rather than in Kortenberg, because there is a real danger of movement from there.
  Perhaps the real danger now is that the Government may be prepared to pay too high a price to kill Tervuren and the initiative that came in April. In my judgment, no European defence without UK participation will be credible, so we have a major negotiating asset in trying to ensure that any European defence will indeed be credible. There will be areas, such as Bosnia, where the United States—perhaps because of overstretch—is more ready to see a European presence, and there will be areas, such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where the US will not wish to be involved, but it is mightily in our interests to ensure that the United States stays fully engaged in European defence.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: Although no one wants to see a duplication of NATO planning, does my right hon. Friend agree that the benefits of defence co-operation in Europe will clearly be of advantage not just to the UK but to other European Parliaments? For example, there will be greater capacity for heavy lift and other capabilities within Europe, which we often look to the United States to provide but in future could be provided within Europe through better co-operation.
  Donald Anderson: That prompts the question whether people are prepared to pay for that heavy lift. Currently Germany, in relation to Afghanistan, is chartering Antonov aircraft from Ukraine at, I think, several hundred thousand dollars a sortie, and yet Germany is paying 1.4 per cent. of its wealth on defence. That may be part of the difference between the Europe of declaration and the Europe of delivery—I draw a parallel with defence policies in this country.
  Finally, having dealt in passing with Iraq and the European Union, I turn to our own foreign policy alliances. The Iraq war threw the spotlight on all our alliances and on our role in the world. The Government took a strategic decision to ally with the United States. A year ago it seemed plausible to argue that that decision had brought influence for us—influence in terms of the US taking the United Nations route, which it largely did, certainly until March, and in terms of the middle east peace process.
  Part of the tragedy on the middle east now is that the road map has been stalled because the attention of the US has been diverted elsewhere, understandably to Iraq, but perhaps also as a result of frustration at the lack of willingness on either side to make the necessary changes, as Israel continues to build up its settlements and the Minister of Housing gives new moneys for those settlements, and as the Palestinians seem incapable of bringing together their security forces in an integrated unit under Abu Ala. Only the US can decisively intervene in the middle east process, and at the moment the US seems unwilling or incapable of doing so.
  However, I found the speech by President Bush last Tuesday not only a very sound speech in itself but extremely well delivered, and in my judgment it could

  165
  not have been delivered a year or so ago in terms of its multilateralism, its commitment to democracy and its stress on use of force as a last resort. Obviously, over the year, major strains became apparent in our alliances as a result of the response to Iraq. A French view of the European Union as a counterweight to the United States perhaps reached its apogee at the Tervuren summit in April. The interest now clearly is in the question, if there were to be another Iraq, another challenge of that nature, how should we respond?
  One of the better parts of the speech by the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) was what he said about pre-emption. This is a subject that we should not and cannot ignore. It has already been put on the table by a major speech by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. I consider that Solana made a significant contribution in his security report. This is not an academic debate; it is a very serious debate as to how we respond. The classic formulation of the pre-emptive use of force was of course in the Caroline case in 1837. I will not quote what US Secretary of State Webster said at that time, but those sentiments can still apply even at a time of weapons of mass destruction and can be adapted to some of the challenges of our modern world. We do not want to be killed before we act in self-defence. Where should the line be drawn? Therefore I am pleased that the international community is seeking to grapple with this question, and that on 5 and 7 December a reform panel set up by the United Nations Secretary-General, which includes Lord Hannay, will start to address the very serious problem of anticipatory self-defence or pre-emption.
  Clearly, the international community needs to move beyond the tensions of the past year and resolve its differences if we are to tackle the clamant problems that face us today: terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, HIV/AIDS, drugs and so on. The Prime Minister set out the basic tenets of the Government's foreign policy in his speech at the Lord Mayor's banquet on 10 November. The right hon. and learned Member for Devizes chided the Government for being slow in formulating their foreign policy principles, but he slightly contradicted himself by referring to the principles set out by the former Foreign Secretary in 1997, and he clearly showed the danger of setting out principles when he talked about an ethical foreign policy-a soundbite. If he trawls through all the speeches made by the former Foreign Secretary, he will find no reference to an ethical foreign policy, only to an ethical dimension to foreign policy. I guess that, even between 1979 and 1997, there was indeed an ethical dimension to foreign policy.
  The Prime Minister stressed that our foreign policy rests on the twin pillars of alliance with the United States and membership of the EU. He said that, if either of those were taken away, Britain would be weaker and that it is not necessary to choose between them. I hope that the House fundamentally agrees that the concept of a transatlantic bridge in our foreign policy has much to commend it and that we should not be pushed into making such a choice. Europe should be viewed as the partner of the US, not its servant.
  I end on the role of the Foreign Affairs Committee in this rapidly changing world. I believe that, over the past year, we have made a significant contribution to the debate. We have covered a wide range of issues and
  166
  published more than 10 reports, including on the decision to go to war in Iraq and several reports, in June and December last year and July this year, on the war against terrorism. We have had numerous evidence sessions on those themes. We have decided as a Committee that we shall continue to open new chapters on the war. I understand why the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that it should be called the conflict against terrorism. This is a war that will have no end, so long as people are prepared to perpetrate outrages such as those in Istanbul.
  Clearly, we as a House and a country have an enormous task ahead, which includes Iraq and countering international terrorism, and we in the United Kingdom must make full use of all our alliances—the UN, the EU and NATO—and do so to our best advantage. Only by working together can we expect to make progress on the manifold threats that we face today. Let us pray that the period until the next Queen's Speech will be less exciting than the year that has passed since the last one but more productive in terms of greater international understanding and co-operation.
  1.53 pm
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: May I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) on his return to the Front Bench? He was a most distinguished Armed Forces Minister, and he is still remembered with a great deal of affection and respect in the Ministry of Defence. In appointing him, there is no doubt that the leader of the Conservative party has strengthened the Front-Bench team.
  These occasions become something of a tour d'horizon, and we have already had something of such a tour from the Foreign Secretary, who goes from Basra to the bay of Naples, but without Blackburn—an omission that grieves him considerably. It is a pity that the White Paper, which is now promised for next week, was not available to us in advance of the debate, but I make no criticism. I hope that we will have an early opportunity, when the White Paper has been published, to visit some of the issues that it will contain. It is also inevitable in a tour d'horizon of the kind that I describe that one may not be able to deal with every topic that is thought to be pressing by any hon. Member.
  As a country that has traditionally operated its foreign policy through international institutions, we have to accept that, if the institutions of the EU, the UN and NATO have not taken a battering, they have certainly sustained some damage in the past 12 months, and I hope that the policies of Her Majesty's Government will be designed to seek to repair those institutions so far as that is necessary.
  One institution that has stood up fairly robustly is the Commonwealth. The Foreign Secretary will know that, by and large, we have been supportive of the Government's position on Zimbabwe, but there is now a case for imposing sanctions rather further down the Government line. Those who support Mr. Mugabe's regime, even those at fairly junior level, should not be permitted free passage to the United Kingdom or to send their children to United Kingdom schools. If we are serious about bringing pressure to bear, that is at least one of the sanctions that we could adopt.

  167
  The Government's attitude to the UN has been that it is somehow damaging if we seek a resolution and we fail to get it, but I suggest to the Government that that would now be a sensible policy because we would flush out those who are willing to tolerate what goes on in Zimbabwe. In particular, the Foreign Secretary could confidently expect some pretty robust support from the United States, the Congress of which has been notable in the extent to which it has been willing, first, to be critical, and secondly, to impose measures against the Mugabe regime.
  Obviously, Iraq and the campaign against terrorism dominate all other issues. It is well known in the House that my hon. and right hon. Friends and I were sceptical about using military force. The reasons for that have been well rehearsed, and I do not propose to burden the House with them again. But we have to live in the world that we find ourselves in, not the world as we would wish it to be, and there is absolutely no doubt that an overwhelming priority must be the restoration of Iraq to stability and the opportunity given to the Iraqi people to adopt democratic institutions.
  Iraq cannot be allowed to fail, first, because of the dire consequences for the Iraqi people if that were to happen; secondly—perhaps rather more selfishly—because of the enormous blow that that would represent to the influence of the United Kingdom and the United States in the region; and thirdly, because of the serious risk of dismemberment, with ominous implications for regional stability if Iraq were to divide into, let us say, three constituent parts.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) said that he would not prejudge the Hutton inquiry report, nor indeed will I, but it appears likely that, if Lord Hutton continues with a narrow interpretation of the remit entrusted to him to examine the circumstances that led to the death of the unfortunate Dr. Kelly, other questions may still remain—in particular, the central question to which I have referred in the House on a number of occasions: did we go to war on a flawed prospectus, either because of inadequate intelligence or because intelligence was mishandled once it was obtained? The longer the investigating group in Iraq takes and the more obvious its failure to find any evidence of weapons of mass destruction capable of being delivered even on a battlefield at 45 minutes' notice, the more acute becomes that central question.
  The Foreign Secretary is robust in his argument that no one can automatically claim that military action in Iraq has increased the threat of terrorism and that terrorist incidents have increased. He rightly points to the atrocities in east Africa and to the fact that the attack on the twin towers took place in 2001. There is a catalogue of terrorist activity, but one of the issues that I should like to be considered as part of that central question—it would best be considered by some form of judicial inquiry, along the lines of that carried out with such distinction and dispatch by Lord Hutton—is that raised by the Intelligence and Security Committee, whose Chairman is no longer with us. I call her Chairman because that is how she is described in the document, not from any lack of sensitivity for
  168
  how she would prefer to be described. After the atrocity in Istanbul we are entitled, indeed obliged, to consider again what the Intelligence and Security Committee recorded in paragraph 126 of its report, which was published in September 2003. It states:
  "The JIC assessed that al-Qaida and associated groups continued to represent by far the greatest terrorist threat to Western interests, and that threat would be heightened by military action against Iraq."
  In paragraph 127, the report records:
  "The JIC assessed that any collapse of the Iraqi regime would increase the risk of chemical and biological warfare technology or agents finding their way into the hands of terrorists, not necessarily al-Qaida."
  Are not those two propositions certainly worthy of further and, I would argue, detailed judicial consideration? To be fair, I remind the House that in paragraph 128 the Prime Minister is reported as having said to the Committee:
  "One of the most difficult aspects of this is that there was obviously a danger that in attacking Iraq you ended up provoking the very thing you were trying to avoid. On the other hand I think you had to ask the question, 'Could you really, as a result of that fear, leave the possibility that in time this developed into a nexus between terrorism and WMD in an event?'. This is where you've just got to make your judgement about this. But this is my judgment and it remains my judgment".
  He added, in words that may come to be regarded as prophetic:
  "I suppose time will tell whether it's true or it's not true."
  We know that there has been a step change in the nature of the arrangements for the transition in Iraq. I would also like to associate myself with expressions of congratulation and good will to all British nationals who serve there in either a military or a civilian capacity. I certainly subscribe to the principle that there should be a transfer as soon as possible to the Iraqi people. However, I would like to subject that to several different qualifications.
  I do not believe that we should set artificial timetables for the transfer, though I believe that it is sensible to have target dates. If a target date is missed for good reason, however, it should not be viewed as constituting some damaging criticism of the process. I also believe that there should be greater involvement of the UN to provide both improved legitimacy and increased political support.
  I must say that we cannot leave Iraq until the security situation has been resolved. Nothing could be worse than handing over to an Iraqi Government, however constitutionally founded, a security position that they were incapable of dealing with. I saw reports last weekend that British troops could be expected to be in Iraq for up to four years. If the reports are correct and are properly based on Ministry of Defence assessments—I am sure that somewhere in the recesses of that Ministry the military planners are considering precisely what the obligation may be and the level at which it will be required; and no doubt in the Treasury someone is working out just how much it will cost-four years is a measure of the commitment that we have undertaken. We really should explain that commitment to the British people not only because of the financial consequences, but, unfortunately, because of the potential consequences to the life and limb of our troops.

  169
  I realise that it is not the particular responsibility of the Foreign Secretary, and I hope that the Secretary of State for Defence will be able to deal with the matter on another occasion, but reports of the reasons for the loss of life of Sergeant Steve Roberts are important. He lost his life on 24 March and it has been alleged that a contributing factor was the fact that his body armour did not have the ceramic plates that might have saved him. It is argued that not enough of those plates were available.
  I remind the House that throughout the conflict hon. Members of all parties asked Ministers whether they were satisfied that our troops had everything that they needed for their protection. The response to that question was almost always in the affirmative. I understand that there will be an inquiry into the matter, which I do not want to prejudge, but we are entitled to say that Ministers were prevailed on to ensure that adequate materials were available to all our troops. If it proves that that was not the case in this instance, the House will, to put it mildly, be extremely disappointed.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: As my right hon. and learned Friend will know, Sergeant Roberts was one of my constituents, and I had the privilege on Remembrance day of placing a commemorative flag on a war memorial. Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the Ministry of Defence has an obligation to the families of those who served us, not just those who lost their lives, and that the lack of clarity and lack of dispatch with which information has been made available is a sad reflection on the Ministry of Defence's responsibilities in that matter?
  Mr. Campbell: If there is an inquiry, I hope that it will meet the criticisms that my hon. Friend has made. Since he raises the question of dealing with the families, we note with interest the proposals in the Gracious Speech to deal better with compensation and pensions, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) has been particularly assiduous as a result of a tragic case involving one of his constituents. If there is to be enhanced provision, we should clearly welcome it.
  We are told in the Gracious Speech that there is to be a defence White Paper. The last defence White Paper was the result of extensive consultation and it was a document that could legitimately be described as having been drawn up with considerable intellectual rigour. It enjoyed considerable support on both sides of the House and indeed outside it. I express the hope that the same sort of intellectual rigour will he evident on this occasion. If we are looking at the sort of extended engagements of British troops that might be necessary in Iraq, I hope that when it comes to the retention of regiments, there will be no exercise in cost-cutting for the sake of cost-cutting.
  To make a personal plea, one of the regiments thought to be under threat is the Black Watch, a distinguished Scottish regiment that happens to recruit in my constituency and nearby. From the point of view of recruitment in Scotland, if any such famous regiments were to be further amalgamated or disbanded, the Army might find it difficult to draw from Scotland the sort of quality and numbers that it has been able to call on in the past.
  170
  I shall now deal with the campaign against terrorism. One could argue, even putting Iraq in such a prominent position as I have, that that must be the No. 1 priority for British foreign policy. I have some anxieties about the more evangelical rhetoric that the Prime Minister and President Bush used last week. Far be it for Liberal Democrats to object to something approaching a Gladstonian vision, but one has to be more pragmatic about the way in which one tries to bring about, for example, the spread of democracy in the middle east. There is a risk that talking in evangelical terms makes it sound like a crusade, which tends to suggest the Christian west against the Muslim east. Using the right language in these matters is extremely important, and sensitivity to different traditions is essential.
  We must try to deal robustly—if necessary by military means—with direct signs of terrorism, but we must also try to deal with the factors that allow terrorism to exist and to flourish. I am not so naive—nor is anyone in the House so naive—as to believe that a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians would induce terrorists throughout the world to lay down their weapons and declare that the reason for their existence had been removed. However, it is important to find mechanisms that undermine the popular support that terrorist organisations enjoy, particularly in the middle east, and there is no doubt whatever that making progress on the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians would go far in that direction.
  I have been critical of the United States and President Bush, but we have to recognise that information is now available that certain credits have been held back. We should acknowledge and be grateful for that, because any knowledge of the American political system and the onset of a presidential election year makes one understand that such steps, which may have an effect on the powerful pro-Israel lobby in the United States, may be difficult for any presidential candidate to take. The move contains echoes of that taken by the President's father who similarly held back credits to Israel because of the settlements policy. His father was also responsible for driving forward the Madrid conference that ultimately led to the Oslo accords that, unhappily, did not reach the fruition for which we all hoped. However, we should acknowledge—particularly those of us who have been critical in the past—that the US Administration have taken a step that we hope will have some influence on the policies of Mr. Sharon.
  Mr. Barry Gardiner: The right hon. and learned Gentleman speaks with great authority and much common sense. However, will he say whether he agrees with the argument that the terrorists themselves have made it clear by their actions against the Muslim populations in Indonesia and Turkey that this issue is not about a clash of religious ideologies? Many Muslims have been the victims of terrorist outrages.
  Mr. Campbell: The issue may be more complicated than the hon. Gentleman and I have put it. Among those in Iraq are those who have come through the porous borders in exercise of some kind of jihad. In the terrorist activities that have taken place, they have been wholly indiscriminate about the consequences of

  171
  what they do. To that extent, I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman. However, it is not difficult to discern, not least from the rhetoric, that the view of some of these terrorist groups is that they are concerned with what they perceive in their rather perverted way to be a robust exposition and implementation of a code of Islam. As we have already heard in the debate, such views have been roundly condemned by many leading scholars and imams. The issue is a little more complicated than the hon. Gentleman and I have acknowledged, but I am certain that we must not let the argument descend to the terms that it is about such a clash. It is essential that the response that we think is right does not assume the aspect of a crusade or something of the like.
  As for the European Union, the draft constitution is not perfect. On subsidiarity and proportionality, it is too weak. There is provision for a so-called yellow card, but there should be a red card if a sufficient number of Parliaments object to proposals. It is technically true that we could have enlargement without a fresh treaty—the provisions of the Nice treaty allow for that—but it would be a pretty peculiar European Union if we were to proceed not just on the basis of Nice, but on the basis of Rome, Maastricht and Amsterdam as well. The purpose of a constitution is to try as far as possible to introduce clarity into an institution that has developed and grown—of that there can be no doubt—but whose powers and competences are often very difficult to ascertain. Such powers and competences often appear on the face of it to contradict one another.
  I do not believe that the Government will make any concessions on defence, tax, social security, own resources or, despite Mr. Berlusconi's best efforts in Naples, even on foreign policy, either now or in a fortnight. In that regard, the Government obviously have the support of the whole House.
  The constitution is an exercise that is well worth conducting and I hope that it will produce, after the intergovernmental conference, a document that can fulfil the objectives that I have described. I dismiss the views attributed to the Foreign Secretary last week as an effort to set up a negotiating position or something of that kind. I cannot really believe that he thinks that we could live with an enlarged EU that is based on existing treaties with all the defects in them that, I hope, I have outlined.
  I shall refer briefly to the United Nations. In 60 years, the UN has increased its membership from 51 countries in a world population of 2.5 billion to 188 countries in a world population of about 6 billion. In that time, the institution of the UN has barely changed. That is why reform of the Security Council is certainly desirable. This is not the occasion to discuss the details, but we should have a Security Council that better reflects the world in 2003 and 2004 rather than one that reflects the peace settlement of 1945.
  The UN must direct its attention to one issue, and I hope that it falls within the scope of the group established by the Secretary-General and of which Lord Hannay is to be a distinguished member. I refer to the speech made by the Prime Minister in Chicago on 22 April 1999 in which he quite rightly said that the
  172
  "most pressing foreign policy problem we face is to identify the circumstances in which we should get involved in other people's conflicts".
  In September of the same year, the Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, said in his annual address to the General Assembly that
  "no legal principle— not even sovereignty—can shield crimes against humanity".
  He is further on record as saying that, although we should recognise the sovereignty of states by all means, we must recognise the sovereignty of individuals as well.
  If we are to give any credence to a doctrine of intervention, it must have a clear framework and be defined and qualified by formal criteria and principles. That doctrine must also be endorsed by the UN as a whole. I will not try to give an exhaustive list of what it should contain, but it must certainly contain the proposition that all diplomatic and political methods have been tried and have failed. It should also contain the proposition that intervention is likely to result in a better state of peace and that those who intervene will be willing to commit themselves not only to peace enforcement but to peacekeeping and, if necessary, to the provision of substantial economic resources in the long term once stability has been restored.
  A final issue is Guantanamo bay. Although in some respects it is a Home Office matter, it is a foreign policy matter as well. The proposed military tribunals are unsatisfactory and do not constitute fair trial or due process. They most certainly do not meet the standards of the domestic law of the states of the United States. As I have said before in the House, if we were keeping people on the Isle of Wight in similar circumstances with similar intentions, every Senator worth his salt would be over here knocking on the door of the Foreign Office and saying, "This will not do." No doubt, they would be accompanied by every Congressman as well.
  We now understand that Guantanamo bay is an affront to the Law Lords and it is certainly an affront to legal academics, to many people in the United States and to public opinion. I discern that it is an affront to the British Government. We must continue to press the United States to ensure that there is a proper and fair trial that is consistent with the recognised principles of criminal law, that allows people the representation that they want and that allows them to see all the evidence that may be used to convict them. The Government have an overwhelming obligation to do that. Both sides of the House and, no doubt, Labour Back Benchers too will hold the Government to their obligation to ensure that, no matter how heinous the allegations may be against any British citizen, he or she is entitled to due process and a fair trial.
  For us, foreign affairs involve the application of the principles of internationalism, liberal values and a respect for human rights. We shall judge the Government by those principles in the forthcoming year. When Government policy adheres to those principles, they can look forward to our support. However, if we are not satisfied that those principles lie at the very heart of their foreign policy, we shall take every opportunity to criticise them and to remind them of their failures.
  2.19 pm
  Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon) (Lab): In this debate on foreign affairs, I want to concentrate on our relationship with a country that is a close friend and with which we have great ties—Cyprus. In doing so, I should draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests about my recent visits to the island. I have only recently returned from the island with a delegation of Friends of Cyprus, of which I am vice-chairman.
  It was an interesting time to visit Cyprus, given the onset of EU accession in May next year and the so-called elections for the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus Parliament—I should put that in parentheses so that I do not imply any degree of recognition. The green line opened earlier this year, which created many new hopes, but it cannot be considered to be a solution. Kofi Annan has also made efforts to try to broker a settlement on the long-standing Cyprus problem.
  During my visit, I had the opportunity to meet many leading members of both communities on the island. I shall start my detailed remarks by talking about the elections in the north that are due to be held on 14 December. I am worried about the extent to which the elections may not be fair. Ten days ago, I had the opportunity to see again the Costa Gavras film "Z" at a special showing to mark the 30th anniversary of 17 November—not the criminal gang, but the terrible events in Athens when the then Greek junta stormed Athens polytechnic and killed many students. It was also the 35th anniversary of the film itself and the 40th anniversary of the murder of the Greek politician in Thessaloniki on which the film was closely based. What I saw in northern Cyprus really brought the film home to me because the atmosphere there is redolent of the situation depicted in the film.
  I had the opportunity to meet Sevgul Uludag, a journalist who has been subjected to frightening victimisation and death threats, all of which have remained uninvestigated by the Turkish Cypriot authorities. With Sevgul, I met the widow of Kutlu Adali, a journalist who was murdered in 1996. The intimidation of journalists continues, and I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe is aware of many of the problems from the full, comprehensive and welcome answer that he gave to a parliamentary question that I tabled about the matter a couple of weeks ago.
  The terrorist organisation Grey Wolves is active in northern Cyprus. It is organised and funded by the Turkish military, which gave it its headquarters. Murat Kanatli, the editor of a pro-solution newspaper, was attacked and beaten by 30 Grey Wolves and the so-called state of northern Cyprus is victimising journalists. For example, it has brought prosecutions in military courts over attempts by the Opposition to hold a referendum on the Annan plan earlier in the year, which was denied to the people at large in northern Cyprus by the Denktash regime. The state-supporting television company, Avrasya, staged a stunt at the offices of the BDH, which is one of the leading Opposition parties, by themselves stamping on a Turkish flag on the floor and citing that as an example of how the BDH shows disrespect toward the Turkish flag. The footage was broadcast and the matter was taken up in pro-Denktash newspapers without any
  174
  indication that it was a staged stunt. When a journalist attempted to discuss the matter on air, the plug was pulled and the programme switched to martial music.
  The intimidation in northern Cyprus is very worrying. Commanders of the Turkish army visit villages and intimidate settlers. While I was in Cyprus, I heard of an incident in which a Turkish army officer visited a village and used its facilities to speak at Friday prayers to tell settlers, "If you don't all vote for Denktash, you'll be on the first boat home leaving all your possessions and belongings here in northern Cyprus."
  The extent of employment in the TRNC is rather peculiar because some 20 per cent. of the total population work for the state. That gives those people, to put it mildly, a vested interest in, or a real incentive to vote for, the Denktash regime. The situation is getting worse because there is a huge job creation programme effectively to employ more supporters of the Denktash regime. The state broadcaster, BRT, now employs 1,350 people, although its normal staffing level is 150. The stories of overmanning in Fleet street in the early days—I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has experience of that—are weak compared with what is going on there.
  The Prime Minister's office in northern Cyprus has employed 50 new members of staff. I know that the Opposition have criticised additional staff in Downing street, but that situation pales into insignificance compared with what is happening in northern Cyprus. Those events are contrary to a protocol that was signed by Turkey and the TRNC to say that no more than 5 per cent. of people would work for the state. Surprise, surprise, the Government plan to pay bonuses to civil servants in November and December—the run-up to the elections.
  The military and embassy are also involved, and perhaps I may refer to the way in which the electoral roll has been manipulated. Some 10,000 extra voters have been put on the roll, which now stands at 140,000 people. That is a huge increase as a proportion of the overall total, and many of the extra people are settlers who have arrived on the island only recently. The Turkish Government are abetting the process because such people may join the electoral roll only if they have a certificate of good conduct, which must be produced by the Turkish embassy in the TRNC. All sorts of abuses are going on and the prospects for a fair election are slim.
  The speech made by the Turkish Prime Minister, Mr. Erdogan, on the 20th anniversary of the so-called TRNC attracted much criticism from not only the Republic of Cyprus but the Turkish Cypriot Opposition because it seemed to back Mr. Denktash. There was no reason for Mr. Erdogan to attend the event because it coincided with the appalling terrorist incidents in Istanbul, so many people would have understood why he could have thought that it was a greater priority to deal with that rather than supporting the TRNC. There was perhaps a silver lining to what he said because he did not specifically endorse Mr. Denktash and he indicated that Cyprus

  175
  was subordinate to Turkey's European ambitions. Nevertheless, the speech was not a welcome development in the elections.
  Mr. Gardiner: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is absolutely unacceptable that any prospective candidate country to the EU should fail to recognise the sovereignty and existence of an existing accession country, and that it is inconceivable that such a country should continue its occupation?
  Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend makes an important point and I shall refer shortly to some of the implications for Turkey of a lack of a settlement in Cyprus.
  The Opposition have already challenged the fairness of the elections, and especially the register. Mr. Durduran has made a challenge in the European Court of Human Rights and the Opposition parties have made a challenge in the constitutional court of the TRNC. However, the outcome of the challenges is not expected until well after the elections. One could hope that if the elections are not seen to be fair and Mr. Denktash wins, it might give Turkey the opportunity to order them to be rerun, if it wanted to do that. However, it remains to be seen whether that would happen, so we have to hope that the Opposition parties can succeed. The elections probably represent the best chance that they have ever had, despite all the obstacles that have been unfairly put in their way.
  Although there are three separate Opposition lists for the election, the parties have a common platform. They want a settlement based on the Annan plan and to join the European Union as a reunited island. They have the common platform of removing Mr. Denktash as the negotiator and replacing him from among their ranks. However, there are separate lists for the CDP. the republican Turkish party of Mr. Talat, the BDH, which is the peace and democracy movement of Mr. Akinci and Mr. Izan, and the CABP, which is the EU and populist party of Ali Erel. There is a risk that some of the votes might be dissipated because of the list and there is a chance that the CABP might not pass the 5 per cent. electoral threshold.
  What is also interesting is the extent to which the Opposition parties are attracting support from the settler vote in addition to the traditional vote of Turkish Cypriots, themselves victims of the occupation. Dr. Nuri Cevikel, one of the leaders of the Turkish settler movement in the TRNC, is standing as a candidate for the Opposition party, the CDP, as No. 2 on its Famagusta list. He has paid a price for that: he has been sacked from his job as a university lecturer and faces victimisation.
  The Turkish Cypriot Opposition are critical of the Republic for not doing more to implement its measures to ease the plight of the Turkish Cypriots and to build confidence measures. The problem is, however, that the Denktash regime has frustrated many of those measures and there has been a backlash as a result. I hope that the Republic establishes the proposed bureau for Turkish Cypriots as part of the administration of the Republic in the near future. That would provide a
  176
  useful boost to the Turkish Cypriots who are fighting the Denktash regime. It was probably wrong not to arrange non-governmental organisation observers for the elections. For some, that would have smacked of recognition for the Turkish Cypriot state. The role might be taken on by embassies, and Oslo university is working on monitoring the outcome and process of the elections.
  If the Opposition win, some of the problems within Cyprus might be unlocked. They say that they will replace Denktash as a negotiator and are committed to a settlement. So rapid progress could be made. The key issue is whether Turkey would respect the outcome of the elections. Some people think that it would want to keep Mr. Denktash, damaged though he may be. Serdar Denktash, his son and leader of the minority party in the coalition, has said that he will be happy to form other alliances only if Mr. Rauf Denktash remains the negotiator. If the Opposition fail, there is little question of the UN re-engaging with the process, and Turkey will be left with a serious problem for its accession aspirations. It will have to find a way through the mess on its own. There are suspicions that Turkey and the Denktash regime are trying to work out a different plan—a bottom-up arrangement—in response to the Annan plan, but that plan would imply recognition and enable a velvet divorce to take place from the new state of affairs shortly after it is established.
  The Republic of Cyprus remains committed to the Annan plan as a basis for negotiation. There are, however, serious reservations about settlers, property rights, freedom of movement, and finance and economics. The opening of the green line has released some of the pressure building up in the north, but that is not a solution, especially as people travelling from the Republic need to produce passports. That has caused splits in the Greek Cypriot community.
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I was a soldier in Cyprus serving in the United Nations force about 25 years ago, in 1975. Does the hon. Gentleman share my deep depression about how little has changed on that beautiful but benighted island?
  Mr. Dismore: That is a simplistic analysis. Mr. Denktash's position has not changed, but many other things have, especially over the past few months and years as a result of the EU acting as a powerful catalyst to unlock the long-standing problems on the island, as the opening of the green line has shown. People now travel north and south across the green line, albeit with the production of passports, with no incidents or confrontations, just good old-fashioned Cypriot hospitality and friendship demonstrated even by those who occupy houses owned by people on the other side of the green line. The only problems are those caused by people euphemistically referred to as the ancient Britons, who bought houses in northern Cyprus with dubious titles and who, when the Greek Cypriots return to visit them, run them off the land by hurling the ironic insult, "Have you no respect for private property?"
  Jeremy Corbyn: Can my hon. Friend remind the House of the process to resolve some of the land and

  177
  property ownership problems? That sore runs through the Cypriot community in Britain as well as in Cyprus. Many people believe that they have a right to return to the home that was taken from them in the 1974 invasion.
  Mr. Dismore: The Annan plan deals with those issues. The question is whether the plan is acceptable. There are serious reservations about it. This year's Cyprus report recently published by the Friends of Cyprus contains a flow chart of the processes through which property issues have to be processed. It is complicated and the prospects of getting land back at the end of it are slim. One of the big concerns of many in the Greek Cypriot community is that the acquis communautaire will not apply in the north and human rights will not be respected. The issue needs to be re-examined, as does the compensation for those who want to accept it. It is doubtful whether settlers in the north would have the resources to pay compensation. The Turkish Cypriots who occupy land in the north that belongs to Greek Cypriots may have properties in the south that they could use as collateral, but settlers from mainland Turkey will have no assets other than the property they occupy.
  It has been estimated that if the settlers were to return, the compensation costs would be 5 billion to 7 billion Cyprus pounds, but if they do not, the costs would be 17 billion Cyprus pounds. The Cyprus pound is worth rather more than the sterling pound, so the numbers are serious. There are also concerns about whether the Republic can afford the costs of the Annan plan. The report produced by former President Vassiliou, their former EU negotiator, says that the plan is workable, but the Cyprus Government are doubtful. The Central Bank of Cyprus is working on that.
  It has been suggested that the Republic of Cyprus Government are happy to sit back and wait for EU accession without a settlement, thinking that their position will be strengthened once accession is complete. That does not recognise the serious pressures building up within the Greek Cypriot community. If Cyprus accedes as a divided island without a settlement, there is a strong risk that Turkish Cypriots, who are entitled to Republic citizenship—indeed, many have Republic passports—will become EU citizens and come south, with a view either to moving to other parts of the EU, perhaps to Britain, or to reclaiming the properties occupied by Greek Cypriots in the south. The latter is the more worrying for the Republic. It involves 200,000 properties. In practice, those people would be entitled to that property even without a settlement. That would create serious problems for the Republic, which would have to rehouse the individuals concerned.
  There is a greater minefield to consider. If a sufficiently large Turkish Cypriot community moves south, it could claim its rights under the failed 1960 constitution to the vice-presidency and seats in the House of Representatives. The risk is that those people who migrate south would be replaced by settlers from mainland Turkey, making a solution even more difficult to achieve. The Republic also thinks there is a prospect of a Schengen frontier within the middle of
  178
  the island, effectively restricting crossings of the green line, with Greek Cypriot border posts required by the EU.
  There are also issues about the extent to which Turkish Cypriots will vote in the European Union elections in June. The Republic is keen to ensure that they can exercise their democratic rights, but whether they can do so without harassment and victimisation by the Denktash regime remains to be seen. I am pleased that Turkish Cypriots, in particular Mr. Shener Levent, have made moves to stand as candidates in the EU elections. Shener Levent is the editor of a newspaper, Afrika. He has been imprisoned and his newspaper offices have been firebombed, so it shows a great deal of courage on his part to stand. AKEL, one of the Greek Cypriot coalition parties in government, also says that it will have Turkish Cypriots on its list. The election will be by open party list, with cross-community voting possible, which gives Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots the opportunity to come together.
  On Turkey, there are still doubts whether it gets the message that it will not get a date to start accession negotiations without a Cyprus settlement. It wants the world to be as it sees it rather than as it is. That is evidenced by its approach to the Loizidou case. It is still to pay compensation several years after the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. However, Turkey has paid compensation to a Turkish Cypriot, Mr. Cavit An, in respect of his human rights case over freedom of association. He insisted on payment in euros rather than Turkish lira.
  We must do all that we can to get the message over to Turkey that a Cyprus settlement is essential if Turkey is to join the EU. It was an interesting time to visit Cyprus. Important issues are arising that, over the next six months to a year, will be critical. This is the best time that there has ever been for a settlement, but the prospects of a settlement with Mr. Denktash in power remain very difficult. I believe, with the Turkish Cypriot Opposition, that we must do all that we can to make sure that the elections are fair. Let us hope that they are able to succeed and to unlock a long-standing and difficult problem so that when we talk about Cyprus the next word is not "problem" in future.
  2.40 pm
  Sarah Teather: It is with great pleasure that I rise to make my maiden speech, especially as I follow the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), who is almost a parliamentary neighbour of mine. As I speak for the first time in the Chamber, I am reminded of election night. I have the same sense of awe and honour that I had that evening.
  I am proud to be the first woman to represent Brent, East or, as it used to be known, Willesden, East. I am also the first Liberal Democrat Member to represent the seat, though it has a proud Liberal history. Gladstone used to stay at Dollis Hill house, which is in a park that was renamed in his honour. It is in the centre of my constituency.
  As a young woman, I am often asked about the problem of the lack of women in this place and what we should do about it. I have always been interested in the idea of all-women shortlists. That is probably because as

  179
  a woman who is almost always the shortest, I would be guaranteed to win under such a system. Mercifully, I was elected without the aid of such mechanisms. As the newest and the youngest Member of this place, my overwhelming sense as I speak is one of privilege. It is a huge privilege to be here. It was a huge privilege to be elected to serve the constituents of Brent, East. It is also a huge privilege to walk in the footsteps of so many great men and women who have debated in this place before me. However, privilege is not enough. Politics is about changing things, and at the end of the day I will be judged on my ability to influence change on the issues that are important to my constituents. I owe them a debt of thanks but also a debt of work. I will work extremely hard to repay that debt over the forthcoming years.
  Right hon. and hon. Members will be aware that I stand here today only because of the sad and tragic death of my predecessor, Paul Daisley. I never met Paul, but he was widely liked by my colleagues on Brent council and by politicians across the political divide at all levels. Those who knew him spoke of him as a giant of a man. They said that his determination and courage were matched only by his compassion and his concern for others. He made a huge contribution to Brent. His national political career was cut short but his local legacy lives on. As leader of the council he worked tirelessly to turn round a failing authority, which at that stage was pilloried by Private Eye. He is rather flippantly said to have put back the "r" into Brent. He will be a tough act to follow. I hope that in time I may be able to prove myself to be a worthy successor to him.
  I wish Lesley—Paul's wife—well. She has launched the Paul Daisley memorial trust in his memory, and I think that it will do great work in trying to improve the quality of life of people suffering from cancer and to raise awareness of that illness, which affects so many people and kills an enormous number.
  As I speak about my predecessors, perhaps right hon. and hon. Members will remember that a well-known political refugee lives in my constituency. I am terribly concerned about that constituent because I understand that he has some serious money worries ahead in the new financial year. He has real problems with housing, transport and even crime. I say to him, as I would say to all constituents, that should he ever want any advice from his local Member, he is welcome to pop into one of my local advice surgeries. As a Liberal Democrat, I am always willing to see any of my constituents, regardless of the party to which they may be affiliated.
  It is conventional on these occasions to speak a little about one's constituency. I am lucky because most Members of this place went canvassing in my constituency during the summer, so I know that many Members are familiar with it—almost too familiar. It is said that there was a veritable economic boom at Willesden high road and Walm lane among the restaurateurs and fast-food outlets. It worried me that one shop took on extra staff to cope with the load; I hope that it does not now fear a recession.
  Those Members who visited my constituency will know a little of it. It is a constituency of great vibrancy and diversity but also one of great need. The wealthiest and the poorest live side by side in some of the most densely populated areas in the country. The crime rate
  180
  is very high. The incidence of burglaries and violence is almost twice the national average. The incidence of robbery is six times the national average. Yet, despite the huge and real fear of crime, I have found in Brent a sense of community, welcome and openness that I have never come across anywhere else in London.
  It is said that 130 languages are spoken in Brent schools. There is a kaleidoscope of religions—Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Buddhist and Jewish. There is a large Irish population. The ethnic minority community is about 50 per cent. of the local community. It is perhaps fitting, therefore, that I should speak in a debate that has the theme of international affairs. I often comment that when I visit local community groups, I am as likely to be berated on international issues—be it Kashmir, the middle east, Iraq or the Eritrean-Ethiopian situation—as I am to be asked about local issues. Today, however, I want to talk about other things.
  Despite the debate to which I have referred, which is often heated and controversial, the different communities co-exist happily. The constituency is a model of tolerance and acceptance. I shall never forget my experience only last month during the Diwali procession in the borough. I watched young children from a local primary school, who were dressed in the most beautiful costumes. They were proud to wear them. There was lots of bustling and excitement. Nor was it only the Hindu children who took part in the procession: all the children from the local community took part—white, black and Asian. To me, that is a model of multiculturalism.
  I hope to champion many issues during my time in Parliament, which I hope will be very long. Among them are the closure of local post offices, funding for local schools, the need for more police and general practitioners, and the need to campaign to ensure that councils are more responsive to local need.
  I shall touch on another issue that is of huge importance in Brent—it was raised with me regularly on the doorstep—and that is tuition fees and top-up fees. I hope that hon. Members will not think that I am being too controversial in raising that issue in my maiden speech. The Opposition side of the Chamber may be united on it, but as there is a huge debate throughout the House, I feel that it is not strictly a party political issue. The matter is dear to my heart. As the youngest Member, I dare say that I am the only Member still paying back a student loan. However, I am aware that I am extremely lucky. When I went to university, I received a full grant. Tuition fees had not been introduced. Students who are studying for GCSEs and hoping to go on to university face extraordinary levels of debt. The Barclays bank survey shows that the debt per student will be £33,000 by 2010. That is more than my parents' mortgage; it is more than the mortgage of most students' parents. It is a huge amount.
  I feel immense frustration when I hear talk about widening participation while we are debating the introduction of a policy that will deter the very students we are trying to attract. Fear of debt is just as real as debt, and that is why this is such an issue in my constituency. It is likely to deter students from lower-income backgrounds and ethnic minority

  181
  communities—particularly the Muslim community, which is very large in my constituency—who often have very different attitudes to debt.
  My concern is that this debate is really about whether we want a world-class education system or whether we are looking to move back to a class-based education system, in which students choose universities according to their ability to pay, and universities are judged on the level of their fees. That is not a system that I would look forward to, and I hope that Members from all parties will unite in opposing it when the time comes.
  In conclusion, I hope that I have convinced the House of the uniqueness of my constituency, and of not only its wealth of diversity but its social need. There is much work to be done, and I look forward, now that I have made my maiden speech, to being able to raise the issues in Parliament. I thank the House for welcoming its newest Member
  2.50 pm
  Sir John Stanley: It gives me the greatest pleasure to follow the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather). I add my congratulations to the many that I am sure she has already received on her remarkable by-election victory at the expense of the Labour party and, I have to say, my own party. On the strength of her maiden speech, I can say to her that she need have no worries whatever about either her age or her height. She spoke with confidence, lucidity and, clearly, great knowledge of her constituents and her constituency, and we look forward to having the pleasure of hearing from her on many future occasions.
  One of the most sobering experiences of this calendar year, 2003, for me has been to go and see at close quarters the Israeli security wall. I am glad that the Foreign Secretary has, apparently, flown over it recently, and I hope very much that he and his colleagues from the Foreign Office and other Departments will go and see it for themselves at close quarters, because the wall needs to be seen closely for both its scale and its impact to be fully appreciated.
  During the cold war, I, like other Members in all parts of the House, had the opportunity on a number of occasions to see, both from the ground and from the air, the Communist wall down the centre of Europe. I did not go as close to it as I did to the Israeli security wall, because that would have guaranteed a bullet in either one's back or one's front, but one was able to see it at reasonably close quarters. The Israeli security wall is pretty well a carbon copy of the cold war wall built by the Communists. It comprises a combination of wall in built-up areas, electrified razor-wire fencing beyond the built-up areas, watchtowers, lighting, anti-vehicle ditches, smoothed sand strip for the detection of footprints, and military road, with dogs available. The only things missing, so I was assured by the Israelis, were anti-personnel landmines. They, happily, are not present, but the wall is a formidable construction.
  I do not in any way deny the right of the Israeli Government, or indeed of any other Government, to take what measures they feel necessary on their own soil to provide for the security of their people. The significance of, and the element of controversy arising
  182
  from, the Israeli security wall is not those of its sections that follow the line of Israel's border, the green line, but those increasingly long sections that have already been and continue to be constructed inside the occupied territories.
  In this matter we have some experience to bring to bear. If, to try to deal with the terrorist threat in Northern Ireland, we in this country had ever contemplated the creation of such a wall along the entire length of the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, we would agree in all parts of the House that it would have done virtually nothing to contribute to security, and it would have been absolutely catastrophic for our attempts to achieve a political settlement and a resolution of the difficulties that we have experienced from terrorism in Northern Ireland.
  I hope that, inside Israel, there will be a continuing and accelerating debate as to whether the wall provides any reality of security or simply an illusion. I have welcomed the recent public statements by no fewer than four former members of the Israeli security service, Shin Bet, who have expressed doubts about the value, in security terms, of the policies being pursued by the present Israeli Government. Even more significantly, those doubts have been expressed by no less than the current Israeli chief of army staff, General Moshe Ya'alon. That debate most certainly needs to continue.
  What is not in any doubt is the impact of the wall on the everyday lives of Palestinians: farmers unable to get to their crops; mothers in labour unable to get to hospital in time; workers unable to get to their jobs; and businesses unable to secure delivery of their goods and services on time. Some of us on the Foreign Affairs Committee had the opportunity of going to the town of Qalqilya, which was alluded to by the Foreign Secretary in his opening speech. Qalqilya is a town of 43,000 Palestinians, and as of today, right now as we have this debate, that town is encircled, 360 degrees, by the massive Israeli security wall. There are just two entry and exit points.
  The impact on the town has been absolutely devastating. If one goes up and down the main street one sees shops boarded up, one after the other, because they no longer have the business contact and trade that they once had. Of course, if the businesses close down, that impacts directly on the standard of living and wellbeing of those in the town. It is a bitter historical irony—some might say a historical inversion—that in Qalqilya now there is the spectacle of 43,000 Palestinians effectively in a ghetto, walled in by an Israeli wall, watched over by Israeli guards in towers. I have to hope and believe that inside Israel there are plenty of people who are appalled by that spectacle, and I hope and believe that there are many people in the Jewish community worldwide who are equally appalled.
  The United Nations, in its recent compelling and important report, which was put out by the office for the co-ordination of humanitarian affairs in east Jerusalem, assessed the impact on the lives of Palestinians of the construction of the security wall. If I may, I shall read the few concluding sentences of that

  183
  report, which was published at the beginning of this month. Under the heading, "Humanitarian consequences", it says:
  "Little consideration appears to have been given by the Israeli Government to the Wall's impact on Palestinian lives.
  More people, unable to reach their land to harvest crops, graze animals or to reach work to earn the money to buy food, will be hungry. The damage caused by the destruction of land and property for the Wall's construction is irreversible and undermines Palestinians' ability to ever recover even if the security situation allows conditions to improve.
  Residents risk being cut off from schools, universities and specialized medical care. The Wall fragments communities and isolates residents from vital social support networks.
  If the military orders that restrict entry into the closed areas between the Green Line and the Wall are applied to the new parts of the Wall, then many thousands of Palestinians are likely to be forced from their homes and land."
  The Foreign Secretary said that the section of the new security wall inside the occupied territories is illegal, and I welcome his acknowledgement of that. However, it will not be sufficient for the Government or other Governments simply to wring their hands and say the wall is illegal. What is at stake is far greater than the legality or otherwise of the security wall. What I believe is at stake is the entire future of the peace process between Israel and her Palestinian neighbours. As the wall is constructed and extended in the occupied territories, mile by mile, any prospect of being able to achieve a viable—I stress viable—Palestinian state is being destroyed. The issue is becoming time-critical as the wall continues to expand.
  Although the Foreign Secretary referred to greater pressure being applied on the Israeli Government in connection with the wall, we shall need an unprecedented degree of pressure—a greater degree of pressure than has ever been applied before—by the UK Government, the European Union, the United Nations and, above all, the United States Government, to try to persuade the Israeli Government to stop the construction of the wall inside the occupied territories, and to take down those sections of the wall that have been constructed inside the occupied territories. I sincerely believe that unless those steps are taken by the Israeli Government, there is no prospect whatever of being able to bring the road map policy to fruition.
  Mr. Gardiner: I agree with everything that the right hon. Gentleman said about the illegality of the wall in the occupied territories and the negative effect that the whole of the wall is having, but will he consider that, this far into his exposition, he might have presented a more balanced picture had he mentioned the suicide bombers and the very real threat and danger that the people of Israel feel from that?
  Sir John Stanley: I am certainly ready to acknowledge that, and I have already referred to it in my remarks. I said at the outset, and I hope the hon. Gentleman heard it, that I totally defend the right of the Israeli Government to take whatever measures are necessary within their own territorial boundaries to protect their own people. I do not have., and I do not believe that the Government have, any difficulty
  184
  whatever with the construction of the wall along the green line. That is not the issue. The issue is the construction of the wall inside the occupied territories.
  The second matter that I want to raise is Iraq. Last week, during President Bush's state visit, I listened carefully to what the Prime Minister said on the subject. He called on us in this country to stop raking over the coals as to why we went to war in Iraq; it was time to move on and to focus on the benefits that the war was bringing to the people of Iraq. I felt that that was a somewhat self-serving invitation from the Prime Minister, which I do not intend to accept. I do not believe that we can airbrush away any future debate about the circumstances in which we undertook war in Iraq.
  As the Prime Minister has acknowledged on more than one occasion, the decision whether to take the country to war is the single most important decision that any Prime Minister and any Government can take. It is a very serious matter also because more than 50 British servicemen have already lost their lives during and since the war in Iraq, and because the issue does not concern merely the Government. It concerns each and every Member of the House of Commons because the Government, uniquely on this occasion—I give the Government credit for it—decided to seek the approval of the House of Commons on 18 March for the decision whether we went to war. To that extent, each and every one of us participated in that decision.
  I shall not rehearse the case that the Government put forward on 18 March and in the weeks and months beforehand for going to war against Iraq. The House is intimately familiar with the arguments. They are encapsulated in a single sentence in the opening paragraph of the Government's paper which they published days before the war started, entitled "Iraq: Military Campaign Objectives". In that paper, the Government stated:
  "The prime objective remains to rid Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction and their associated programmes and means of delivery, including prohibited ballistic missiles, as set out in the relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions"
  The justification for the war was to rid Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction.
  What we all know, and the Government, I am sure, privately acknowledge, is that since the war ended and the weapons of mass destruction have not been found, the Government have shifted their grounds of justification for the war. Every criticism that is made of the Government as to whether the grounds for going to war have proved valid is met with the response with which we are all too familiar: "We have toppled Saddam Hussein, the old regime has gone, the Iraqi people are much better off, so what are you complaining about?"
  I want to answer that. We would have no grounds for complaint if the Prime Minister had made a different speech in the House on 18 March—if he had come to the House and said, "The reason why we are going to war is to remove Saddam Hussein and change the regime." He could have made a powerful speech arguing that case. He could have said that Saddam Hussein was guilty of mass murder. In his opening speech the Foreign Secretary referred to 300,000 Iraqis killed or missing. The Prime Minister could have said

  185
  that Saddam Hussein was guilty of mass imprisonment without trial, torture and rape, that Saddam Hussein was guilty of massive crimes against humanity and that, for those reasons, the Saddam Hussein regime must go.
  The Prime Minister would have had to add that, although that was a powerful moral case for going to war, it would be illegal. He would have had to make that clear. He could well have argued from the Dispatch Box that notwithstanding the illegality, on this occasion the moral imperative was the greater and justified the military intervention. But that was not the speech that the Prime Minister made. It is hugely significant that the justification of going to war for regime change was explicitly and emphatically, in black and white terms, rejected and repudiated by the Prime Minister on 18 March, because that justification would have been illegal.
  I remind the House of two critical sentences in the Prime Minister's speech on 18 March. They are there in black and white in Hansard, as follows:
  "I have never put the justification for action as regime change. We have to act within the terms set out in resolution 1441—that is our legal base."—[Official Report, 18 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 772.]
  Today, the country and we in the House of Commons face an extraordinary and deeply concerning situation in which the Government's original justification for going to war in Iraq has so far proved to be invalid, and the Government are now using to justify their action a justification that on 18 March they repudiated and said was illegal.
  Mr. Gardiner: The right hon. Gentleman has quoted two key sentences. Will he address the questions posed by two other phrases, the first found at the beginning of resolution 1441, which states that
  "Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations";
  and the second at the end of resolution 1441, in which Iraq is afforded
  "a final opportunity to comply"?
  What does he understand by the word "final"?
  Sir John Stanley: The hon. Gentleman's point reinforces my argument. The non-compliance with the resolutions was all related to failure to comply with weapons inspectors' efforts in relation to weapons of mass destruction. It was all about weapons of mass destruction. At no time did the UN resolutions endorse the proposition that military action should be taken simply to change the regime in Iraq.
  This country has been taken to war on a ground that has so far proved to be invalid, and the Government are now using a justification that they previously repudiated and stated was illegal. Perhaps in the end everything will come right for the Government: perhaps over the next few months or year, weapons of mass destruction will be found. If they are, I, as one who supported the Government on 18 March, will feel a distinct sense of relief—hugely exceeded, I am sure, by the sense of relief felt by Ministers. I voted in support of the Government in good faith, on the basis of the evidence about Saddam Hussein possessing
  186
  weapons of mass destruction that the Government put before the House on 18 March and in the September 2002 dossier.
  If in, say, a year's time, however, there is still no sign of those weapons of mass destruction, as I said in our debate in July, it will become incumbent on the Prime Minister, and the senior Ministers most closely associated with the decision, to consider their personal position, in view of the fact that they have taken the country to war on grounds that cannot be established. That is a matter for them, but at the very least, I sincerely believe that if no weapons of mass destruction are found, before this Parliament ends the Prime Minister will owe the country, this House of Commons and, most important of all, the families of the servicemen who have died a proper apology for being the first Government in our modern history to have taken this country to war on the basis of a threat assessment that was shown to be invalid.
  3.14 pm
  Jeremy Corbyn: First, I congratulate the new hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) on her election victory and on her excellent speech today. Yet another Islington person has made their way into the House of Commons—and there are many more yet to come. Her speech was very good, especially her reference to the joy of representing an inner-city, multi-ethnic constituency. The strength of communities working and living harmoniously together, expressing their cultural diversity, is a joy to behold in this country. The right-wing journalists who continually denigrate multiculturalism as political correctness would do well to understand the fact that there is a joy of life in inner London that the rest of the world should understand and respect. I wish the hon. Lady well in her career in Parliament.
  When he introduced the debate, the Foreign Secretary said that a strategy document would be produced next Monday. I am pleased to hear that, but find it a little odd that he announces that the document is coming on the day we debate foreign affairs. Why on earth could the document not have been made available to us today, so that we could have debated it today? Since it is not available, may I express the hope through you. Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the usual channels will ensure that there is a substantial debate in the near future on the strategy document, which will enable it to be properly analysed? Otherwise, what is the point of having the document at all?
  The Foreign Secretary made the point that one of the underpinning principles of British foreign policy is support for the United Nations. I am sure that the whole House supports the UN—everybody supports the UN. The only problem is that the policies that have been followed by the United States and Britain in the past year have done enormous damage to the principles of the UN, UN law and international law in general. George Bush took us into the Iraq war specifically without the endorsement of the UN, and specifically claimed that the war was legal, when in fact the only basis of a legal war is self-defence. As the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir John Stanley) explained, we were taken into war on the basis of the existence of weapons of mass destruction, none of which, strangely, have yet been found.

  187
  I hope that the strategy document contains a serious affirmation of our support for the UN and reforms within it. The UN is a major world institution, it has an enormous effect on the lives of millions of people around the world, and many people living in the most desperate circumstances pin their faith and hope on it, yet we spend little time debating UN reports on the Floor of the House. Might there be a case for having a Select Committee on UN affairs, in addition to the existing Select Committee on Foreign Affairs?
  Mr. Gardiner: I agree, of course, with my hon. Friend's assessment of the importance of the UN, but he stated that the only basis of a legal war is self-defence. Does he accept that military action is a penalty for failure to comply with obligations under chapter VII of the UN charter, which deals specifically with weapons of mass destruction?
  Jeremy Corbyn: My hon. Friend is correct to say that that is a possibility under chapter VII. The problem with his submission is that neither the United Nations nor the Security Council ever agreed to such action in Iraq, no weapons of mass destruction have been found, and, crucially, Britain and the United States prevented Hans Blix and his team from returning to Iraq in January this year to continue their weapons inspection programme. They were replaced by the Iraq survey group, which is vastly larger and better funded than Hans Blix's team, but which, after several months of trawling through every building in Iraq, has come up with absolutely nothing.
  Perhaps someone at some point in the future will find weapons of mass destruction, but I suspect that had such weapons been available to the Iraqi regime, they would have been used at the point when the invasion occurred. They were not. I suspect that we were taken into war on the basis of misinformation in the documents that were presented to this House. That is a serious matter because of the damage that it has done to international law and to the esteem in which the British and American Governments are held.
  Last week, President Bush visited this country. It was a deeply controversial affair—indeed, I tabled an early-day motion, signed by a number of Members, requesting that he should not be invited and that the visit be cancelled. However, the visit went ahead, apparently costing us between £7 million and £10 million and causing a great deal of disruption. A large number of people took part in demonstrations against the visit. The Foreign Secretary and others were wont to say that the participants were deeply anti-American and only wanted to attack the United States. However, having been involved in the demonstrations, I should like to tell the House that the march last Thursday was led by Americans, particularly the Vietnam war veteran Ron Kovic, who made a moving speech in Trafalgar square in the evening about the issue of American power and influence in the world and what could be done to try to curtail those ambitions and bring about a sense of world order.
  Ron Kovic is an interesting man. He grew up in a deeply patriotic American household, and was proud to join the marines. He went to Vietnam and, on his
  188
  second tour of duty, was shot and paralysed from the chest down. He came back home, where, frankly, he was ignored. Since then, he has spent his life campaigning for peace and justice. It is sometimes as well to remember that people who have made a personal voyage of discovery, as he has, have a contribution to make. He nearly died in Vietnam in a war that, at the time, he supported. He has drawn parallels between Vietnam and Iraq. He does not support Saddam Hussein any more than anyone else in the Chamber, but he has said that the invasion, the occupation and the large number of deaths from depleted uranium and cluster bombs and from activities resulting from an unlikely alliance of opponents to the occupation are not a recipe for a long-term peace—they are probably a recipe for long-term instability, not just in Iraq but elsewhere.
  I received an interesting email yesterday from the International Longshore and Warehouse Union of San Francisco, which sent a delegation to Iraq to meet people in various factories. I shall not read it all, as it is very long. However, the ILWU complained about order No. 39 of 19 September issued by the provisional Administration in Iraq, which I mentioned in an intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson), the chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. The ILWU said that the order permits
  "100 per cent. foreign ownership of businesses—except in the oil industry—and allowing companies to take their profits out of the country. Order No. 37 suspends income and property taxes for the year, and limits taxes on individuals and corporations in the future to 15 per cent."
  The email went on to discuss the number of state-owned industries in Iraq that are being sold by the US-appointed Administration to any American company that comes along and wants to buy them. What kind of message does that send to the people of Iraq? The supposed liberation of Iraq, which took place in the interests of its people, has in fact resulted in a lot of George Bush's cronies being able to buy up a lot of real estate very cheaply indeed. We need to think about where that will lead.
  The war on terror declared by George Bush after 11 September 2001 is simplistic in approach. It led us into Afghanistan, where there were 8,000 dead, and it has led us into Iraq, with all the dead there. I suspect that both those military activities undertaken on behalf of the United States have probably increased support for rogue groups around the world that will commit unspeakable acts of violence against individuals. The solution is not to meet the threat by saying that we will go to war anywhere, any place, any time. Surely, the solution is to look at what feeds those groups, the issues that face us and the poverty around the world that drives people to desperate measures. If we are to preach democracy and the rule of international law, and if our influence over the United States is supposedly so great following the visit of President Bush, why is the legal void of Guantanamo bay allowed to continue to exist? The United States created a non-existent legal phrase of "illegal combatant", and, for almost two years, has used it to incarcerate people in Guantanamo bay and other places without charge, trial or representation. There is only the unsatisfactory prospect of a possible military tribunal in the United States.

  189
  I plead not just on behalf of the British nationals in Guantanamo bay but for everyone else there. They all deserve a fair trial with independent representation in which they know the charges against them. Before we get too high and mighty, our own anti-terrorist legislation allows similar actions to be taken against non-British nationals whom the Home Secretary believes may have a connection with international terrorism. I have no time for criminals or people who commit criminal acts, but if we are to defend democracy we must have an open form of legal judgment in which defendants have the right of independent representation.
  I listened carefully to the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling, who spoke about the construction of the wall between Israel and Palestine, much of it on Palestinian land. I agree with him—I saw the wall under construction last year, and it is an unbelievable act of madness to assume that it will bring about a peace. The inability of countries that are closely allied to Israel—in particular, the United States but also, to some extent, Britain—to bring sufficient influence to bear on it to stop the construction of the wall sends a message across the whole region that western countries will support Israel come what may and will carry on funding it and supplying it with arms. That will not bring about a long-term peace—it is a recipe for more long-term conflict and problems.
  I have met people from the peace movement in Israel and many people in Palestine and various Palestinian organisations and groups. There are brave people in Israel who are campaigning for peace, justice and recognition of Palestinian rights, including the right of return and the liberty to reside in Jerusalem. They surely have the vision and ability to look to the future, whereas the Sharon Government are offering a recipe for long-term disaster and conflict in the region. We could and should put far more pressure on Israel, including the suspension of all arms supplies while the construction of the wall and the illegal occupation continue. We should also recognise, as I have said, that many brave people in Israel have campaigned for peace, not least Mordechai Vanunu, the nuclear scientist who will be released, we hope, early next year.
  The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling talked about the wall between Israel and Palestine, which is designed to achieve security for Israel, although I am not sure that it does. In October, I had an opportunity to visit another wall, which was constructed illegally by Morocco across the western Sahara to prevent the Sahari people from reoccupying land from which they were expelled in 1974. I should be grateful if, in his reply, the Minister can give us any further news of diplomatic initiatives to ensure that the UN agency dealing with Western Sahara and Morocco, MINURSO, is allowed to continue its work. I also hope that he can give us some hope that an early referendum will take place as part of the decolonisation process, as it is fundamentally wrong that more than 100,000 Sahari people, who were expelled from their land in 1974, should live in the misery of refugee camps in southern Algeria, forgotten and ignored by the rest of the world. I hope that progress has been made.
  The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence
  190
  will reply to the debate, but I shall ask the Foreign Office to provide the fullest reply to the points that my hon. Friend has raised.
  Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the Minister for that. I look forward to his reply and I hope that a good response will be forthcoming and that Britain will continue to support the efforts to obtain a peaceful solution.
  I visited the refugee camps and I went to the Polisario Front's 11th congress, which was held in a disused Spanish fort hundreds of miles into the desert in what is termed liberated Western Sahara. The sense of anger, frustration and outrage of people and their families can boil over at any time, although no one wants it to. One sees anger there, among young people in Palestine and in other parts of the world, and we have a duty and responsibility to try to bring about a peaceful resolution of those conflicts, otherwise the alternative is war, conflict, death and destruction.
  We have been told that it is important for us to maintain close links with the United States, and that that underpins our foreign policy. I just wonder whether our message to the world is not a bit skewed when we are spending increased amounts on defence when we should be cutting it, when we have signed up for national missile defence, and when we are apparently prepared to countenance the use of nuclear weapons and the continued holding of nuclear weapons while condemning other countries for doing the same thing.
  The real issues facing the world are the facts that a quarter of the world's population is living in desperate poverty, that we have a trade system that is skewed against the poorest people in the poorest countries, and that we are increasingly trying to look after the interests of western Europe and north America at the expense of the rest of the world. That is why the Cancun summit broke down.
  We have a responsibility to take a more global view, and one of redistribution and sharing of wealth and resources, because at the end of the day it is instability, poverty, greed and the grabbing of natural resources that bring about war and conflict, and unless we change our attitudes in those respects, the war on Iraq will, unfortunately, not be the last of these gruesome conflicts and all the deaths, misery and destruction that go with them.
  3.31 pm
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn), not least because, as well as being a constituent of his in the past, I had the privilege of being the chairman of the Islington North Conservative Association. On the strength of his contribution today, I think that he is probably held in higher esteem among some of his constituents like me than he is by his own Front-Bench colleagues. He has always shown an admirable consistency.
  We have had a number of truly excellent speeches in this debate and I have no doubt at all that the comments today of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) will have sent a shiver round the occupants of No. 10 Downing street, and a warning of battles that are to come. The

  191
  hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather), who made such an admirable maiden speech and told us about her constituency, will clearly make a big contribution in the House.
  I start by referring to what the Foreign Secretary described rather grandiloquently as the Foreign Office's 10-year strategy for the world, which is to be published shortly. I have no doubt whatever that right at the top of his agenda must be the war on terror. We have only to hear the words of the lady who is responsible for our security services and of the chief of police of the Met to understand that the war on terror is critical to our future. Terrorism is a direct threat to all our constituents, and I emphasise today that combating it is our first objective.
  The middle east peace process, on which a number of speakers today have commented, must also be right at the top of the Foreign Office's agenda and our national agenda. Quite often, we hear the Prime Minister's honeyed words—I do not doubt his commitment—but it is essential, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) said, that we see more third-party intervention in the middle east peace process in order to bolster support and take forward this critically important endeavour for our own security and for the security of the world. The Gracious Speech refers to tackling the underling causes of conflict and extremism, and in those two specific areas nothing could be more important.
  The Gracious Speech contains quite a few measures of which I and my constituents will strongly approve. In Sutton Coldfield, we will be particularly pleased to see that the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill has been recommitted because there are a number of protections that we urgently need from the planning process. I am very pleased that seven Bills have been published in draft and that there is a tremendous increase in the amount of pre-legislative scrutiny that is taking place. Nothing could be more important for the respect with which the processes of the House are viewed from outside than that expert bodies on which we seek to legislate should feel that they are properly consulted and their advice taken before legislation is framed and passes through the House.
  I approve of the provision for child trusts. Had the last Conservative Government come up with such a proposal, Labour Members would have laughed at it as arch-Thatcherite. However, the proposal is welcome; it is a minor matter and will no doubt pass rapidly through the House.
  I am pleased that child protection legislation is envisaged and that the post of children's commissioner will be established. Of course, it is easy to come up with such structural proposals, but it is vital that we prioritise far more than we have in the past legislation to protect our children.
  I have previously raised in the House something that saddens me greatly: the tremendous risks to children in Birmingham. The social services inspectorate recently reported that social services in Birmingham are among the worst in the country. The inspectorate expressed serious concerns about vulnerable children and remains uncertain of the authority's capacity for
  192
  improvement. Health Ministers must be put on notice that we expect provision for the care of children in the Birmingham area to be massively improved. Their urgent attention to that issue is required.
  The reaction in Sutton Coldfield to the speech in general will be that the Government should spend more time sorting out the problems that they have failed to solve so far, rather than embarking on new legislation, worthy though some of it may be. The problem with the Government's approach to public services is that although they frequently will the ends, they do not will the means. Nothing demonstrates that more eloquently than what happened to foundation hospitals. They are a good idea and they would genuinely improve the quality of health services for my constituents, but the measure has been so filleted, in order for it to be accepted by Labour Members and the House of Commons, that it is meaningless. The original proposals made by the Prime Minister and the modernisers around him deserved support, but alas they have been so destroyed by pressure from Labour Back Benchers that they are relatively worthless.
  If anyone in the City had produced a prospectus on university fees that said, as the Queen's Speech did
  "Upfront tuition fees will be abolished for all full-time students",
  they would be guilty of misrepresentation and would be up before the Financial Services Authority. The language of those on the Labour Front Bench, as it appears in the Gracious Speech, shows that the Government have not renounced, as they said they would, their propensity for spinning everything.
  I have no doubt that radical changes must be made to the funding system for university students, but it is clear that the Government's proposals will be unable to provide the required extra funding. I very much doubt that the measure will get through the House. Were it successful, it would massively increase the amount of debt hanging around the necks of students, which would be a serious mistake.
  There is a flaw at the heart of the Government's proposals: a student from a poor family who became a lawyer, perhaps working for a City company such as Linklaters and Paines, where they could be earning hundreds of thousands of pounds quite soon after graduation, would pay nothing back; yet, if someone from a middle-class family in my constituency became a vicar, the level of their parents' earnings could be such that they would have to pay back the fees from their own relatively modest earnings. As far as I am aware, the Government have never addressed that important point.
  The Government also will the ends but not the means on defence. We are told that there is to be a defence White Paper. I do not think that any defence White Paper since the Korean war has proposed an increase in spending. Such documents are always Treasury-driven, so they always look for spending cuts. I profoundly hope that that will not be the case on this occasion, although the omens, according to the leaks in the press, are not good. We face huge challenges on defence. On that area at least, in view of my opening remarks, I hope that the Government will will the means as well as the ends.
  The Gracious Speech refers to a number of quality of life issues and I shall mention a couple of them. For the past six years the Government have told us that

  193
  they will tackle crime. We have seen many gimmicks, but precious little reduction in crime. Since 2000, there has been a 15 per cent. increase in the use of guns in muggings here in London. According to the national crime statistics, in the past year we have seen a 19 per cent. increase in violence against persons, an 18 per cent. increase in sexual offences, a nearly 15 per cent. increase in robbery, an 8 per cent. increase in domestic burglary, an 8 per cent. increase in criminal damage and a 12.3 per cent. increase in drug offences. Labour Members are fond of saying that crime rose under the last Conservative Government, but they will also have noticed that during the tenure of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) as Home Secretary crime consistently went down. It is that record that they will have to match, but so far they have lamentably failed to do so.
  Taxation is a quality of life issue. When the Government take huge sums through the 60 tax increases that they have imposed, my constituents have less choice in how they spend their money. It is an insult to hard-working families that the Government spend huge sums without much thought and certainly without achieving reform, waving and wafting money over all manner of different public service organisations. The Government will be found out. The case against the Government on taxation goes further than that. Many people, in particular elderly people, live in fear of council tax increases. That, too, is a quality of life issue.
  Finally, the Government's approach to our constitution remains a complete dog's breakfast. The Prime Minister shows no respect for the conventions and constitution of our country. I shall raise two specific points. According to the Gracious Speech there is to be a Bill to make preparations for a referendum on the euro. We will undoubtedly look at that with great interest. It will not escape my hon. Friends that this proposition comes at the same time as the stability pact has been torn up by France and Germany. That will have a massive effect on opinion, particularly among the business community who are regularly asked to prepare for the euro in case Britain chooses to join. The evidence of this week alone and the reaction of the German and French Governments to the stability pact demonstrates, if evidence were needed, that the euro remains for them first and foremost a political construct, not an economic one. The best possible advice to British businessmen is to make sure that they do everything they can to ensure that we do not join the euro. It would not give them anything like the economic or financial guarantees that were inherent in the stability pact, but which are now laid bare as completely meaningless
  I shall pass over the fact that the Government set their face adamantly against a referendum on the European constitution, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) mentioned this afternoon. We now hear mixed messages from the briefing machine in Downing street that perhaps a referendum could be held. I would be delighted if that were the result, which would be excellent. The Government would be hard put to have any success in such an endeavour.
  We have now seen the Government's proposed next stage in their shambolic reform of the House of Lords. I do not hold a particular candle for the hereditary
  194
  peers, but the Government had an easy option open to them to make the 90 remaining hereditaries life peers. That seamless arrangement would have got the Government what they wanted but would not have insulted many of the most hard-working and effective Members of the House of Lords. The Government have again approached constitutional change with all the instincts of a vandal. [Interruption.] The Minister is showing some signs of chirpiness and life. Nor do I approve of his Government's proposal for an appointments commission. I cannot for the life of me see why we should hand the power to put people into the other place to a distinguished grandee who runs a building society, a political activist from Islington and a governor of the BBC. People should be appointed to the House of Lords through the Prime Minister and through the traditional channels in No. 10 used for such things—those are the correct conventions. Then, if Conservative Members do not like it, we can throw rocks at the Prime Minister, taunt him, tease him and hold him to account at the Dispatch Box for his decisions on who should go into the House of Lords. We are being given a piece of political correctness to appease that argument, but it does not deal with what is required.
  In that respect, as well as in many others, the Queen's Speech is deeply defective. There are things that I look forward to supporting and that I think will genuinely help my constituents in Sutton Coldfield, some of which I have mentioned, but by and large it is, alas, as so often with the Government, a litany of missed opportunities and continued failure.
  3.46 pm
  Richard Ottaway: Listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell), I realise that Sutton Coldfield's gain is Islington's loss. Following the energetic and articulate way in which he delivered his speech, it is a privilege to follow him.
  Although she has gone, I congratulate the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) on her admirable maiden speech. I seemed to spend a lot of September in Brent. I was thinking that, if I had tipped that extra 10,000 votes, I would have been deprived of hearing her excellent speech.
  I wish to make a few general points on the Queen's Speech. Looking at it and at the papers this morning, it has taken a scatter-gun approach. It seems to have no real theme—if there is one theme, it is of broken pledges on House of Lords reform and on tuition fees. Hardly anything is said on reform of public services. My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition put his finger on it yesterday when he said that the approach in the Queen's Speech seems to be of an open wallet and an empty mind.
  On higher education and tuition fees, the Prime Minister got it absolutely right when he said that, under a Conservative Government, fewer students would have university places. I agree with the Minister for Children, who said that we do not want Mickey Mouse degrees—people are doing degrees in hairdressing and in shoe design. The best way of funding higher education is a graduate tax, to which I have always been attracted.

  195
  As a Member of Parliament for a south London constituency, I give a cautious welcome to the draft Bill on identity cards. I am persuaded by the conversion of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir John Stevens, who considers it necessary for fighting crime in London. That must be taken into account. I give the draft Bill a cautious welcome. I hope that I can persuade Conservative Front Benchers to do the same.
  As a London MP, I welcome the transport Bill. Those of us who remember the chaos before the introduction of the congestion charge in central London will realise that something must be done about the way in which utilities work on the roads. I do not particularly expect the Minister or his colleagues to reply to this point tonight, but will the legislation apply to acts by the Mayor of London, who seems to take a hands-on approach to manipulating traffic levels for his political convenience?
  I give a cautious welcome to the civil partnership Bill. There is an issue that needs to be addressed—how to deal with property issues relating to same sex couples—but I give a tentative welcome because the details are unclear. Does it relate to taxation matters? Will there be exemptions from capital gains tax and inheritance tax? What happens in the case of a divorce between a couple in a partnership? What rights will platonic couples who live together have?
  The theme of today's debate is, of course, foreign affairs. The Government's priority of doing their best to support international stability is essential to the defence and security of this country and to our trading interests. Our focus must be to reduce global tension, especially in the middle east, which is the flashpoint for global conflict wherever it is found. We live in a fast-moving world with a growing population and instant communications, and vigilance and diplomacy are more necessary than ever before.
  Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley), I was in Tehran when the Foreign Secretary came to negotiate the agreement on Iran's nuclear capacity. I congratulate him on what he achieved that day, although the picture since has been confusing. The clerics in Iran have crowed that it is a meaningless agreement and the United States has remained critical of the situation in Iran despite it. Indeed, the UN seems to have censured Iran following the agreement, although the basis for that is not clear. We must keep a close watch on the situation, because there are developments of concern to us all.
  The case for war, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling dealt with so admirably, does not need repeating by me today. We will come back to the issue in the new year, when we receive the Hutton inquiry's report on the tragic death of Dr. Kelly. Whatever the outcome, it is a matter of trust. If we cannot trust the Government to put it to us straight on the case for war, why should we trust them on anything else that they say? In this case, we would probably have gone along with them, but that
  196
  problem with trust hampers everything that the Government do. It will be the central theme when we debate the issue next year.
  Mr. Paul Keetch: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the next time a British Government seek to deploy our forces overseas, everybody will ask whether we can trust that decision, because of the apparent mistrust of the Iraq decision? It will make it much more difficult for any future Government of any colour to convince the House and the people of the necessity for military action.
  Richard Ottaway: I agree. The parallel is with the boy who cried wolf. I could not disagree with a word of the speech by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), and he made a similar point.
  The situation in Iraq today is tense. We have daily attacks, with terrorists loyal to Saddam freely operating in the country. I was struck by a letter I received today from the Free Iraq Council, which claims that some 30,000 fighters are operating inside Iraq. The borders to Syria and Iran are also open. I am sorry that we no longer have a Foreign Office Minister on the Front Bench—
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Chris Mullin): What do you think I am?
  Richard Ottaway: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon, but he changes Departments so often. Given that it now seems to be common knowledge that terrorists are entering Iraq through Syria and Iran, I hope that the Minister who winds up the debate will tell us what is being done about that. Will we just acquiesce, or will we join the United States in sanctions against Syria? We cannot sit back and do nothing. The situation in Iraq is very difficult. There are attacks in Baghdad, which appear to be co-ordinated. The situation is unstable and it raises question marks over the extent to which we are in control.
  The Foreign Secretary spoke about the plans for a handover to a transitional Iraqi Government. Those remarks are obviously welcome, but I query whether the situation is stable enough at the moment for that type of handover. It will work only if it is sustainable and the rule of law can be maintained. The Government must not overplay their hand. They exaggerated the case for war; they should not now exaggerate the case for peace. I am not convinced that the climate is right. If the Government try a handover and fail, it will be a disaster and set back the cause out there for very many years.
  I nevertheless consider that the Government should spell out in much greater detail the post-transitional arrangements. What is the plan? What is the exit strategy? Are we planning for troops to be there for many years? We also need to address with care the need for extra investment; for example, the oil industry must be a top priority for the transitional Government.
  I shall now discuss the war against terrorism in the wider scale. The campaign is relentless; there will be no let-up. We shall live with it for generations. Some say

  197
  that this is all the fault of the war in Iraq. I have no doubt that the invasion has agitated the situation but, as many people have pointed out, it is a long-running campaign. I cannot remember the date of the attack on the USS Cole, but it was several years ago; it certainly pre-dated 9/11.
  I was listening the other day to a lawyer who was speaking, I think, in the context of Guantanamo bay. I do not criticise her position, but she said that this was not a war by definition. I believe that it is a war; it is simply that the rules have changed. Usually, wars are waged against other countries, but now we have an unseen enemy who leaves no fingerprints, observes no boundaries and dies for the cause—as suicide bombers—and we must recognise that the rules of the game have changed. The events of 11 September changed everything; the United States now marches to a different drumbeat.
  I wish that I had had a chance to listen to President Bush's speech in the Banqueting House, but none of us got an invitation. He spoke of the bombings in Bali, Jakarta, Casablanca, Bombay, Mombasa, Najaf, Jerusalem, Riyadh and Istanbul, and in all these, the common theme was that they targeted innocent people regardless of their religion. He said that if the people who perpetrate these crimes could get their hands on weapons of mass destruction, they would use them, killing millions of people, and that we must face these threats and defeat them.
  It is important to address what is going on in the Islamic world. I appreciate that this is the most sensitive of subjects, but I am concerned that much of this terrorism is being done in the name of Islam, yet the Muslims in my constituency do not recognise what is going on and it is not their way. The Minister for Europe, who sadly is not in the Chamber, rather blundered into this recently in his comments, when he said that the Muslim world must choose between the British way and the way of the terrorist. I know what he was trying to say, but I think it was rather inept. The question that he must put to the Muslim world is about what it is doing to prevent this happening again.
  The terrorists say that they are responding to the call of a jihad, and that that is the duty of all Muslims. My judgment is that it is no such thing, and that the challenge to moderate Islam is to find ways to deal with this very difficult situation and put pressure on the fundamentalists to persuade them that they are going down the wrong path and that they should reject the way of terror.
  At the heart of all this is the dispute between Israel and Palestine. That is a cause for which terrorists around the world campaign, and it is how they justify their actions. I have no doubt that that conflict is the sparkplug and flashpoint for global instability, that there will be no peace in the world until it is truly resolved and that it should be our No. 1 priority.
  The road map was published in June last year. It is performance-based and goal-driven, with a two-state solution, but the key to its success—I made this point in my intervention on the Foreign Secretary, who did not demur—is that it needs third-party involvement to make it happen. The road map calls for an independent, democratic and viable state by 2005. That is a hugely challenging concept, but it is based on a
  198
  weak document. However, it is the only plan that we have. It is consensual and it has international backing, and it must be made to work.
  The problem with the road map is that there is no dispute resolution procedure. To give an illustration, it states that the Palestinian Authority must undertake visible efforts to prevent attacks on Israelis. The then Prime Minister, Mahmoud Abbas, said that that issue, as well as unauthorised weapons, must be addressed. Hamas immediately said in response that it would not disarm until Israel ended its occupation. Those are entrenched positions, and the situation worsens.
  Prime Minister Sharon, who is considered a moderate and pragmatic politician in Israeli politics, is under considerable pressure and has agreed to the construction of the separation wall, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling referred. The wall would be okay if it was built within recognised boundaries, but it is not. That is the problem, and that dilemma has been well illustrated.
  I am a great supporter of Israel's right to exist. As a serving officer, I was in Aden in 1967, when the six-day war started, and the British Government's immediate reaction was to support the Israelis. I was proud to be part of that, but what is going on now is not the way to proceed. However, the Palestinians are not helping. There is huge mistrust in Israel. A ship carrying aid was arrested by Israel, as it was carrying arms procured by the Palestinian Authority from Iraq. President Arafat's wife, Suha, said that, if she had a son, he would be a suicide bomber. How can a peace settlement be achieved against that sort of background?
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Is my hon. Friend aware of the fact that one of the principal suicide bombers' organisations—the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade—is organically linked to Yasser Arafat and is indeed a militant arm of Yasser Arafat's own organisation?
  Richard Ottaway: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. That is the problem. The latest reports in the past few weeks from Yasser Arafat show that he is perhaps beginning to appreciate that he has to do something about those links, but there is a long way to go.
  The United States was right to lean on Israel by withdrawing its loan guarantee support. If there is a way to persuade Israel to review its policy, it is economic. The economy is not good in Israel. Strikes are widespread, and unemployment is high and rising.
  My central point is that international intervention is needed. The present arrangements are under-resourced and have no power. The monitors report to their own Governments. Sustained and robust intervention is needed, as well as a third-party arbiter. We have seen that before in Israel—monitors have been in place ever since the 1979 peace agreement between Israel and Egypt and they have worked very successfully—but who is the right party to intervene? The US is wary because it will be an election year and there is worry about upsetting the Jewish vote. Frankly, any one of the Quartet could step in to take its place. There is the EU or the UN—Kofi Annan has called for an intervention—but whoever intervenes must work to

  199
  end violence. We need a conflict resolution mechanism, an exchange of security information and the creation of secure conditions that will allow economic activity and a return to normal life.
  The challenge will be to inch the parties along on a parallel course so that confidence can be increased, in the same way as we have seen peace developing in Northern Ireland. It needs a robust engagement and I call on the Government to make it their No. 1 priority; otherwise global instability will continue, which is in no one's interests.
  4.5 pm
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: It is always a pleasure to follow my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway), and I would like to start by developing some of his points about the middle east, which should also be viewed in the context of what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley), whose speech was a significant and powerful indictment of the Government's approach to Iraq. He began with a description of the wall that is currently disfiguring the occupied territories, and I concur with everything that he said about it.
  We should not for one minute forget the fact that the position was wholly unacceptable even before the wall was erected. Roads have been built all over the occupied territories, to which the people who live there legally—the Palestinians—have no access. Access points to the new roads are denied to them. If they drive on the roads, their cars are stopped and impounded by the Israeli security forces. The illegal settlements in those areas dominate all the high ground, and all the Palestinian settlements have been subject to the most disgraceful intimidation—quite apart from the degrading treatment that they have received at check points when they try to cross within their own territory.
  I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South, and to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) who intervened to point out that the al-Aqsa Brigades were intimately linked to Yasser Arafat, that that is not remotely surprising. Anyone who has visited a Palestinian refugee camp, as I did last year, will know that the al-Aqsa Brigades and their supporters represent, frankly, the mainstream of Palestinian opinion in those camps. As I say, that is not surprising in view of their experience as a people over the last 50 years.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: One problem is that many people friendly to Israel, such as myself, do not particularly admire the present Government of Israel, but have to ask themselves why that Government came to power. One of the answers is that the moderate Barak Israeli Government, who brought events to within a whisker of a two-state solution, were rejected primarily by Israel's Arab neighbours. That is probably the reason why the hard-liners came out on top in Israeli society.
  Mr. Blunt: I commend to my hon. Friend, whom I know to be a fair-minded man, the work of the
  200
  Palestinian negotiators support unit, which is funded by our Department for International Development and gives legal advice to the Palestinian leadership. The unit would provide a clear exposition on why that solution was not a fair solution in the eyes of the Palestinian people and could not be sold to them. My hon. Friend is right that we need to work towards a solution, and we must accept that any agreement between Israel and the Palestinians will be rejected by extremists on either side. After any agreement, terrorism remains highly likely to continue from either extreme in either camp. We have seen the tragic assassination of Prime Minister Rabin by an Israeli extremist, and I am equally certain that any Palestinian leader who signs a settlement with the Government of Israel will be putting his life in peril, as did President Sadat when he settled with Israel over the return of Sinai. It is simply no good for the Government of Israel to say that until there is no terrorism at all, there will be no deal. That is no basis on which to proceed.
  Our Prime Minister has made the achievement of progress on the middle east peace process an extremely high priority, but the tragedy is that he has failed to get real American pressure on the Israeli Government to come to a settlement. I shall return to the wider point about the Prime Minister and our relationship with the United States. However, the middle east peace process is a good example of an absolute No. 1 priority for the United Kingdom in the Prime Minister's eyes. He managed to get Mr. Bush's attention on the issue but, when it came to the US doing anything to exercise leverage over the Israeli Government, nothing effective happened. I shall return to the detail of our bilateral relationship with the US in a moment.
  I want to follow up the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling about the reasons for the war. I wholly concur with his indictment of the Government about the false reasons that they gave for the war, but I point out to him and the House that the Government have form. They did the same over Kosovo. They took us to war over Kosovo without the benefit of a United Nations resolution, and they justified it in terms of the humanitarian catastrophe that then overcame the people of Kosovo and was caused by the bombing of Serbian forces in Kosovo by the United States and the United Kingdom. That led to the expulsion of many Kosovans from Kosovo. The war then became justified on the basis of what had happened but, to a large extent, that was caused by our military action.
  The Government have taken us to war five times in six years. With such willingness to go to war, perhaps it was hardly surprising that the Kosovo Liberation Army was wise enough to begin a campaign of terrorism inside Kosovo in 1996. The campaign followed the Dayton accords, and it led to Serbian repression and an incompetent, ill-managed overreaction from President Milosevic's forces. That led directly to the Clinton and Blair Administrations being drawn into action in Kosovo without the UN's authority.
  We should remember just how close we came to NATO breaking up. The air campaign was meant to work within 72 hours, but it took 78 days before the whole campaign was rescued by the Russians persuading President Milosevic to withdraw his forces

  201
  from Kosovo. By that time, the Prime Minister had become convinced of the necessity for a ground campaign. He had to convince the Americans of the necessity for that campaign to rescue a military action that was not working. Had that campaign taken place to bring the war to a conclusion, NATO might have faced the most enormous difficulty, with other NATO countries being absolutely opposed to a ground invasion.
  The lesson for the Government is that they have been far too willing to enter into military action without properly exploring all the potential consequences of that action. If they fail to justify properly the military action that they take, they will, as the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) made clear, take the most appalling risk with their ability to convince the electorate of the need to take military action when there is a real and absolutely pressing need to do so.
  I wish to concentrate the rest of my speech on British influence and interests and to focus on the position of our Prime Minister. I believe that no Prime Minister since Winston Churchill has enjoyed such stature in the United States as the current Prime Minister does today. Even Lady Thatcher in her heyday did not enjoy the universal acclaim accorded to the Prime Minister, which reached its spectacular climax with that extraordinary joint session of Congress in July. That was not the first time that he had received a tumultuous reception from Congress. When President Bush addressed the emergency session of Congress in the wake of the events of 11 September, the Prime Minister was there. He received a standing ovation on his arrival in the Senate and during the President's address. The President addressed his remarks directly to the Prime Minister and said:
  "Thank you for coming, friend."
  Twice in two years, the British Prime Minister has received a unique accolade that has been delivered with huge warmth and enthusiasm by the most powerful legislature that the world has ever known. Of course, the image favour was returned last week. The President made his state visit and had pictures taken with Her Majesty—no doubt the pictures have been safely banked for next year's election campaign.
  All that makes it more galling to those of us who fundamentally believe in the Atlantic alliance that such influence and status have failed to deliver effective protection of British interests in the substance of American policy not only on post-war Iraq but in several other key areas of British interest. Our wider reputation in the rest of the world has suffered. Poodle is the term most frequently used by British ambassadors who report back on how Britain is viewed by their host countries.
  A British Prime Minister who achieves great respect in the United States should be viewed as an important national success, but that achievement should be for something other than the self-image of the individual. The uncomfortable truth that we must face is that the Prime Minister has achieved his personal status, to an extent, at the expense of British interests. It has come to a pretty pass when the great achievement of our influence on the United States that is seen during the President's visit to this country is a hint—no more than
  202
  that mind you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—that we might have the singular honour of having some of our citizens in Guantanamo bay returned to us for trial here.
  The debit side of the bilateral relationship is rather more substantial. Under the current American Administration, farmers have been given such spectacular subsidies that the common values of global free trade have been appallingly violated and the hand of the French and the subsidisers in the European Union has been reinforced. All that has been directly contrary to British interests and led directly to the collapse of the latest world trade round, which was a disaster for a nation such as ours that relies more on free trade than any other large nation in the world.
  Steel tariffs have been imposed, with a direct cost for British steel producers and at the expense of a growing trade war between the European Union and the United States, in which Britain will lose the most. Kyoto was denounced by the Americans. The International Criminal Court has been made largely worthless by American non-participation. On the Prime Minister's central plank of policy in the middle east, as I have said, the Americans have failed to use their leverage to help to find a solution for Israel and Palestine. Indeed, the policy was actively derailed by supporters of Prime Minister Sharon in the United States Administration. We should not forget that the Prime Minister's efforts to persuade President Clinton to commit ground troops to the war in Kosovo failed.
  We now see the consequences of our full-blooded support for the United States in the war on Iraq with the tragic consequences of the attack on British interests in Turkey. I accept that that was the inevitable consequence of a policy that I support, but it forms part of the debit side of the bilateral relationship. Our interests should be protected in return for the risks that we run and the investment that we put into the relationship.
  People will say that, although there are overt signs of limited British influence, underneath that, during direct discussions between the Foreign Secretary and Colin Powell, and Sir David Manning—in his previous capacity—and Condoleezza Rice, some real, sophisticated British guidance is effectively being given to the naive and heavy-handed Americans. If that were true, the occupation of Iraq would not be such a mess, but the UK is tied to a Pentagon-led occupation that has experienced dreadful and avoidable misjudgments. Frankly, we should have prevented the Pentagon from being in charge in the first place. It should have been possible for a Prime Minister with huge public status in the United States decisively to influence the American Administration's internal debate in our interests, not to mention their own, but he failed to do so.
  The early plan was for the State Department to lead the administration of the occupation and the change from coalition to Iraqi control. Eight months of State Department planning ended in an internal American Administration victory for the Pentagon. All the expertise on the region and the need for a political process to take precedence were handed over to the Pentagon when security priorities were put in the lead-a direct rejection of British experience for the past 100 years or more. It led to the two most serious misjudgments: the dismantling of the Iraqi army and the Iraqi civil administration. Saddam Hussein had

  203
  largely removed the zealots from the Iraqi army by creating the Republican Guard and the Special Republican Guard. Any country needs an army, not least one the size of Iraq. The decision to put 300,000 men on the streets with no pay and to create Iraqi security forces from scratch was a dreadful mistake. We should not wonder why there is significant, well-organised resistance to coalition forces.
  All that could have been avoided had the UK exercised real influence within the American Administration. The Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence implored their American counterparts to put far greater resources into dealing with the aftermath of war on Iraq from July 2002. It is true that the Department for International Development was working to rule on preparing for post-war Iraq during 2002. Despite the fact that the rest of the Government were prepared for the inevitability of war, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) refused to believe that it would happen.
  The problem for the UK is that a junior partner that is taken for granted has no influence. That is how the UK is now regarded around the world. The Prime Minister is seen, to a degree, as President Bush's Foreign Secretary who simply travels rather more than Colin Powell in pursuit of American policy goals. The Prime Minister seems to have forgotten that the Americans are pragmatic. They will work with those who give them something useful in return. Britain's support is of enormous value, and that is why our Prime Minister is so highly regarded in the United States, but if in dealing with the Americans we do not follow the basic principle of negotiations—that we are prepared to walk away—we can hardly complain if our interests are walked over.
  The Prime Minister's status is personal. It reflects the very personal way in which he conducts foreign policy. He believes not only in his ability as a mediator, but in the moral purpose of his mission. That is why we have gone to war five times in six years under his premiership. His beliefs have led to Britain being caught up in an American policy based on a new doctrine of American primacy and pre-emption that is the product of only one part, although the dominant part at the moment, of the American Administration. Under the Prime Minister, Britain has bought in completely to that approach, yet it is highly questionable whether the strategy will survive engagement in Iraq, let alone whether it is in the interest of the UK. Never have we been so committed to United States policy; never have we been so taken for granted. The irony should not be missed: our Prime Minister has all the appearance of influence—the image of importance in the US—yet that influence is a chimera, never effectively deployed to advance British interests. Style has triumphed over substance again.
  4.23 pm
  Dr. Julian Lewis: I hope hon. Members have noticed that my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) and I have felt it necessary to initiate a debate on the Opposition Benches in light of the fact that on the second day of the new Session the Government are represented at this
  204
  moment in the debate on the Queen's Speech by the Minister, the Whip and the Parliamentary Private Secretary. They are not doing very well. Before the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) gets too jovial, I should explain that whereas Conservative Members outnumber Labour Members by 3:1, we outnumber Liberal Democrats by 10:1. Having said that, however, it is naturally a pleasure for me to add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather), who I am sure will shortly be resuming her place, on her excellent maiden speech.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) said that he spent much of September in Brent, East, sadly to little effect. I spent much of August in the High Court, I hope to somewhat greater effect. I am glad to say that I was not in the dock. I was not even in the witness box. I was watching from the wings at the Hutton inquiry as a succession of Ministers from the Prime Minister downwards, a succession of civil servants and a succession of journalists were paraded for the edification of the public as to the inner workings of this new Labour Government in the run-up to the war on Iraq, although admittedly the terms of the inquiry are more narrowly defined to the events that led to Dr. Kelly's tragic death.
  I wish, seeing that there is such an absence of Government representation this afternoon, to try to do a little favour for the Government and try to make a case for the Government. I am not sure that I will entirely agree with my own arguments as I do so, but I will see what I can do to add a little grit to the oyster, as it were, in the hope that a few pearls might be formed.
  At the Hutton inquiry on 21 August, something was said by one of the journalists—Nicholas Rufford—which I found revealing and informative. It was to remind us of what a weapon of mass destruction really is. The essence of such a weapon is that it is a relatively small device that can cause, if used, a large number of deaths and injuries. So it is in the nature of a weapon of mass destruction that it is easy to conceal. Nicholas Rufford, in his testimony—I found it to be rather reliable and convincing—about a telephone conversation that he had had with Dr. Kelly in June 2003, said that he, Dr. Kelly, mentioned that.
  "it was very easy to hide weapons of mass destruction because you simply had to dig a hole in the desert, put them inside, cover them with a tarpaulin, cover them with sand and then they would be almost impossible to discover."
  If that is true, it is hardly surprising that nobody has yet managed to discover these devices, if they exist. We can be sure that if Saddam decided to conceal them, he had plenty of time to do so. Saddam evidently decided to conceal himself, and so far he—a human individual—probably not much smaller in bulk than a fairly lethal dose, if we were to measure the dimensions of chemical and biological weapons, has not been discovered either, despite the best efforts of an army of people to find him.
  Later testimony at the Hutton inquiry on 21 August came from a former British ambassador to Prague, Mr. David Broucher, who at one stage seemed to be contradicting the testimony that had been given in the morning. He said, recollecting a distant conversation that he had had with Dr. Kelly, that he thought that

  205
  Dr. Kelly felt that inspections properly carried out would give a degree of certainty about compliance. That appeared at first impression to contradict what the journalist had stated was Dr. Kelly's view—that it was well nigh impossible to find weapons of mass destruction such as biological and chemical devices if they had been systematically concealed.
  But Mr. Broucher went on to explain that it was from Dr. Kelly's experience in Iraq that
  "his judgment was that you could gain quite a lot of certainty about compliance with the Convention"—
  on biological weapons—
  "because, in the case of Iraq, there were very precise written records about what they had made and destroyed. This was something he said that they had learned from the British."
  One would think that, if it was going to be well nigh impossible to discover systematically concealed chemical and biological weapons without assistance, it would have been a top priority of the coalition to have two intelligence targets. One would be the personnel who had a hand in the production, storage and concealment of those weapons, and in that sense the coalition has done quite well in apprehending the individuals concerned. The other would be the documents in the Foreign and Defence Ministries and the intelligence headquarters giving the details of where the weapons had been produced, where they had been stored and where they had been hidden.
  We all know, however, that the task of going after the documents was lamentably neglected. We know the story of how even a fortnight after the fall of Baghdad on 9 April this year journalists, not to mention looters, were going in and out of the Ministries, rifling the contents, destroying some and taking away the rest. It must be said that if the campaign had been properly planned, properly thought through and properly executed, such neglect would never have been allowed to happen.
  At the end of the second world war, for example, the Americans and the British set up something called the combined intelligence objectives committee, which was specifically designed to target documents, weapons systems and scientists and to make sure that they were secured and brought back to this country and the United States. I have yet to receive a convincing explanation from our Government as to why that did not happen.
  So much for a Government failure. But I think that the Government could have made a stronger case than they did for going to war. I consistently supported them in their wish to go to war, and I think that where they went wrong was in thinking themselves too narrowly confined by what they interpreted international law as saying at the present time are the only grounds on which one can go to war. What are those grounds? I think that there are three, as commonly understood.
  As commonly understood, we can go to war if we or allies of ours are attacked. As commonly understood, we can go to war if we or our allies are in imminent danger of being attacked. And as commonly understood, we can go to war, somewhat more controversially, as we have heard in the debate today, if we believe that our military intervention is necessary to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe. Where I think
  206
  the Government went wrong was in slavishly trying to twist the facts and to make a presentation to enable one or other of those existing perceptions of international law to come into play.
  Let us look at the three of them again. We could not say that we were going to war because we or an ally had been attacked—that had applied in 1990 when Saddam invaded Kuwait, but he had not done anything like that this time. As for the third reason, the humanitarian catastrophe that had to be prevented, we could hardly say that we were doing that this time. After all, despite those hundreds of thousands of victims who are now, retrospectively and belatedly, being mourned by the Government, we had not intervened to save them, so it would be rather strange to say that we were suddenly becoming conscience-stricken and had to intervene to stop Saddam.
  That left the Government with the middle reason—the reason of imminent danger of attack. Looking at the matter as I now can, because we have had that inner sight of what was going on in the intelligence community, which we were denied at the time when we had to take these decisions, I believe that the Government tried to invest every scrap of intelligence, half-intelligence, semi-intelligence and pseudo-intelligence with a degree of significance which, in the cold light of day, perhaps it did not fully bear. That is why the Government did what they did.
  What should the Government have done? I said that I would try to make the case for the Government, and they may feel that I have not been trying very hard up to now. I see the Minister smiling. I believe the Government should have said that international law is not fixed in concrete or set in aspic. If it is to be taken seriously, international law must evolve in order to recognise circumstances as they develop in the world. International law has yet fully to adjust to the significance of 11 September 2001. Before September 2001, in so far as these matters had impinged on our consciousness widely in America and the United Kingdom, we relied on principles of containment and deterrence. Those principles had served us well.
  With the advent of the suicide terrorist, however, those principles, though not falsified in general, are no longer sufficient. In the past it might have been enough to say that with respect to a country such as Iraq, with a regime such as Saddam's, which has a track record of trying to get weapons of mass destruction, we would contain and deter it because we thought that whatever else those people are—they may be ruthless, brutal and bestial—they are not idiotic. They are quite calculating, and the last thing they want is their own lives to be prematurely ended.
  We could have taken the view that we could live with the possibility that Saddam had the potential to create such weapons, even though we might not be sure whether he still had them. Post-September 2001, that is no longer adequate. It is no longer satisfactory to say that we are content that rogue regimes with a track record of trying to get weapons of mass destruction or, in the case of Saddam, actually getting weapons of mass destruction, and in the case of Saddam, using weapons of mass destruction, should be allowed to go their own sweet way.

  207
  We can no longer accept even the possibility that a country with such a regime—still less a country in which such a regime might give way to another regime that might be more closely allied with the suicidal Islamist movements that could have taken over, and could yet take over, if we make a mess of the handover in Iraq after the end of Saddam's rule—might create those weapons and hand them over to groups that could not be deterred by any rational method from using those weapons, because such groups use suicide terrorists who believe they are going to paradise when they die.
  I am drawing my remarks to a conclusion, and I shall end on a slightly more positive note. A few months ago I was delighted to be contacted by the secretary of a group called the Islamic Society of Britain. I should like to inform the House that a group like that, which regularly holds panel discussions and meetings in the House of Commons, is out there ready to engage, usually from a different political perspective, but on democratic terms, with those of us who believe in dialogue, debate and discussion.
  I have had the privilege of taking part in two of the society's events in the House of Commons. It was interesting when, during the second event, towards the end of our discussions—lively discussions on the middle east, as one might expect—two or three people successively rose to their feet and started to rant at the assembled people that they should not be sharing the platform with infidels and that jihad was the only way. What was impressive about the incident was not only that in the large assembly of people present there was no support whatever for those extreme views, or that it was entirely agreed that those individuals should resume their seats and, if they did not do so, we should ask the police to remove them, but that it was obvious that those few individuals who were trying to wreck the discussion saw the danger of a relationship between moderate young British people of the Islamic faith and the democratic political process which that meeting represented. I take encouragement from the fact that such a dialogue is going on. I believe that Islamist extremists are no more representative of the Muslim community than the extreme left was representative of socialist democratic opinion in this country in the 1960s, 70s and, to some extent, 80s.
  I believe that there is hope for the future, but we have to ask ourselves one question. Why do some people believe that they will go to paradise if they kill themselves while killing civilians in a suicide attack? They must have got those beliefs from somewhere—someone must have inculcated and taught them those beliefs. The religious hierarchy of the Muslim community must try to explain on religious grounds why those beliefs are false. If people do not think that they will go to a better world if they do such terrible things, they might be dissuaded from doing them in future.
  4.42 pm
  Hugh Robertson: I start by adding my congratulations to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) on her maiden
  208
  speech. As one who also made his maiden speech in this Parliament, I can say that she comfortably put mine in the shade and that she will clearly be a great asset to the House.
  It is, as always, a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). He has a wonderfully lucid and informed style and made his customary considerable contribution to the debate.
  The Queen's Speech debate on international affairs takes place, once again, against a backdrop that can only be described as challenging. The past year has witnessed the war in Iraq and the ongoing post-conflict situation; the continuation of the fight against international terrorism, particularly in Afghanistan; concerns about weapons of mass destruction in places such as Iran and North Korea; the ongoing middle east crisis; and, lest we forget, problems in sub-Saharan Africa, in countries such as Sierra Leone, Liberia, Congo and Zimbabwe. I fear that there is little to suggest that the coming year will be any less turbulent. However, those of us who are interested in defence await the publication of the defence White Paper, due next month, and I shall address my remarks today to the background to that review.
  Our world has seldom been more dangerous. For more than 45 years after world war two, defence policy was governed by the certainties of the cold war. With the collapse of the Berlin wall, all that changed. There was talk of peace dividends and brave new worlds, but instead, freed from the straitjacket of communism, the world became a radically more dangerous place. Sir Anthony Parsons, our former ambassador at the United Nations, brilliantly summed up the position with the phrase:
  "From Cold War to Hot Peace."
  The indications of that new and dangerous terrorist threat were evident throughout the 90s, from the World Trade Centre to the USS Cole and the embassy bombings in Africa. They finally reached fruition in the attacks on the twin towers on 9/11, with the loss of more than 3,500 lives including, lest we forget, the single largest loss of British lives to a terrorist action.
  This is a new and utterly lethal enemy, which wants not simply to occupy our country, as others have in the past, but to destroy our entire way of life. Our response to that enemy must be more proactive, wide-ranging and co-ordinated. International institutions have a large part to play. The modern world needs strong international institutions. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), the shadow Foreign Secretary, has talked at length about the need to repair the fractured institutions of NATO, the United Nations and the EU. It is a tragedy that they are weakened and divided at the very time when the need for them is so great. NATO needs to be reformed and refocused so that an institution that won the cold war can be turned into one that can meet the challenges of the 21st century. It is vital that it remains the cornerstone of our defence.
  The United Nations also needs to be reformed. In an excellent debate in the House three weeks ago, a number of areas requiring reform were highlighted, including structure, financing and staff recruitment. There was widely held admiration across the House for the UN's work in many areas. As a number of

  209
  Members said, the glass is half full rather than half empty. However, there was recognition across the House that the UN must change and reform. With the entry of accession states into the EU, existing practices must change. In future, there may well be ways in which EU countries can work together in the spheres of defence and foreign policy, but the track record thus far is not encouraging. In Bosnia in the early 90s, there was a ridiculous situation in which the French backed the Serbs, the Germans backed the Croats, we were sitting in the middle, and the Americans backed the Bosnian Muslims. The lessons were clearly not learned, as those divisions were present again in the recent Iraq crisis. I suspect that the countries of the EU have their own historical links and attachments, which it is unrealistic to expect them to drop in a new and untested system.
  Three practical issues cause me concern, the first of which is overstretching. The European security and defence policy can only be an extra commitment for our already overstretched armed forces. New headquarters will have to be manned and employed. Where on earth will the manpower come from to meet that new commitment? There is also the technology gap. The United States is the world's only hyperpower, and Britain is unlikely to mount a full-scale war without it. Better, surely, to ally ourselves with it in a tried and tested alliance such as NATO than to open up a new front.
  There is also a huge cultural difference between NATO and the EU, because as an organisation the EU tends to concentrate on inward matters. The current international threat requires outward-looking solutions and an outward-reaching focus, but I wonder whether the EU in this day and age is capable of delivering that. International institutions are only one aspect of defence policy. We need to broaden the scope of defence policy to react to the new and increasingly complex political and military environment. Asymmetric threats demand responses that are not purely military but are often political, humanitarian, economic and legal. Iraq is an extremely good example. The military response—the fighting of the war—was an outstanding success, but the political preparations were clearly inadequate, and we are paying the price for that now. I am not alone in thinking so. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short), the former Secretary of State for International Development, said that
  "preparations for the post-conflict situation were inadequate."—[Official Report, 4 June 2003; Vol. 405, c. 210.]
  That must never happen again.
  The build-up to the war in Iraq also highlighted the inadequacies of the international legal system. As somebody put it to me at the time, "You can get international law to prove almost anything." International law must be updated to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
  A number of lessons must be learned and the relevant structures put in place, but there are also lessons to be learned at political, strategic and military levels. On the political front, if ever the importance of a clear aim, a fundamental military principle, was shown, it was during the current Iraq crisis. The 1991 Gulf war had a clear, simple and achievable aim. By
  210
  contrast, in this conflict we moved from weapons of mass destruction to international terrorism to regime change, with huge implications for the military. The constant shifting of the war aim is directly linked to many of the difficulties that we have seen in the post-conflict environment.
  At a strategic level, the conflict in Iraq also showed the need for reliable intelligence. I fear that the Iraq war may go down as one of the greatest intelligence failures of modern time. That is evident not only in the case of weapons of mass destruction but in the failure to predict that the Iraqi army would fade in the early stages of the war and that urban guerrilla warfare would predominate afterwards. The Government must examine the reasons for that failure and do everything to ensure that it never happens again.
  A number of military lessons can also be learned directly from the crisis in Iraq. Before I come to that however, two points are worth making. First, the fighting of the war in Iraq was an outstanding success. I suspect that the campaign will be studied in staff colleges across the world for many years to come as a classic of its type. It is right that we in this House should record our gratitude not only to the men and women of the armed forces who did the fighting but to all those at the Ministry of Defence, at Permanent Joint Headquarters and at other defence establishments who were involved in the planning and execution. I hope that the Foreign Secretary, whom I am delighted to see back in his place, and other Ministers feel proud of their achievements in that regard.
  One other wholly extraordinary feature of the conflict is not so much that the operation demanded so many different phases of war, from the delivery of humanitarian aid to the actual war fighting, but that it demanded so many of them simultaneously. I do not believe that that has ever happened before, and to pull it off was a remarkable achievement.
  However, there are lessons that can be learned. I think that all would agree that there was a lack of an adequate strategic deployment force. A heavy strategic lift capability based on aircraft will be vital in the years ahead. There was also a lack of a strategic and operational intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance concept. I am told that unmanned aerial vehicles flew 3 per cent. of the sorties but acquired 55 per cent. of the targets. If that is true, our forces must plan now for the integration and manning of the new Watchkeeper equipment, because that will be a vital area of the modern battlefield.
  There is also the perennial problem of communications, which is vital for network-centric warfare. A recent visit that I made to HMS Marlborough highlighted that problem. We looked at the desk at which the principal warfare officer sat, and there were his computers in front of him and the American one behind him. The two systems were wholly unintegrated. That clearly cannot work in future.
  There is also the question of the identification of friendly forces. My own regiment suffered in that regard during the Iraq war. The development of an electronic identification system must be a top technical priority for the Ministry of Defence.

  211
  Finally, I should like to mention a few of the issues concerning equipment. The carriers are clearly a topic of the moment. Last week during a cross-party group visit, the flag officer sea training made the point clearly that the new carriers must be as big as possible to generate the maximum number of sorties.
  There is also and will always be a need for heavy war-fighting equipment. Challenger 2, Warrior and AS90 have all proved themselves in recent years to be battle-winning assets. As recently as this summer, one of the brigade commanders in Iraq described the Challenger 2 battle tank to me as the man of the match. I would wholly welcome moves to develop a medium armoured force, based around the future rapid effects system concept, but it must not be at the expense of our heavy capability.
  This year, the debate on the Queen's Speech once again takes place against a difficult and dangerous international backdrop. Our response to the threats must be more proactive, more co-ordinated and more wide-ranging than ever before. The defence White Paper, due out next month, must take into account the need to strengthen our international institutions and to anchor our defence policy in NATO. It must develop the formal mechanisms to integrate political, military, economic and humanitarian responses to the threats of modern warfare. It must review the organisation of our armed forces, which must be driven by a current threat assessment, not by the Treasury.
  We certainly need to develop and support the modern equipment necessary to fight network-centric warfare, but that must not be at the expense of manpower. Even in a modern battlefield, we still need men, women and equipment "to take and hold the ground", in military terms. It is hard to imagine any strategic analysis, especially after five wars in six years, that could possibly justify a reduction in manpower.
  Finally, the most important thing is that the defence review recognises that the men and women of our armed forces are our most important assets. They are feeling overstretched and unappreciated at present, and we must correct that. Without them, nothing is possible.
  4.56 pm
  Andrew Selous: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) who, as a former regular officer, always speaks on military matters with real knowledge and experience. He and I have a link, as I have just learned that his regiment suffered a friendly fire incident in the recent Iraq conflict and my regiment, the Royal Fusiliers, suffered a similar shocking incident during the first Iraq war.
  It was also a pleasure to listen to the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather). I am sure that all Members agree that she spoke with great style and poise and will join me in wishing her well in Parliament
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) opened the debate for the Opposition. He pointed out the huge inconsistency in
  212
  the Government's position on the European constitution. They say that it is a matter of such little importance-a mere tidying-up exercise—that it is not necessary to put it before the British people, yet at the same time they say that the matters before our country are so urgent that they may need to veto the whole treaty. Those two positions cannot logically be held at the same time. We should be aware of that significant point.
  I was pleased that my right hon. and learned Friend mentioned Zimbabwe and Burma. It is certainly true that the UN has failed those countries especially poorly. We have a special duty to the people of Zimbabwe, a country in which I declare a personal interest, as my great-great uncle showed Cecil Rhodes where it was. The situation is appalling, with nearly 6 million people facing starvation. The citizens of Zimbabwe rightly look to the UK to make a serious effort at the UN on their behalf. If we can do that for Iraq, we can do it on behalf of the people of Zimbabwe—we have been remiss in that regard.
  Similarly, Burma is all too prone to slip from the gaze of the international community. The UN should consider the situation there much more seriously.
  We have heard some outstanding speeches this afternoon. I do not think I am showing bias by saying that they came mostly from the Opposition Benches, as we have heard relatively few contributions from the Government Benches.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) was right to say that, as a loyal partner of the United States, the UK needs to make sure that we are not ignored by the US. There should be some payback for our loyalty to and support of the United States, but that has often been lacking.
  My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) correctly pointed out that international law has not caught up with events after 11 September. That is one of the most urgent issues facing the world community, if we are properly to deal with such threats legally in the future. He raised an important matter, and we are all indebted to him.
  I pay particular attention to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley), who put with greater clarity and force than I have heard to date the appalling fact that the Government are now claiming a justification for the war with Iraq which they clearly said in column 772 of Hansard of 18 March was not a legal one. That is a shocking state of affairs. The British people will not easily forgive or understand it.
  I understand that during these debates it is the convention for hon. Members to raise issues in any part of the Queen's Speech or that they think should have been included. I want to move away from international affairs to consider one or two items that I am extremely sorry that the Government have not included. In particular on social policy, I believe that family breakdown and father absence are among the most severe issues facing us. The figures are shocking. Recently we learned that a quarter of all dependent British children live in single-parent households. The average across the European Union is 14 per cent. When I mention that figure, many people suggest that that must be because the Catholic south, with its

  213
  greater sense of family values, brings the average down. They are wrong in that assumption. In the Netherlands and Luxembourg, only one in 10 children live in single-parent families.
  This country sticks out poorly and worryingly in this area. The situation causes massive distress to parents and children and it costs the country a huge amount—a conservative estimate is about £15 billion a year. We spend peanuts by comparison on trying to do something about the problem—about £5 million or £6 million a year through the Mars—marriage and relationship support—programme and support for community-founded trusts, which do excellent work. Is it not time that we put greater emphasis on prevention rather than cure? We have heard a lot about preemption in international affairs this afternoon. What about some focus on prevention in this area?
  It is a shame that there is only one Government Back-Bench Member present this afternoon, and he is the Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary. The links between child poverty and single-parent households are significant. I serve as a member of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions. We have just had a briefing on the subject in which we were told that 22 per cent. of children in couple families live in poverty, compared with 54 per cent. of children in lone-parent families—a full 32 percentage points more.
  The good news is that there is a road map to do something about it. Only a few weeks ago we were privileged to have a visit to this country and House from Dr. Wade Horn, the United States Assistant Secretary for Children and Families in the Department of Health and Human Services. He would be the equivalent of a Minister of State, probably in the Department for Work and Pensions. I chaired the meeting in Committee Room 12 which was attended by Members from all parties, and indeed the Work and Pensions Minister Baroness Hollis. We learned about the welfare-to-work programmes in America, and in particular the family support measures focusing on father absence, healthy marriage programmes and support for fragile families. They have had real success. In America in the past five years, child poverty has reduced from 22 per cent. to 16 per cent.
  Dr. Horn was formerly the president of the National Fatherhood Initiative. We need a similar body to undertake such work in the United Kingdom. We need a body that emphasises fathers' responsibilities, not just fathers' rights. There are issues around fathers' rights—access and the way in which courts deal with cases—but for the good of our children, the emphasis should be on responsibilities. That is urgent. I personally would like to be involved in such moves. In America today, there are about 24 million children in father-absent households. As I have said, a quarter of all British children are in that position.
  It is a great pity that the Queen's Speech did not say anything about that important matter, which is of great concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House. Sadly, children in father-absent homes are significantly more likely to do poorly, on any measure of child well-being. Figures for America tell us, and I have no reason to suppose that they are hugely different from those for this country, that 72 per cent. of adolescent murderers and 70 per cent. of long-term prison inmates grew up in homes without fathers. It is
  214
  always important that we handle these issues sensitively, and we are talking about generalities, but we cannot ignore such figures if we are to do the best for our country.
  The United States Government are putting money into programmes that are having positive results. I regret that the Queen's Speech said nothing about that. Those programmes are having demonstrable results and making the situation better. For example, 16 per cent. of couples in the study group who did not attend the prevention and relationship enhancement programme divorced after five years, but only 3 per cent. of couples who were on the course divorced.
  Another programme, known as relationship enhancement, had dramatic effects on reducing domestic violence. Of 90 violent husbands, all of whom were first offenders for spousal abuse, not one who was on the programme was arrested again for the same offence within a year, whereas 20 per cent. of those who were not on the programme were arrested again. The Queen's Speech refers to a Bill on domestic violence, but it is a question not just of passing a law on such behaviour but of providing the courses that will help to change behaviour. That will have results and lead to improvements.
  The United States is spending £300 million a year on what it calls its healthy marriage programmes. Those are for people who have decided to get married and want to stay married. Who could possibly be against that? It is not the state interfering in people's private lives, because these people have already made that choice freely. It does not involve taking any money from programmes in support of single parents. I am saddened when I see the contrast between America and this country. We learned yesterday from some of our press that page 41 of the Government's paper on civil partnerships says that they want to abolish the words "marital status" from all Government forms. Why cannot we just have the words "spouse/partner"? What would be the problem with that? That would recognise the world as it is and give some recognition in that area.
  It is a concern that we trap so many lone parents in poverty by treating lone parents better than those who live together. I give two brief examples: the council tax discount for single occupiers and the invisible second adult in the tax credit regime.
  Those are hugely important areas of social policy. The Queen's Speech could have said something about them. It is not a case necessarily of passing laws or even spending vast amounts on those programmes, but we urgently need a national debate. We need to spend time and attention on these matters. I hope that that will happen in the very near future.
  5.9 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: It is a great honour to have been given the job that I have, and I appear here tonight as a happy and proud person. I wish to start by congratulating the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) on a formidable, excellent and witty maiden speech, in which she paid handsome tribute to her predecessor, as did my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. The House was impressed by

  215
  her contribution and I am sure that we will hear much more from her in the future, to our great advantage. She deserves to be thoroughly congratulated on a competent and confident performance.
  I do not wish to strike a sour note, but it is astonishing that, on the second day of debate on the Queen's Speech, there were long periods for which not a single Labour Back Bencher was present in the Chamber. That shows an extraordinary sense of priorities on something so deeply important to our country. Nevertheless, this has been a good debate with many good speeches, especially from the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). I thank him for his most generous words and, as usual, a formidable speech. The House clearly agreed with his views on Zimbabwe, as it did with those of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife was also interesting on the subject of Iraq, and many of us agreed with his comments.
  The right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson), the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, who is unfortunately not in his place, made an important speech, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley). The House appreciated what he had to say. I was struck by the fact that he said that he voted for the Government in good faith and would be much relieved if weapons of mass destruction were found. Many of us are in the same boat.
  The hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) gave his usual rant on Iraq, the United States and Israel. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell), in an effective and interesting speech, covered a broad range of issues of interest to himself and his constituents, especially in respect of the care of children in the Birmingham area and quality of life issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway), who is a distinguished member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, spoke knowledgeably about the middle east and made some important remarks about the peace process there.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), with that capacity unique to him, spoke with great authority and courage about a matter of profound and primary importance to our foreign policy. Many will have agreed with what he said. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), who spoke to great effect about the Hutton inquiry and the arguments for going to war, made some telling points about the development of international law after 11 September 2001. As usual, he made a well-informed and interesting speech.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) spoke powerfully about the harsh realities of terrorism since the end of the cold war and highlighted the importance of multilateral institutions, especially NATO and the United Nations. He also raised, as many of us will wish to do in coming months, the issue of overstretch in the armed forces. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), who speaks so effectively on social matters, also made an important speech.
  216
  I join the Foreign Secretary in paying tribute to the staff of the Foreign Office, and I join my right hon. and hon. Friends in extending our sympathy to the families of those killed or injured in the terrible atrocity in Istanbul.
  We welcome the content of the Gracious Speech and we look forward with interest to the forthcoming defence White Paper. We will wish to examine with the greatest care the armed forces pension and compensation Bill, to ensure that our servicemen and women are properly and honourably dealt with. I thank the Secretary of State for Defence and his colleagues for their kind, courteous and helpful response to my appointment, for which I am extremely grateful.
  Mr. Keetch: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment. Concerning the defence White Paper, he will have heard the Secretary of State talk in the past about network-centric warfare. Smart weapons undoubtedly win wars, but does he agree that given that peacekeeping and peace enforcement are being carried out now by soldiers and armour on the ground, the rumours about cuts in infantry are particularly worrying? We need a balanced White Paper, not one that puts too much emphasis on smart gear instead of troops.
  Mr. Soames: I wholly agree with the hon. Gentleman, and of course it would be wrong if the White Paper were to assume that it is not boots on the ground and the armour issued that offer the means to hold, consolidate and control security. If that arrangement went out of kilter it would have serious implications. I echo the hope expressed by other hon. Members that, given its nature, the White Paper will contain real detail of what is to come.
  I pay the fullest tribute to the British armed forces, who have again covered themselves in glory in Iraq. They have again done wonders for the name and fame of Britain. By their gallantry and determination, and above all humanity, and by the patience and fortitude of service families and the very impressive efforts of MOD civilian staffs, they have proved yet again that there is no other place in our British national life in which there is so much human achievement in such small institutions as there is in the armed forces of the Crown.
  The security challenges that the United Kingdom faces today have significantly changed since the cold war and will continue to do so. We live in an unpredictable world, where the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, international terrorism and regional instabilities combined with civil strife represent our new security threat. It is important that we ask what alliance, institutional or framework changes, if any, should be implemented to ensure that the UK's security interests are addressed and that we are properly prepared for the challenges of the 21st century. Furthermore we must ask, is European and American security indivisible and does the development of an autonomous EU force defence capability-the ability to plan and conduct military operations without NATO-contribute to or undermine our own security?

  217
  We agree with the Government that European nations should increase their military capabilities. Europe should be able to do more and I welcome the EU's efforts, under NATO's auspices and help, in Macedonia. But the truth remains that many continental forces have only the most basic logistic communications facilities and can hardly operate at any distance from their home bases. Few can sustain operations with any credibility, and in almost every respect those forces have to rely almost entirely on the United States for intelligence, strategic support and military muscle. The Government must do more with our European partners to see to it that they address the need for operational capability and effectiveness within their force structures. This is important for all of us in NATO and the wider Europe.
  So far, however, the European defence project has failed to deliver on capabilities. Defence budgets are decreasing rather than increasing, while defence programmes are being slashed. Meanwhile at home, so great is the monetary pressure that the axe is poised over the Type 45 and over the Astute submarine programme, while possibly dozens of Challenger tanks are due to be mothballed and the number of the joint strike fighters is to be cut. Such cuts are particularly serious, given that we are clearly engaged in a process of fundamental and essential change, which will lead to the introduction of new technologies. That process will have to be properly funded, and we all look forward to the defence White Paper offering us some real substance and detail about that, not just a long blue-skies essay.
  The sole contribution of the European defence project thus far is the creation of proposed duplicate and competing structures that will dilute NATO and could eventually lead to the decoupling of the United States from the defence of western Europe.
  The problem for us is that perfectly good arrangements already exist to deal with understandable European defence aspirations. Those arrangements were agreed in Berlin in 1996 and later reaffirmed at the Washington summit in 1999. Paragraph 10 of the Washington summit communiqué calls for assured EU access to NATO planning capabilities to contribute to military planning for EU-led operations and the presumption of availability to the EU of pre-identified NATO capabilities and common assets for use in EU-led operations.
  It is difficult to know what more they could want, but there is now truly widespread confusion about the Government's apparent inability to ensure that European defence remains anchored in NATO and, indeed, what truly are the Government's intentions, for we really do not know which Prime Minister we should believe. Is it the Prime Minister who assures the President of the United States that European defence would in no way undermine NATO, that there would be a joint command and that planning would take place in NATO? Or is it the Prime Minister who goes to Europe and agrees with the German Chancellor and the French President that
  "together, we are convinced that the EU should have a common capability for the planning and leadership of operations independent of NATO means and capabilities"?
  The danger of weakening NATO when readily available, well-trained and interoperable forces are needed in Afghanistan and Iraq is what we ought to
  218
  concentrate on. NATO has indeed a vital ongoing role to play, and the Opposition assert that NATO is absolutely crucial to a stable world at a time of considerable uncertainty It is the only organisation that binds the United States to Europe and Europe to the United States.
  Afghanistan is only the beginning: discussions about more NATO involvement in Iraq are already taking place. Some at NATO are openly calling for a NATO peacekeeping force for the middle east. It would be a monumental folly to undermine that capability at a time of genuine uncertainty and very considerable danger—facts that have been brought to our attention today by many colleagues on both sides of the House.
  On overstretch, particularly in the Army, the underlying picture is that it is often clear that the Government's ambitions on defence do not match reality or just simply ignore it. The overstretch of the armed forces is a case in point, particularly in the Army. In June, 55 per cent. of the Army was either deployed on or recovering from operations. The Navy regularly reports that its ships routinely go to sea with gaps in their full complement. There are reports that RAF training flying hours have been cut. Since 1997, our forces have been heavily deployed, yet we have almost 12,000 fewer trained regulars than six years ago and the Army is still nearly 4,000 men understrength, even on the reduced manning requirement figures.
  The Opposition most earnestly warn the Secretary of State that, in the present circumstances, we believe that it would be an act of cardinal folly to use the Army's strength as a peace dividend if normalisation were to occur in Northern Ireland. If any troops were to be released from that task, they would be urgently required elsewhere in the Army to reduce overstretch and increase the opportunities for a more normal military life. The Secretary of State for Defence is seized of that, but the fact remains that he is under gross pressure on manpower, and it would be a great mistake if he were to allow the forces of darkness to prevail upon him in respect of numbers. It is well known that the Treasury does not work for us; it works for the enemy.
  Last weekend, it was reported that some of the Army's most famous regiments are to be disbanded, when those in the infantry—the workhorse of the British Army—are already operating at an intolerable level of activity. Surely that would be an act of cardinal military folly. The Royal Scots, the Black Watch, the King's Own Scottish Borderers and the Prince of Wales's Own Regiment of Yorkshire are reportedly to be disbanded. I would be grateful if the Secretary of State could give us some idea of his intentions on those matters tonight. What impact does he believe that proposed cuts of that size and scale will have on the morale of the forces?
  Mr. Blunt: I understand that the Secretary of State has given a public undertaking about cap badges and regiments, but he should not be allowed to get away with what he did to my own regiment. He was supposed to retain four armoured reconnaissance regiments, but he achieved that by giving such

  219
  regiments three squadrons rather than four. If he starts stripping companies out of infantry battalions there will, frankly, be no point in what he is proposing.
  Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend raises an important point, and we look to the Secretary of State tonight to give us an assurance about his intentions, so that the forces can be clear about what will happen. These men are putting their lives on the line and it remains unclear whether their jobs will be on the line tomorrow. What effect will that have on the tour gap, on hard-pressed families and, indeed, on further recruitment and retention?
  Sir John Stanley: As the House knows, I chair the all-party Nepal group. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that any threat of major cuts to the Gurkhas, who have made an enormous contribution to the British Army for more than a hundred years, would be most profoundly unwelcome, particularly in view of the current serious position in Nepal?
  Mr. Soames: I wholly endorse the views of my right hon. Friend and I pay tribute to the Gurkhas for all that they have done in their military service of the Crown over the years. The Secretary of State will understand that cutting the Gurkhas below a certain level cuts into the critical mass of the entire Gurkha operation. That would be a catastrophe, and it would be wrong—for international relations and the interests of the British Army—to make cuts in such signal service that has been provided for generations.
  Intervals between operational tours are well below the guideline figure of 24 months, with some people having as few as six months respite between operations. It is wholly unrealistic for the Secretary of State to go on expecting the armed forces to be able to continue at that rate. The impact of overstretch on individuals and their families, particularly in forces experiencing significant manning shortfalls, is an issue of major concern.
  When the services are meeting an extraordinarily high level of operational commitment at the same time as training hard for other contingencies, my colleagues and I recognise the real pressures that can be brought to bear on the families of servicemen and women. I should like to take this opportunity to pay the warmest possible tribute to service wives, their children and their wider families. At a time of high levels of commitment, when their loved ones are away a great deal, I want to acknowledge each and every one of them for their patience and their forbearance. I am personally very conscious that theirs is sometimes not an easy life and I want them to know that their concerns and anxieties are very much at the forefront of our thoughts.
  Soldiers today have less time for training and for personal development through career courses. Furthermore many planned exercises have been cancelled already this year, which is becoming a wholly unacceptable feature of the operational tempo, and will in time have profound implications in all three services for efficiency and effectiveness. Not only is the overstretch of regular forces disrupting the training
  220
  cycle—this year, for example, with the fast track—but further problems have been caused by the lack of resources in the training system.
  We believe that it is true, and not an idle boast, to say that the British armed forces are, man for man, the best in the world. In the Gulf, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone, Kosovo, Bosnia and Northern Ireland, both enemies and allies have been truly amazed by their fitness, their determination, their courage and their professionalism. The question is, why are they so very good? The answer is that their training and discipline are extremely thorough and very robust. They deliver first-class young men and women with absolute confidence in themselves and their commanders. Any threat to training is therefore profoundly serious, and we would be grateful for an assurance from the Secretary of State tonight that there is no intention to degrade the rate of training or the ability to train the large numbers of manpower that are required for the very high tempo of operation, and for his absolute assurance that he is satisfied that service training is not being degraded across all three services.
  The pressures on the armed forces mean that the reserve forces are being intensively used. I pay a warm tribute to all those involved for the tremendous skills and enthusiasm that they bring. The Territorial Army, in particular, has been heavily used. In operations in the Gulf, I understand that the reserves account for 25 per cent. of the total deployment. The question is: do we give them a fair deal?
  On 1 October 2003, The Times reported that some of the 5,800 reservists mobilised compulsorily for war duty in Iraq were given such short notice that they had no time to prepare their families or their employers. Some employers did not even know that they had reservists on their payrolls and complained to the Ministry of Defence about a serious lack of information. This is not acceptable.
  I understand that the problem is being addressed. Indeed, I chaired a session at the Royal United Services Institute conference on the use and call-up of the reserves. Of course, there are lessons to be learned and the Ministry of Defence will learn them, but I would be grateful if the Secretary of State could give us an update. How long does he believe that we can expect to maintain this level of commitment from the Territorials? Does he therefore believe that an increase in the strength of the Territorial Army is necessary given the extraordinarily increased demands on it and the great value that it provides?
  Andrew Selous: I was a Territorial for 12 years. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to consider the peacetime employment protection of our reserve forces? Given that we give local councillors the right to attend council business for a limited time in their working hours, is it not outrageous that there is no right in peacetime for our reserve forces to undertake the training that they need to be competent at time of war? Does he not agree that we should consider this issue?
  Mr. Soames: Yes, I do. When my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) returns from his service in the Gulf, we shall

  221
  put him to work to see how we can better operate. Given the extraordinary demands that the Government make on the TA, it is inexcusable that the process for a call-out should not run as smooth as silk.
  I hope that the House realises how extraordinarily lucky we are in Great Britain to have such armed forces. At every level of command in all three services, and indeed throughout all ranks, they are truly formidable in their standards both personally and professionally. In their teamwork and in their highly developed sense of cohesion, duty and obligation, they are an institution that forms a matchless asset for Great Britain in the pursuit of our aims and interests both at home and abroad. It is of enormous credit to the quality of the forces' leadership that, in a period of considerable upheaval, they have retained exceptional flexibility combined with great clarity of purpose and endeavour.
  As I said, we welcome some of the items in the Queen's Speech. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes said, we particularly welcome the proposal for an armed forces pension and compensation Bill—an issue to which we will wish to give detailed scrutiny. However, my message to the Secretary of State is that we believe that, whatever the Government's intentions, it looks as though the armed forces of the Crown are being used as a political pawn in a high-stakes poker game over the future defence of Europe. It is not good enough.
  5.34 pm
  The Secretary of State for Defence(Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): May I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) on his well-deserved, although belated, return to the Front Bench? However, I must warn the House that that is likely to have extraordinarily serious consequences on the Ministry of Defence's budget. I have already authorised emergency action to reallocate extra funds to the catering corps. As I speak, our best logisticians are scouring our stores to find a suitably sized set of combat clothing.
  Mr. Soames: I have already got one.
  Mr. Hoon: But does it still fit?
  I also congratulate the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) on her superb maiden speech. On behalf of Labour Members, I am especially grateful for her moving tribute to Paul Daisley, her predecessor. That was most appreciated and I thank her very much.
  When my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary opened the debate, he outlined the common series of security threats that we and our allies face. First, and most obviously, international terrorism presents a real and immediate danger, and we saw the devastating consequences of terrorism yet again in Istanbul. Secondly, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction technology and the delivery systems required to launch attacks pose a direct threat to our peace and security as access to technology and production becomes easier. Our obvious concern is that international terrorists will manage to acquire such weapons. The third key challenge concerns weak and failing states that are characterised by political
  222
  mismanagement, ethnic and religious tensions or economic collapse, which in turn can lead to humanitarian crises and mass migration. Such circumstances may provide an environment in which terrorism and organised crime can flourish.
  Therefore, to achieve our foreign policy and security goals, we will need to engage directly with our international partners. We will need a still more joined-up approach across Government to ensure that the diplomatic, economic and political instruments available to us are used to best effect. However, the ability of the UK to project and deliver armed force is, and will remain, a vital instrument of our foreign and security policy. Not every problem demands a military solution, but as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary pointed out, we must be prepared to act when and where necessary.
  The challenge that I put to the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex remains the same as that which I put to his predecessor. If he says that the armed forces are overstretched, which I do not accept, he must explain which of the challenges that the Government took up to act as a force for good in the world he would not have undertaken—that is the issue. Unless Opposition Members wish to remain permanently in opposition, it is no good for them to criticise without addressing that question. Unless and until they answer the question, they cannot pretend to form a fit and proper Opposition that could act as a Government.
  Mr. Keith Simpson: To help us to answer that question, will the right hon. Gentleman provide us with the detailed information that we require in the White Paper, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) suggested, or will there be merely a long essay?
  Mr. Hoon: I shall deal with the White Paper shortly and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will read it with interest in due course. White Papers are always designed to set out the principles of Government policy. I am sure that if he consults all the White Papers published while the Conservative Government were in office—I accept that that Government are fading a little in the memory, but nevertheless they published White Papers—he will see that they adopted the same practice, which this Government will follow.
  British forces have conducted a series of successful combat and stabilisation operations in recent years. They fought against international terrorism and its supporters in Afghanistan, achieved peace and greater stability in Sierra Leone, East Timor, the Balkans and the Democratic Republic of Congo, and most recently, of course, undertook high-intensity combat in Iraq, where they are currently engaged in stabilisation operations. Those successes are in no small part due to the excellence of the brave men and women who serve in the United Kingdom's armed forces. We owe them and their families a debt of gratitude.
  Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Secretary of State confirm how many troops are still in the Congo and tell us his plans for their future? Will they be joined by further UN staff and what hopes does he have for a solution?
  Mr. Hoon: A small number of international forces remain in the Congo. Then presence has been largely

  223
  successful, but I recognise that it is in a limited area. The problem in the Congo is much wider than that, however. The country is large and still unstable.
  Donald Anderson: Will my right hon. Friend say more about peacekeeping and peacemaking in Africa? From time to time, the point is made that Africa should provide its own peacekeeping forces, albeit trained by outsiders such as the US, the UK and the French. South Africa already plays a part in the DRC. Surely, with the African Union, there should be greater efforts to help Africa to help itself across the board politically and economically, but ultimately with military forces.
  Mr. Hoon: My right hon. Friend is right. He refers to the training efforts under way on behalf of the South African Government. He will be aware that the British Government support those efforts not only financially, but by providing people to work with members of South Africa's armed forces to give the training that he describes. In addition, British forces intervened to stabilise the situation in Sierra Leone after a ruthless and bloody uprising. They are still there, training its armed forces. I have been privileged to visit Sierra Leone a number of times and have seen their excellent work. Our armed forces also appreciate that work. They get enormous satisfaction from providing the high-quality training that they enjoy and from extending the benefit of that to Sierra Leone. Stability for its armed forces is crucial to the country's future.
  Mr. Dismore: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the continent of Africa, will he comment on the situation in northern Uganda, which many constituents have raised with me? The civil war has caused serious humanitarian problems there. Is there anything we can do to help?
  Mr. Hoon: The Foreign Secretary extended his apologies to the House for not being here at the end of the debate. Unfortunately, he did not leave his notes behind. However, I do not anticipate that in each and every country of the African continent there is necessarily a military solution. That point is well taken by the Opposition Front Bench in relation to our geography tour of the African continent. I am sure that my observations will be noted by those who are here representing the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. No doubt they will write to my hon. Friend.
  The Government plan to introduce a Bill to provide enabling powers to bring in new pension and compensation arrangements for the armed forces. The new pension scheme will continue to be based on defined benefits at a time when such schemes are under increasing pressure in the private sector. It will provide equal terms for officers and other ranks, and benefits for spouses will be extended to include unmarried partners in a substantial relationship. The new arrangements will offer a high level of assurance for service personnel appropriate to the demands of military service.
  The Gracious Speech also set out the Government's intention to publish a defence White Paper before the end of the year. It will provide a comprehensive
  224
  statement of defence policy and the security and policy baseline against which future decisions will be made. The Government remain committed to the process of reform and change set out in the strategic defence review and the new chapter. An expeditionary capability will be even more necessary for future operations. Counter-terrorism and counter-proliferation operations in particular will require rapidly deployable forces that can respond swiftly to intelligence and achieve precise effects in a range of potential theatres across the world.
  The White Paper will set out the need for flexible armed forces that are structured and equipped to deploy globally and rapidly on a small and medium scale, able to link up with our allies quickly and effectively when they arrive in theatre. Future priority will be given to meeting a wider range of expeditionary tasks at a greater range from the UK and with increased strategic, operational and tactical tempo.
  The White Paper will also set out the case for change to exploit new technologies while restructuring those force elements that are less relevant and less useful in meeting future challenges. The focus will be on capabilities rather than on volume or numbers of platforms, with the emphasis on the delivery of military effect. I assure the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex and the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) that contrary to speculation about cuts in the Army, no decisions have been made on numbers or regiments. The same point was made by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell), who is also back from the Chingford chill but double-hatted now, being on both the Opposition Front Bench and the Opposition Back Benches. I am delighted that he participated in the debate.
  I shall address some of the other issues raised during the debate. Right hon. and hon. Members rightly referred to the arrangements for commemorating the 60th anniversary of D-day next June. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on Monday 24 November during the British-French summit, Her Majesty the Queen and he have been invited to lead the United Kingdom's participation in the commemorations next June. A programme for parades and services are planned in Normandy. A number of units are planning to attend, although it is too early as yet to provide precise details.
  Across Government, a range of measures have been agreed to support the celebrations, including the provision of free one-year passports for veterans who wish to attend second world war commemorations. A 50 per cent. discount has been generously offered by P&O Ferries for veterans' groups travelling to Normandy in 2004.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) sought clarification of the Government's intentions—
  Mr. Dismore: There is some other unfinished business arising from the second world war, and that is the question of the civilian prisoners of the Japanese. My right hon. Friend knows that the Government introduced a generous compensation scheme. Unfortunately, some people were omitted from the scheme because their grandparents were not born in

  225
  the United Kingdom. Several of my constituents are in that position. I know that there has been litigation involving the campaign group and the Department, which was not successful for the group. However, these people feel a real sense of injustice. Many of them are UK residents, and have been for some time. Will he think about this issue again?
  Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue, which has been a difficult one. A great deal of detailed consideration was given to eligibility issues when the initial scheme was devised. As he said, that scheme was the subject of litigation. In accepting the judgment of the courts, the Government sought to extend that scheme as fairly and consistently as we could, without necessarily opening it up to all-comers. I invite him to recognise that for every extension of the scheme, we would bring in not only his worthy constituents, but the worthy constituents of all other right hon. and hon. Members. That is not something that we can accept. If he writes to me about the particular case, I will ensure that it is considered carefully in the context of the revised scheme as currently operating.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Devizes sought clarification of the Government's intentions to support the celebrations to mark the 300th anniversary of our association with the people of Gibraltar. We intend to play a full part in celebrating the warm relationship that we have enjoyed with the people of Gibraltar for the past 300 years. There is an extensive programme of commemorative events to take place in Gibraltar next year, in which I certainly intend to take part.
  The bands of the Royal Marines, the Royal Engineers and the Royal Air Force, and the pipes and drums of the Royal Irish Regiment. are planning to participate in four major events. The Royal Gibraltar Regiment and military units from the United Kingdom, including Royal Navy ships and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary will take part in a total of more than 20 events throughout the year. I hope that that more than satisfies the right hon. and learned Gentleman's ambition in terms of the UK's involvement.
  As for the provision of support for our troops in Iraq, I remind the House that the operation to support more than 40,000 members of the armed forces in Iraq was the biggest logistical effort undertaken by the armed forces for more than a decade. I recognise, and have told the House before, that while there were some individual shortfalls, the overall effort was a considerable success. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife raised the case of Sergeant Roberts. I have met Mrs. Roberts and members of the family to discuss their case. I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the House will understand that, as the death of Mrs. Roberts's husband is currently the subject of a detailed investigation, it would be inappropriate for me to comment at this stage.
  I shall deal with the observations about NATO made by the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes. It is increasingly clear that our response to the security threats that we face needs to be taken in conjunction with our allies and partners, whether it be diplomatic and economic engagement or the deployment of
  226
  military force. It is wrong and dangerous to talk of the need to make a choice between the United States and Europe. Those who founded NATO recognised that a strong relationship between European states and the United States offers the best prospect for international peace and stability. NATO will continue to provide the collective forum through which we can defend, discuss and promote our common security interests. But NATO itself also needs to reform and change. We will need to continue to develop the crisis management and expeditionary capability of NATO and encourage members of the alliance more effectively to develop their own military capabilities.
  Some commentators have in recent times predicted the end of NATO, questioning its relevance. In fact, the alliance has made itself still more necessary. While fighting was continuing in Iraq, NATO agreed to take over the international security assistance force in Afghanistan, its first operation outside the traditional Euro-Atlantic area. NATO's June ministerials reaffirmed the unity of the alliance and its commitment to implement the Prague agenda. Since then the alliance has made progress on its transformation agenda, with agreement on a newly streamlined command structure. The interim operating capability of the NATO response force has been established ahead of schedule. NATO continues to be relevant and to develop in ways that are relevant to today's security challenges.
  As the House will know, the UK is also a strong supporter of developing EU military capabilities on a basis that complements NATO. The EU has now established an operational security and defence policy with the military structures needed to support it, though recognised shortfalls remain to be met before the Helsinki headline goal is achieved in full. One of those is, indeed, strategic heavy lift, as the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) identified. However—and I hope that he gives us credit for this—the UK has made a significant contribution in that respect and intends to go on doing so.
  The successful EU-led action in Macedonia and the Democratic Republic of Congo provides evidence that an EU crisis management capability is now a reality. Those operations illustrate the complementary role that the European security and defence policy plays, where NATO as a whole is not engaged, as a means of supporting the EU's common foreign and security policy. It is vital that, in the process of engagement with the EU that the Government are setting out, we are capable of improving European military contributions. Without that, NATO itself will be weakened.
  I simply invite Opposition Members who have criticised the EU's involvement to recognise the need to engage European nations, through whatever mechanism is appropriate, in the improvement of their military capabilities. [Interruption.] I hear the suggestion from those on the Opposition Front Bench that this is about money. It is about increasing the amount spent by European nations in their own defence, but it is also, crucially, about encouraging those nations to spend that money more effectively.
  Donald Anderson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is also, crucially, about where the operational

  227
  decisions will be made? If they were to be made at SHAPE—Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe—they would be intimately linked with NATO. If they were to be made at Kortenberg, the point of principle would be conceded, and even though that might be a small baby at the moment, there would be a danger of it growing in a way that some in the Union want but which is very different from the path on which we set out.
  Mr. Hoon: We have made clear the need to avoid duplicating military capabilities. Returning to the point about more money, we have debated consistently in the House the importance of reforming the UK's military capabilities to take account of the very significant changes in the strategic environment. We need to develop structures in NATO and complementary structures in the EU to persuade our partners and allies to embark on the same course. Many have started on that course, but they need to go further and they need to go faster; otherwise we will see not only a weakening of Europe's contribution to NATO, but a weakening of NATO's position. In the new spirit that pervades the Opposition these days, I invite them to start thinking hard about the importance of European defence, rather than simply having these knee-jerk reactions to that important development.
  Mr. Soames: The right hon. Gentleman is in danger of reducing this to a facile argument. There are very important issues at stake, and those are made more serious by the astonishing behaviour of the French and German Governments over the stability pact. Does he accept that reliability is a major factor, and that there is a real question arising from the fact that in these alliances we depend on people turning up, with the kit that they say they will have, on the day that they are due to turn up? People remain extremely anxious about anything that would be outside the NATO umbrella, where all the good military practice exists, which the right hon. Gentleman knows is the key to all successful military operations.
  Mr. Hoon: I do not necessarily disagree with the hon. Gentleman, but he is missing the point that I was making. It is a matter of improving European military capabilities and the various ways in which that can be achieved. [Interruption.] I hear from the shadow Foreign Secretary that that must be within NATO, but that is not always so. Not all the United States forces are committed to NATO. Not all of the United Kingdom's forces are necessarily always committed to NATO. It is about developing and harnessing national military forces to be used in the context of NATO and in the context of United Nations operations—coalitions of the willing. It is about having usable, effective military forces. I invite the Opposition to think about how to engage other European nations in that process.
  We agree across the Dispatch Box that the United Kingdom has gone a long way towards ensuring that our armed forces are usable and effective in the modern strategic environment. The challenge for the Opposition is to ask themselves why, in a knee-jerk
  228
  anti-European spasm, they feel the need to criticise any effort made by the European Union to achieve a perfectly proper outcome—the improvement of European military capabilities. They say that they want to improve European military capabilities, but they deny the means of achieving that through the European Union. I invite them to consider that as they refresh their policy.
  Mr. Mark Francois: Will the Secretary of State concede that there is a difference in principle between allowing military units to serve in certain operations under NATO and in certain operations under the EU, and establishing a rival military planning headquarters for the EU, which would be a direct rival to what already exists at SHAPE? That is a fundamental change and it is wrong for him to try to fudge that.
  Mr. Hoon: I am not in any way trying to fudge that. I said that the developments in the European Union and the improvements in military capability, whether they are in structures, items of equipment or trained forces, need to be complementary to the efforts made through NATO. I emphasise to the House once again that it is important that NATO reforms. NATO was, and largely still is, couched in the cold war. Too much of its organisation, bureaucracy and committees are based on cold war concepts. The challenge for most of our European partners is how to re-organise their armed forces to ensure that those forces are capable, as I believe ours are, of dealing with a modern strategic reality.
  Mr. Soames: I imagine that the Secretary of State was intimately involved in the defence capabilities initiative at NATO, where the capabilities have not moved on. He accuses us of being anti-European, but why does he believe that those capabilities would move on outside NATO, when there already exists a coherent, joined-up command structure, with all the means of delivering our military requirements?
  Mr. Hoon: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are countries that give greater weight in their international relationships to membership of the European Union than to membership of NATO. It seems eminently sensible that we should encourage those countries to develop military capabilities. whether through the mechanisms of the EU or through NATO. What difference does it make in the end, if we get better military forces that are better organised and better structured to engage in overseas operations? That must be something on which everyone should agree.
  We spoke about multilateralism. That has been a recurring theme of our international relations, and is reflected in Iraq, which is a thoroughly multinational effort. There are currently more than 30 countries on the ground there, contributing military forces, and helping to set the conditions for a secure, stable and prosperous Iraq. The United States continues to provide the bulk of the international presence, but many of our European partners and a host of other countries are helping to provide security in large areas of Iraq, where there is no American presence. As well as providing much-needed military capability. such a

  229
  presence demonstrates the political will of the international community to help Iraq get back on its feet.
  There are many positive developments in Iraq that we simply do not hear as much about as we should. I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes for the tribute he paid to the work of British forces in Iraq, and for his acknowledgement of the progress being made in restoring stability there. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said that the provision of basic services—water, electricity and oil—has improved significantly. Almost all of Iraq's 240 hospitals are now functioning and the child vaccination programme is much wider and more effective than ever before, as is the system for distributing medicine. The school year began last month and more than 1,500 schools have been refurbished.
  Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Ainger.]
  Debate to be resumed on Monday next.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 30th January; 6th and 27th February; 5th, 12th and 26th March; 23rd and 30th April; 14th and 21st May; 18th June; 16th July and 15th October 2004. —[Mr. Ainger.]

SECTION 5 OF THE EUROPEAN

  COMMUNITIES (AMENDMENT) ACT 1993
  Ordered,
  That, for the purposes of their approval under section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, the Government's assessment as set out in the Pre-Budget Report 2003 shall be treated as if it were an instrument subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation). —[Mr. Ainger.]
  Question agreed to.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at the sitting on Tuesday 9th December, proceedings on the Motion for the adjournment of the House in the name of the Prime Minister relating to Fisheries may continue, though opposed, for three hours or until Seven o'clock, whichever is the later, and shall then lapse if not previously disposed of.—[Mr. Ainger.]

  SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL
  Ordered,
  That, on Thursday 18th December, there shall be no sitting in Westminster Hall. —[Mr. Ainger.]

PETITION

  Council Tax
  Dr. Andrew Murrison: I rise to present the petition of 298 residents of the Westbury constituency. The petition states:
  "To the House of Commons.
  The petition of residents of the Westbury constituency.
  Declares that high rates of council tax impose an unfair financial burden on residents, and on pensioners in particular.
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take steps to prevent rises in council tax & to safeguard the interests of pensioners.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc."
  To lie upon the Table.

Recyled Liquid Fuel
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Ainger]
6.1 pm
Dr. Andrew Murrison: Lafarge Cement works has submitted an application to the Environment Agency to run a trial using recycled liquid fuel. RLF is a soup of things that no one wants: it includes windscreen wash, antiseptic, nail varnish remover, cosmetics, paints and thinners, and photographic material. The cement works already co-incinerates tyres with coal and coke, but there are serious questions about the way in which the Environment Agency has managed permissions to burn tyres. It is therefore understandable that the local public are concerned that their interests will not be adequately protected in relation to RLF. The use of tyres as a substitute fuel has been driven by the need to comply with European Union directives, including the landfill directive. Given that imperative, it is easy to see how the Environment Agency, as an agency of Government, could be steered in a direction that might not be in the direct interest of people who live cheek by jowl with what has become, by the back door, an incinerator in west Wiltshire.
Lord Whitty wrote to me on 30 October in response to a petition raised in my constituency that requested a public inquiry into the use of RLF at the Lafarge Cement works. He was not minded to grant the request, which is a pity, as I believe that there is a need to examine and test in public the evidence on RLF and tyre burning. It is a pity that we are not at this juncture to have the opportunity of a full public inquiry into both matters. I shall press the Minister for the Environment on that point later in my speech, and I am grateful for the opportunity to bring my constituents' concerns to his attention. I am indebted to the Air That We Breathe Group based in Westbury, West Wiltshire district council, Wiltshire Friends of the Earth and, indeed, Lafarge Cement and the Environment Agency for their input. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) shares my concerns, as Devizes lies downwind of the cement works. He has asked to be associated with my remarks
Let me say at the outset that the cement works in Westbury is a very good local employer. Lafarge, formerly Blue Circle, is actively engaged in the community in west Wiltshire, and provides £10 million a year for the local economy. As a heavy manufacturing concern, it is something of rarity in rural west Wiltshire, and broadens our economic base considerably. The Environment Agency, as the principal statutory authority involved, has a lot of work to do to convince me and, more importantly, my constituents, that the disposal of waste as fuel at the plant will not pose a danger to public health.
The use of substitute fuels is governed by the Environment Agency's substitute fuels protocol, which, unsurprisingly, the cement industry, wants to amend. Indeed, recent decisions by the European Court of Justice have paved the way for that. The Environment Agency says that it is consulting the public on proposals
232
to revise the protocol, and is having its own "big conversation". How closely the end result will match public opinion rather than the directives of various European institutions is a matter for speculation. That is especially the case as the Environment Agency does not seem to like public consultations. Its director of environmental protection wants to trim the current requirement to consult, and says that there is no need to consult twice, first in the run-up to a trial for an alternative fuel and again before a commercial licence is granted. I hope that the Minister for the Environment agrees, in the spirit of the big conversation, that that is not the way ahead.
I worked with the Environment Agency before I became an MP, and developed a healthy respect for it, so I am somewhat saddened that it has not gained the confidence of the public in west Wiltshire. Historically, monitoring procedures regulated by the Environment Agency in connection with the cement works could have been better. Contrary to the impression given at the time, there was no like-for-like comparison of emissions between the old coal/coke regime and the current co-incineration of tyres. Moreover, recent data show that total particulates have gone up since tyres have been burnt at Westbury, and other key pollutants have either gone up or not been monitored at all.
We have little idea of what the electrostatic precipitators in the chimney at the Westbury plant are removing. Surprisingly, the Environment Agency does not seem to know whether they remove small particles—the so-called PM2.5s, which measure 2.5 microns across or less and have recently been linked to a range of human illnesses. If PM2.5s are venting to atmosphere, there is a potential problem with RLFs. One does not need a GCSE in chemistry to appreciate that halogens are an integral part of solvents. Halogens cling to small particles, so the co-burning of RLFs may increase the amount of highly toxic halogen leaving the plant.
To make matters worse, it seems that we will be disposing of other people's toxic waste. The UK management plant for the export and import of waste sets out policy on the trans-frontier shipment of waste. It is based on the EU waste framework directive, and it rightly bans the import of waste for disposal. However, when is waste not waste? The answer is when the European Court of Justice says that it is an energy recovery material. In other words, people cannot import French RLF to burn in a designated incinerator but they can if it is heading up the A350 to be burnt as a fuel at the French-owned Westbury cement works.
The Environment Agency may refuse the Lafarge application following the receipt of a health impact assessment from the primary care trust. That assessment is overdue, and is eagerly awaited. However, the Environment Agency stated from the outset, in a slightly prejudicial way, that it was minded to allow the trial. The Minister may have a view on that, and he will perhaps agree with me that if a trial is permitted at Westbury, it must be subject to the heaviest scrutiny. It must have a minimum three-month baseline monitoring period so that changes in atmospheric pollution during the burning of RLF and afterwards can be properly

233
assessed. Monitoring must be geographically exhaustive and continuous, as required by West Wiltshire district council and neighbouring authorities. That will allow the agency to move away from its heavy reliance on modelled data. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes would insist that monitoring be carried out up to and beyond Devizes. Lafarge has undertaken to pay for monitoring, but it must be conducted rigorously, independently and to the satisfaction of the district councils involved. Any possible impact on the food chain must be clarified, and I hope that the Minister will outline the Food Standards Agency's involvement.
It must be clear to the public during any trial period that air quality is not deteriorating. If it is, the trial must be stopped immediately. Assurances must be given to my constituents living along the A350, and particularly in the town of Westbury and the villages of Yarnbrook and West Ashton, that they will not be put at risk from tankers bearing toxic material. If that assurance cannot be given, transport by the existing rail link into the cement works must be a condition of the trial.
Finally, and this is vital, if the Government are to have any chance of convincing sceptics such as me that our backyard has not become home to a back-door incinerator, there must be an unequivocal undertaking that unless any trial gives confirmation of environmental benefit, no definitive permissions shall be granted at the end of the trial.
Lord Whitty has rejected a public inquiry at this stage. I very much regret that, because such an inquiry would have clarified many issues, both to do with RLF and other novel fuels. Certainly it was the wish of my constituents that one should be carried out at this juncture. I hope that the Minister can give me some of the assurances that my constituents seek today.
6.10 pm
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): I congratulate the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) on securing the debate, and I assure him that the Department's and the Government's priority is to ensure that the very best environmental standards apply. It is perfectly reasonable for people to raise questions about the impact of changes, in this case in relation to what is burned in cement kilns, but I am sure that he would agree that, if one is to take people's legitimate concerns seriously, it is not reasonable to distort the arguments or unnecessarily frighten or worry people when there are no grounds to do so.
I should like to correct one point that the hon. Gentleman made about the EU hazardous waste directive. That is entirely a matter for the company and its commercial decisions; it is not driven by the Environment Agency. The agency has no involvement in the implementation of the directive, only in monitoring. The changes are a matter for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. We will deal with those, but that does not necessarily involve the burning of such wastes in cement kilns. We do not want to set hares running without justification.
As the hon. Gentleman rightly states, the Environment Agency is involved in the evaluation. I do not have all the details in relation to the emissions
234
that he mentioned, but for the record, I do have some figures in relation to the emission limits set for the Westbury cement works for 2000 to 2003, and they have been tightened up. For example, the oxides of nitrogen limit has been reduced by 43 per cent., from 3,528 mg to 2,000 mg per cubic metre, and the particulates limit, which he mentioned, has been reduced by 55 per cent., from 78 mg to 35 mg per cubic metre. That demonstrates that the agency is doing its job in terms of applying good standards in relation to the operation of the works. I have considerable confidence in the operation of the agency, which influences such matters as calls for public inquiries.
As the hon. Gentleman rightly states, under regulation 17 of the Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000, the operator, Lafarge, applied for a variation to the integrated pollution prevention and control permit on 18 June to allow the trial use of RLF, and the hon. Gentleman explained what that was.
Such waste liquid solvents have been used in other cement works in the UK and elsewhere in Europe for over a decade, so the technology is not new and the risks associated with it are well known and understood. The Environment Agency is considering the application under its substitute fuels protocol. The protocol is readily available on the agency's website and includes an extensive consultation process. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that consultation is important, as is access to information, subject to normal commercial confidentiality.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that no decision about the application for a variation to the IPPC permit has yet been made by the Environment Agency. For six months after a decision is made, it would be open to Lafarge to appeal to the Secretary of State if the company were aggrieved by the decision. For that reason, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, in view of the company's legal rights, it is inappropriate for me to speak in great detail about the application or the determination process.
I have noticed the coverage of the issue in the local press, which understandably reflects local concerns. However, it is important that local newspapers, too, adhere to the facts. I have seen references to such things as "poisonous clouds". We shall not tolerate clouds of poisonous gases—that will not be tolerated by DEFRA or the Environment Agency. I repeat that we take people's concerns seriously, but they must be judged on the basis of the facts so that there can be proper evaluation of the risks and of the restrictions and protection to which people are entitled.
The hon. Gentleman has called for a public inquiry and he has written to my noble Friend Lord Whitty. I understand that he was motivated in part by a paper presented by the Environment Agency to the board of its regional environmental protection advisory committee. My impression is that that has been understood to mean that the agency is automatically in favour of the application. However, my understanding is that the paper asks the committee to comment on how the Environment Agency should determine applications to burn waste as a fuel in instances where the waste could not be reused or

235
recycled. The agency appears to be seeking expert opinion on draft proposals, and I do not think that that action merits a public inquiry.
Similarly, I see no justification for the Secretary of State to call in the variation application for her determination. Rules apply both to such procedures and to public inquiries. The main rule is whether the issue is one of national controversy or importance. I do not doubt that it is of considerable local importance. I understand that, and I respect the hon. Gentleman's right to raise points in the House and directly with DEFRA. That is entirely proper and appropriate. I also respect people's right to ask questions and to seek assurances that there will be proper monitoring of the trial. However, as the, process has been used for nearly a decade in the UK and in Europe, the matter is not of national importance—it is not new in that sense.
With the greatest of respect, I point out to the hon. Gentleman that there are many public inquiry applications of that type. These days it seems to be the fashion immediately to demand a public inquiry, whatever the issue. We have confidence in the Environment Agency to carry out its duties and to follow its procedures. We cannot hold a public inquiry whenever there could be a controversial decision; otherwise we would be bogged down with endless inquiries. Procedures are in place; when a change is of national significance it is appropriate to hold a public inquiry. Although I understand local concerns, they do not fit that category, so an inquiry is not warranted under the rules that are currently applied.
The hon. Gentleman said that there should be proper monitoring. I agree If the trial goes ahead, I understand that there will be thorough monitoring of the process. That is what DEFRA expects and it certainly applies in other trials of that type. I would expect the information to be made available publicly, subject to the caveat of commercial confidentiality, and I cannot see why much of it should not be provided. I again agree that it is a matter of reassuring people and answering their concerns.
236
I understand that the Environment Agency will also look into other issues, particularly the safe storage of any recycled liquid fuel at the works, should that be required. I take the point about lorry movements in the area. There are rules in relation to the movement of any kind of hazardous waste. They apply to all vehicle movements and we would expect them to be applied. I was interested in what the hon. Gentleman said about the rail link. Rail links are often an advantage in moving bulky goods. I do not know whether, if the trial gets off the ground now or in future, that would be appropriate given the quantities going into the works. I certainly hope that it would be considered on environmental grounds, if it were appropriate. I stress, however, that for it to be economic, large loads are generally required. I am not at all sure that the quantities that we are talking about are large ones. Obviously, that issue will be considered and determined in the application.
In conclusion, I fully understand local concerns. There are always local concerns about changes of this kind that involve incineration. That is common across the country. I live downwind of a power station that burns waste—in this case, meat and bone meal from cattle that have been taken out of the over-30 month scheme. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, that is not uncontroversial in itself, so I well understand local concerns.
The priority from the environmental point of view is to ensure that the methods are justified and properly monitored, and that there are rules and procedures in place to protect the health of people in the area and to minimise the potential impact on the environment. We expect the EA to put those criteria in place as part of any monitoring of this trial, if the trial is given the go-ahead. I can assure the hon. Gentleman of that. I am sure, too, that the EA will be only too happy to discuss with him personally, should he so wish, the details, monitoring procedures and any other points that he would wish to raise on behalf of his constituents.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Six o'clock

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

  Big Conversation
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Leader of the House what visits(a) he and (b) Ministers in his Office (i) have made and (ii) plan to make using public funds in connection with the Big Conversation; how many civil servants accompanied each Minister in respect of such visits; what the cost to public funds was of visits by (A) each Minister and (B) civil servants in connection with the Big Conversation; and if he will make a statement. [143101]

  Mr. Hain
  The Labour Party is consulting its members and the wider community on the Government's progress and challenges ahead. The Big Conversation is a party document and has been issued by the Labour Party.

  Ministers and special advisers have of course participated in this process according to the rules laid out in the Ministerial Code and the Special Advisers Code. No events have been held using public funds, and no civil servants have attended them.

  Fair Trade Products
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Leader of the House whether it is the policy of his office to use fair trade products, as a matter of course, in(a)sales on Departmental premises and (b)receptions and meetings involving staff and visitors. [142808]

  Mr. Hain
  My office does not have a refreshment facility in which it could stock and sell fair trade products.

  While there is currently no Government-wide approach to the procurement of fair trade products, we will endeavour to use them for official entertaining, subject to this being value for money.

DEFENCE

  Boards of Inquiry
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the result was of the investigation held into the death of Private David Shipley by the Royal Military Police Special Investigation Branch; on what date a board of inquiry was convened; and what its principal recommendations were. [142114]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Board of Inquiry convened on 15 September 2003 and is on-going. Her Majesty's Coroner has yet to convene his inquiry. It would therefore be inappropriate to release details of the police findings at this stage.

  Defence Estates
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what expenditure is planned on defence estates upgrades in each year up to 2008; and if he will make a statement. [141660]

  Mr. Caplin [holding answer 8 December 2003]
  Our current planned provision or the funding of the UK estate is:

  2003–04–£760 million

  2004–05–£930 million.

  No planned provision figures are available after that date.

  Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft Progamme
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the tanker programme.[142720]

  Mr. Ingram
  We are currently considering proposals from two consortia that are bidding for the Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft programme. We plan to make a decision on this complex and important PFI competition as soon as possible in the new year.

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the protocol is for debriefing soldiers who have served an operational tour in Northern Ireland. [142739]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are no formal protocols for debriefing soldiers after they have served an operational tour in Northern Ireland. However, as with any operational deployment, on their return, units are required to produce a Post Operational Tour Report.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the incidents in the Troubles since 1973 involving members of the British Army which resulted in deaths and injuries to members of the armed forces; and which regiment was affected in each case. [142746]

  Mr. Ingram
  Since 1973 a total number of 474 members of the Army died as a result of terrorist activity in Northern Ireland. The number of Army personnel injured from 1973 is 4,645. This figure relates primarily to injuries which were incurred while on duty, however, the manner in which data has been historically complied means some injuries off duty may have been included.

  It is not feasible to list each death, injury and which Regiment was involved since 1973 as the data is not held on one particular format and that information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  St John's Wood Barracks
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been carried out of the real estate value of the St. John's Wood Barracks. [142711]

  Mr. Caplin
  The last assessment by agents in 2002 concluded a value of £6.65 million.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Higher Education
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much has been spent per student in higher education in each of the last 30 years. [142633]

  Alan Johnson
  Information on the funding per student at higher education institutions in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales is a matter for the devolved administration. The table as follows shows the public funding per student at higher education institutions in England since 1989–90.

  Publicly planned funding per student via HEFCE/TTA in real terms, 2002–03 prices

  £(rounded to nearest £10)

  1989–90

  8,150

  1990–91

  7,420

  1991–92

  7,050

  1992–93

  6,530

  1993–94

  6,170

  1994–95

  6,000

  1995–96

  5,740

  1996–97

  5,360

  1997–98

  5,200

  1998–99

  5,200

  1999–2000

  5,190

  2000–01

  5,130

  2001–02

  5,170

  2202–03

  5,170

  2003–04

  5,310

  2004–05

  5,340

  2005–06

  5,500

  Information for earlier years was published "Higher Education in the learning society", the report of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education chaired by Lord Dearing. The information required is in chart 3.16 of that report. A link to that report is available at www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/ncihe.

  2003

  Males

  Females

  Mean (£)

  Number in sample

  Standard error (%)

  Mean (£)

  Number in sample

  Standard error

  Unitary Authority

  Portsmouth

  450.3

  207

  3.6

  384.7

  108

  4.5

  Southampton

  457.4

  234

  3.0

  —

  110

  5.1

  Borough

  Basingstoke and Deane

  —

  199

  5.2

  —

  126

  5.6

  East Hampshire

  —

  122

  6.4

  —

  73

  6.8

  Eastleigh

  569.7

  156

  4.9

  —

  95

  5.6

  Fareham

  563.3

  123

  4.0

  375.8

  78

  4.5

  Gosport

  406.2

  79

  4.2

  —

  67

  5.5

  Hart

  —

  104

  5.9

  —

  58

  7.2

  Havant

  —

  142

  6.1

  345.4

  82

  3.9

  New Forest

  —

  178

  5.2

  364.7

  121

  4.7

  Rushmoor

  530.6

  113

  4.7

  —

  70

  7.3

  Test Valley

  —

  126

  5.4

  —

  82

  5.5

  Winchester

  —

  110

  7.5

  —

  58

  6.3

  Minister for Children
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, whether the Minister for

  Household Earnings (Hampshire)
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills for the most recent year available, what were the(a) male, (b) female and (c) two earner household average earnings for people resident in (i) each borough within Hampshire, (ii) Portsmouth Unitary Authority and (iii) Southampton Unitary Authority in 2003. [143120]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Mark Hoban, dated 9 December 2003:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the average earnings of (a)males, (b)females and (c) two earner households for people resident in (i) each borough within Hampshire, (ii) Portsmouth Unitary Authority and (iii) Southampton Unitary Authority in 2003. (143120).

  I attach a table showing the average gross weekly pay including overtime for (a) males and (b) females for people resident in (i) each borough within Hampshire, (ii) Portsmouth Unitary Authority and (iii) Southampton Unitary Authority in 2003. The information on average earnings for two earner households is unavailable.

  The New Earnings Survey (NES) publication criteria states that all estimates with a sample number less than 30 or a relative standard error greater than 5% must be suppressed. A large number of estimates have been removed from the lists due to the suppression criteria. The information is based on the 2003 NES, the latest survey for which data are available.

  New Earnings Survey, April 2003

  Full time employees on adult rates whose pay for the survey pay period was unaffected by absence.

  Analysis by males and females living in Portsmouth UA, Southampton UA and each of the boroughs within Hampshire.

  This table provides the number of data used for each area, an estimate of the average gross weekly wage and the relative standard error of the estimate (the standard error expressed as a percentage of the average gross weekly wage).

  Children sought advice from departmental officials subsequent to writing her letter to the Chairman of the BBC about child abuse in Islington; and if he will make a statement. [142986]
  359W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  At the point when the letter to the BBC came into the public domain, the Minister of State for Children, Young People and Families consulted Departmental Officials to ensure that she followed the procedures laid down in the Ministerial Code.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many of his Department's private finance initiative projects were completed(a) on time and (b) on budget; and of those that overran in terms of (i) time and (ii) budget, who bore the cost. [141663]

  Mr. Miliband
  Each schools PFI project involves a separate contract between the relevant local authority and a private sector contractor, and, for a variety of reasons, timetables of work may change from that which was envisaged when the contract was signed. It is not possible therefore, for DfES to hold a record of the circumstances of each completion. However, where there have been difficulties, these have generally been brought to our attention by the LEA concerned. These cases have been a small proportion of the total number of completions.

  The responsibility for any overrun in terms of time and budget in any PFI project rests with the PFI contractor. Overruns in traditionally funded building projects are fairly commonplace but happen less frequently in PFI projects as the financial consequences of any overrun rest with the private sector.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, how many school private finance initiative schemes are being examined by the Project Review Group. [141664]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Project Review Group (PRG) meets approximately every six weeks. At its meeting on 18 November it considered and approved two schools PFI projects. Currently there are four schools PFI projects to be considered at the next meeting on 16 December.

  Top-up Fees
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much money has been spent in the last six months on advertisements to promote and explain top-up fees; how many advertisements have been broadcast; and what the total planned spending is on this campaign. [142642]

  Alan Johnson [holding answer 8 December 2003]
  The Department has not run any advertising in the last six months to promote and explain top-up fees. However, it has run advertising to inform those considering applying for a higher education course about the

  Student Support Scheme—student numbers and proportions

  Academic year

  1998/99

  1999/2000

  2000/01

  2001/02

  Number (Thousand)

  % of eligible students

  Number (Thousand)

  % of eligible students

  Number (Thousand)

  % of eligible students

  Number (Thousand)

  % of eligible students

  Full or partial contribution towards the cost of tution from student/parents/spouse/partner3

  133

  55

  263

  55

  397

  58

  415

  57

  360W
  student support package available to them and how to apply. This is an annual campaign and was launched last month with radio, magazine and poster advertising costing £240,000.

  There is information on the proposed changes to student finance in the campaign leaflet and website which are publicised in the advertising.

  A second wave of this advertising for young people is planned for the New Year at the same weight and cost.

  In parallel, we are also running advertorials in women's magazines for parents of those considering applying for a higher education course. The cost of this is £174,000, giving a total campaign cost of £654,000.

  All costs exclude VAT.

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what rules govern the impact on the estate of an individual should he or she die owing student loans acquired to pay tuition fees; and whether he proposes that the forthcoming legislation should change the rules. [142702]

  Alan Johnson [holding answer 8 December 2003]
  Loan repayments are cancelled if a borrower dies before the loan is paid off. We have no intention of changing that policy in respect of loans for variable tuition fees from 2006.

  Tuition Fees
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much he estimates will be raised by student tuition fees in the current financial year. [141139]

  Alan Johnson
  It is estimated that institutions in England will receive £847 million in tuition fees for home and EU students in 2003–04. Updated projections will be issued shortly.

  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students have been paying tuition fees in each year since they were introduced; and what proportion of the total student population this represents. [142532]

  Alan Johnson [holding answer 8 December 2003]
  New student support arrangements came into effect at the start of academic year 1998/99 when new entrants to higher education were expected to contribute towards the cost of their tuition. The amount of the contribution depends on family income.

  The number and proportion of students eligible for support in England and Wales in academic years 1998/99 to 2001/02 (latest year for which data are available) who have been assessed to make a partial or full contribution towards the cost of their tuition is shown in the table.
  361W

  1Contributions towards the cost of tuition are assessed by local education authorities in England and Wales for students normally domiciled in their area and studying in the UK.

  2Data for academic year 1998/99 comprise the cohort of students who entered higher education in that year; data for 1999/2000 comprise the 1998/99 and 1999/2000 cohorts; data for 2000/01 comprise those who entered in 1998/99, 1999/2000 and 2000/01; and data for 2001/02 comprise those students still in study from 1998/99 onwards and new entrants from 2001/02.

  Includes students who withdrew from their course before the fee due date (and therefore no fee payment was made by the local education authority). In 1998/99, includes estimation for students who, because they did not expect to receive a contribution towards the cost of their tuition from public funds, did not make an application to their local authority.

  Source:

  F503G survey of local education authorities.

  National level data are published annually in the Department's Statistical First Releases (SFRs) (SFR 11/ 2003 for 2001/02).

  Universities UK
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on how many occasions he and his ministerial colleagues have met Universities UK during the last 12 months. [143103]

  Alan Johnson
  My right hon. Friend and other Ministers regularly meet representatives of Universities UK in the course of normal business.

  West Herts College
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps he is taking to ensure that there is provision for life-long learning in the Hemel Hempstead area following the closure of courses at the Dacorum campus of West Hertfordshire College. [141908]

  Alan Johnson
  The Learning and Skills Council has responsibility for planning and funding lifelong learning delivered through further education colleges. The local LSC for Hertfordshire commissioned a Strategic Options Review of West Hertfordshire College, which reported in September 2003. The local LSC will shortly be publishing an action plan for public consultation which will take into account the finding of the review. The local LSC and the college are also working closely with partners to ensure that the needs of all learners in Hemel Hempstead are met.

CABINET OFFICE

  Big Conversation
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what visits(a) he and (b) the Minister without Portfolio (i) have made and (ii) plan to make using public funds in connection with the Big Conversation; how many civil servants accompanied (1) him and (2) the Minister without Portfolio in respect of such

  Report number/year

  Title

  Legislative proposals

  1991

  194

  Distress for Rent

  Law of Property (Distress) Bill

  1992

  208

  Business Tenancies: Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, Part II

  Landlord and Tenant (Business Tenancies) Bill

  362W
  visits; what the cost to public funds was of visits by (A) him, (B) the Minister without Portfolio and (C) civil servants in connection with the Big Conversation; and if he will make a statement. [143097]

  Mr. Alexander
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my hon. Friend the Leader of the House gave today.

  Regulatory Reform
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, when his Department will publish the updated Regulatory Reform Action Plan. [142470]

  Mr. Alexander
  The updated Regulatory Reform Action Plan will be published later this week.

  Timber
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, by what means the policy for purchasing timber and timber products of(a)the Cabinet Office and (b)the Government Car and Despatch Agency ensures that they are obtained from legal and sustainable sources. [141662]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Cabinet Office and the GCDA's policy for purchasing timber and timber products takes account of current UK Government Timber Procurement Policy. Furthermore, the Model Contract Specification Clause is used in all new and existing contracts to ensure that purchases are obtained from Legal and sustainable sources.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIR

  Law Commission
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will list legislative proposals contained in reports published by the Law Commission since 1990 which have not subsequently been introduced. [142302]

  Mr. Leslie
  The following table sets out reports published by the Law Commission since 1990 which contain legislative proposals that have not been enacted.
  363W

  Report numeber/ year

  Title

  Legislative proposals

  1993

  218

  Offences against the Person and General Principles

  Criminal Law Bill

  1994

  222

  Binding Over

  Binding Over Bill

  226

  Judicial Review and Statutory Appeals

  Administration of Justice Bill

  227

  Restitution: Mistakes of Law and Ultra Vires Public Authority Receipts and Payments

  Restitution (Mistakes of Law) Bill

  1995

  229

  Intoxication and Criminal Liability

  Criminal Law (Intoxication) Bill

  231

  Mental Incapacity

  Mental Incapacity Bill

  1996

  237

  Involuntary Manslaughter

  Involuntary Homicide Bill

  238

  Landlord and Tenant: Responsibility for State and Condition of Property

  Landlord and Tenant Bill

  1997

  246

  Shareholder Remedies

  Companies (Members' Proceedings) Bill

  247

  Aggravated, Exemplary and Restitutionary Damages

  Damages Bill

  1998

  248

  Corruption Offences

  Corruption Bill

  249

  Liability for Psychiatric Illness

  Negligence (Psychiatric Illness) Bill

  251

  The Rules Against Perpetuities and Excessive Accumulations

  Perpetuities and Accumulations Bill

  253

  The Execution of Deeds and Documents by or on behalf of Bodies Corporate

  Instruments(Formalities) Bill

  1999

  257

  Damages for Personal Injury: Non-Pecuniary Loss

  Damages (Role of Jury) Bill

  262

  Damages for Personal Injury: Medical, Nursing and other Expenses; Collateral Benefits

  Damages for Personal Injury (Gratuitous Services) Bill

  263

  Claims for Wrongful Death

  Fatal Accidents Bill

  2001

  270

  Limitation of Actions

  Limitation Bill

  272

  Third Parties-Rights against Insurers

  Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Bill

  2002

  276

  Fraud

  Fraud Bill

  2003

  283

  Partnership

  Partnership Bill

  Legal Finance
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, how much was spent on experts' fees(a) from the Community Legal Service budget and (b) from the Criminal Defence Service budget in 2002–03. [141416]

  Mr. Leslie
  Information on experts fees paid as part of the Community Legal Service is not held centrally by the Legal Services Commission and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  For criminal cases the majority of payments are made out of central funds and came to £5.1 million. This figure includes interpreters' costs. Payments may also be paid out of the Criminal Defence Service through a payment made by the defending lawyer to an expert. Details of these payments are not held centrally and can be obtained only at disproportionate costs.

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, if he 364W
  will list the five (a) county and (b) magistrates courts in England which granted the greatest number of non-molestation orders in the last year for which figures are available. [142224]

  Mr. Leslie
  The five county courts that granted the most non-molestation orders during 2002 are listed in the table together with the Principal Registry of the Family Division which covers much of the London area. Data relating to the magistrates courts is not complete and a comparative list is unavailable.

  County court

  Orders made

  Principal Registry of the Family Division (which covers much of the London area)

  1,540

  Croydon

  784

  Edmonton

  552

  Teesside

  509

  Brentford

  464

  Leeds

  435

  365W

  Matrimonial Disputes (Wales)
  Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, what budget has been provided in Wales by the Legal Services Commission in respect of(a)legal advice and (b) legal representation in relation to matrimonial disputes in (i)2002–03 and (ii) 2003–04. [142409]

  Mr. Leslie
  Regional budgets are not set for legal advice and representation in relation to matrimonial disputes.

HEALTH

  Primary Care Trusts
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what freedom primary care trusts have had to make their own decisions about what contracts best meet the needs of their local population. [142557]

  Mr. Hutton
  Primary Care Trusts work closely with their Strategic Health Authorities when planning any contracts for local services. PCTs have the freedom as well as the responsibility to deliver the right level of care to meet patients' needs locally, as well as national NHS requirements.

  Binge Drinking
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he proposes to take to tackle the health problems associated with alcohol and binge-drinking. [142558]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government's Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy for England will be published and implemented from 2004, in line with the commitments given in the NHS Plan. The strategy will be a cross-cutting effort on the part of Government and other key stakeholders to tackling the harms associated with alcohol misuse, including binge drinking.

  Dental Services (East Devon)
  17. Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with East Devon Primary Care Trust about the provision of dental treatment in East Devon.[142559]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  We recognise that access to National Health Service dentistry can be difficult in some areas and that there may be growing pressure in East Devon. I have announced additional resources totalling £59 million over this year and next to support dental access. The NHS locally will be able to apply for funding from these new resources to increase access locally.

  Welfare Food Scheme
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Welfare Food Scheme. [142560]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The current Welfare Food Scheme has served many families well since 1940, but no longer meets their nutritional needs. We have therefore taken powers in the Health and Social Care 366W
  (Community Health and Standards Act) 2003 enabling reform. We will shortly publish a response to our autumn 2002 consultation on reform, and will consult on draft regulations in 2004.

  Passive Smoking
  20. Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State if he will make a statement on his Department's latest research on the health effects of passive smoking. [142562]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health is currently updating the available data on secondhand smoke and its report is awaited.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the provision of information technology for general practitioners under the new GP contract. [142564]

  Mr. Hutton
  Primary Care Trusts, rather than individual general practitioner practices, will be responsible for funding the purchase and maintenance of information technology systems. This will form part of Integrated Care Record Services that will be implemented by the National Programme for IT. This has been supported with £20 million additional funding.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new whole time equivalent general practitioners have taken up post since 1999. [142565]

  Mr. Hutton
  The estimated number of additional whole time equivalent general practitioners, who have taken up post between September 1999 and June 2003 is 5,750.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for health if he will make a statement on plans to review the number of health service non-departmental public bodies. [142566]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Secretary of State for Health announced his intention to review the Department's non-departmental public bodies along with its other arm's length organisations to the Health Committee on 30 October. We want to ensure that roles of the Department's arm's length bodies are in line with current expectations and that the oversight of front-line health and social services is kept to an acceptable minimum. We expect that the review will reach its conclusions by the middle of next year.

  Alcohol Treatment Programmes
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the Government's strategy document on alcohol treatment to be published; what the reason for the delay is; and if he will make a statement. [141984]

  Ms Blears
  I have been asked to reply.
  367W
  On 19 September the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit published their Interim Analytical Report on the harms associated with alcohol misuse. This will help inform the development of the cross-governmental alcohol harm reduction strategy for England. The final report setting out the strategy will be published in time for implementation to begin in 2004, and in line with commitments given in the NHS Plan.

  Alzheimer's
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence of Ebixa as a treatment for Alzheimer's; which health authorities have allowed it to be prescribed; and if he will make a statement on the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery and the use of Ebixa. [141415]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) is appraising memantine (Ebixa) as part of the eighth wave of its work programme. The anticipated publication date of its guidance is May 2005.

  The Department has asked national health service bodies (in HSC 1999/176) to continue with local arrangements for the managed introduction of new technologies, including drugs such as memantine, where guidance from NICE is not published at the time the technology first became available. These arrangements should involve an assessment of all the available evidence. Information about which NHS bodies are currently allowing memantine to be prescribed is not collected centrally, but data collected about prescribing shows that memantine has been prescribed on the NHS in all strategic health authority areas.

  The National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery medical committee has considered the use of memantine and has agreed to prescribe it under certain protocols and shared care agreements.

  Chiropody/Podiatry
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received on chiropody and podiatry. [142550]

  Dr. Ladyman
  In the last three months we have received an estimated 22 representations on chiropody and podiatry from right hon. and hon. Members, representations from the other place and relevant organisations and others.

  Contaminated Blood Products
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people died in each of the last five years as a result of contamination by blood products(a) from HIV/AIDS, (b) from hepatitis C and (c) co-infected with HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C; and how many who were found to be suffering from each such contamination in each of those years remain alive. [142588]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The number of haemophilia patients infected with HIV/AIDS from infected national health service blood products registered with the Macfarlane Trust who have died in the last five years are shown in the table.
  368W

  Number

  1998

  22

  1999

  19

  2000

  24

  2001

  13

  2002

  12

  The total number of registrants who remain alive is 397.

  Information on the total number of patients who have died in each of the last five years from hepatitis C as a result of infection through NHS blood products and the number who remain alive in each of those years is not collected.

  The figure on the total number of patients co-infected with HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C who have died in each of the last five years is not collected. The latest information from the United Kingdom Haemophilia Centre Doctors Organisations shows the total number of co-infected patients alive at 1 January 2000 is 469.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on deaths of people with haemophilia from hepatitis as a result of receiving contaminated transmissions of blood within the NHS; [143115]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the levels of compensation payments offered to people who have contracted hepatitis as a result of receiving contaminated blood; [143116]

  (3) what plans he has to compensate the relatives of patients who have died through having received contaminated blood on the NHS. [143117]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) on 19 November 2003,Official Report, column 1106W.

  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in(a) Leeds and (b) the UK have contracted (i) HIV and (ii) hepatitis C as a result of being given contaminated blood products; and how many (A) have died, (B) cleared the virus and (C) remain infected in each case. [143183]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Figures for the Leeds area are not available.

  The number of people directly infected with HIV/ AIDS as a result of National Health Service treatment with blood or blood products and who have been or are currently registered with the Macfarlane and Eileen Trusts in the United Kingdom is 1284.

  The total number of Macfarlane and Eileen Trust registrants who have died is 876.

  The number of people who have been infected with HIV as a result of NHS treatment with blood or blood products and cleared the virus is not known but is presumed to be zero.

  The number of Macfarlane and Eileen Trust registrants who were directly infected with HIV as a result of NHS treatment with blood or blood products and who remain infected is 408.
  369W
  Following the announcement of a financial assistance scheme for those inadvertently infected with hepatitis C, figures for the number of people infected, the number of people who have died and the number of people who remain infected are still being finalised.

  Genetics White Paper
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will announce the successful bids for research funding arising out of the White Paper on Genetics.[142563]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Commissioning Groups considering submitted proposals for research on gene therapy for single gene disorders, including cystic fibrosis, and on pharmacogenetics are to meet early next year to identify successful applicants. Details of the successful bids will be published in the National Research Register located on the Department's web site at www.doh.gov.uk/research/nrr.htm.

  HIV/AIDS
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the incidence of HIV/AIDS in the UK; and what change there has been in the incidence in the last 10 years.[141328]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The numbers of new diagnoses of HIV infection reported in the UK for the last 10 years are shown in the table. These are a mixture of new (incident) cases and new diagnoses of longer-standing infections.

  Year of diagnosis

  Number of HIV infected individuals1

  1993

  2,621

  1994

  2,574

  1995

  2,653

  1996

  2,692

  1997

  2,737

  1998

  2,818

  1999

  3,072

  2000

  3,825

  2001

  4,982

  2002

  5,711

  1Numbers, particularly for recent years, will rise as further reports are received.

  Source:

  Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, Health Protection Agency, data to the end of September 2003.

  Hormone Replacement Therapy
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what advice the Government are providing for women on hormone replacement therapy regarding the risk of breast cancer; and if he will make a statement. [141847]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) and its expert working group on hormone replacement therapy (HRT) have kept the safety of HRT under constant review and provided targeted advice to women and health professionals in response to important new evidence as it has emerged.

  In August 2003, the United Kingdom "Million Women" study provided important new information about the risks of breast cancer in long term HRT users.
  370W
  On the day of publication, the CSM informed women of the increase in risk that was observed in association with each different type of HRT preparation. The CSM further advised that these risks increase the longer that HRT is used, but return to normal within five years of stopping HRT. All women using HRT have been encouraged to attend regular breast screening and regularly check their breasts for any changes. Women have also been advised not to use HRT if they have breast cancer or if they have had it in the past.

  In addition, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has placed a comprehensive review of the risks, including breast cancer, associated with HRT use for women on its website. Detailed information has also been published in the safety bulletins issued by the MHRA and the Chief Medical Officer, which are also available on their respective websites.

  The patient information leaflet that accompanies each pack of medicine has contained information about the risk of breast cancer in association with HRT use for some years. This information has been regularly updated to fully reflect all important new evidence as it has become available.

  Very recently, a Europe-wide review of the overall risks and benefits of HRT has been completed. UK experts participated in this review and the CSM has endorsed its recommendations, published on 3 December 2003, that HRT should no longer be considered as the first choice treatment for the prevention of osteoporosis, for women over the age of 50 years. As with earlier advice, this information has been made available to health professionals and women through targeted communications and the MHRA website.

  NHS Live 2004
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the total budget for NHS Live 2004 is. [140904]

  Mr. Hutton
  The total budget for NHS Live will depend upon the revenue generated through sponsorship and trade show exhibition.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the organisations which have been approached to sponsor NHS Live 2004; and what amounts are being sought for such sponsorship. [140905]

  Mr. Hutton
  Sponsorship for NHS Live is being sought in accordance with Cabinet Office guidelines. No specific amount is being sought from individual sponsors. Any revenue received (or the equivalent payments in kind) will be published in the 2004 Departmental Report.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what involvement his special advisers have had in(a)devising and (b)organising NHS Live 2004. [141570]

  Mr. Hutton
  A steering group chaired by the Chief Medical Officer oversees the planning for NHS Live. Special advisers have had no active role in devising or organising the NHS Live event.
  371W
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, whether he will participate in NHS Live 2004. [141571]

  Mr. Hutton
  It is anticipated that my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State will address the conference or visit the NHS Live exhibition.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what criteria will be used for issuing invitations to NHS Live 2004. [141572]

  Mr. Hutton
  All National Health Service and social care organisations in England have been invited to participate in the NHS Live programme. Stakeholder organisations representing staff, patients and the public will also be invited to participate in developing the programme and in the event at Excel in July 2004.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, whether the media will be invited to cover NHS Live 2004. [141573]

  Mr. Hutton
  The media will be invited to cover the NHS Live 2004 event.

  Skin Cancer
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what action the Department is taking to tackle the rise in skin cancer cases in England. [141815]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  A new sun awareness initiative "SunSmart" was launched on 27 March by Cancer Research UK to make the public aware of the dangers of exposure to the sun. The campaign is based on the successful "SunSmart" campaign in Australia. The campaign has received funding from the United Kingdom Health Departments this year. We will be providing further funding for the campaign for next summertime.
  The campaign's aim is to increase the profile of the issue of skin cancer and methods of effective sun protection.

  The key objectives are to increase knowledge of the causes of skin cancer, to increase awareness of actions that can be taken to prevent skin cancer and to influence positively attitudes to sun protection.

  Subject to further funding, longer-term aims are to reduce sunlight exposure through changes in behaviour and environment, to increase the proportion of people reporting with early stage disease and decrease the proportion of people presenting with late tumours.

  The campaign's key messages have been disseminated by way of an alert to the campaign and mailshot pack of posters and leaflets to all general practitioner surgeries and health promotion units nationally, an alert to the campaign and mailshot to secondary schools with 3,500 leaflets and posters; and a series of press events over summer 2003, with leaflets and posters targeted in cities and seaside resorts. The effectiveness of the campaign is being evaluated and the lessons learnt will be fed into future development of the campaign.
  The Department has separately developed the "SunSafe" web pages last year, designed with children in mind and these are available on the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk/sunsafe. Sun awareness
  372W
  information is also contained on the "Wired For Health" website at www.wiredforhealth.gov.uk/teaching/sun/ intro.html.

  We continue to fund annually the Meteorological Office to provide the daily Ultra-Violet index in the media (TV, radio, Meteorological Office website).

  The Department also provides core funding to the National Radiological Protection Board, which provides expertise on ultra-violet radiation issues.

  Solid Waste Incinerators (Health Risks)
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to update the research on(a)angiosarcoma, (b) lymphohematopoietic cancers and (c)cancer incidence near municipal solid waste incinerators. [142632]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department has no plans to carry out further research on angiosarcoma. The independent expert advisory Committee of Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and Environment that any potential risk of cancer from residency near to municipal solid waste incinerators was exceedingly low and probably not measurable by the most modern epidemiological methods. Therefore, no further research is planned on cancer incidence near municipal solid waste incinerators.

  The Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) recommended in its third report an investigation of the geographical distribution of childhood cancer and leukaemia in Great Britain and how the pattern of cases around nuclear installations compares with the national pattern. This study is nearing completion and the Department has asked COMARE to advise on which, if any, nuclear installations in Great Britain have incidences of childhood cancer and leukaemia in their vicinity which are statistically outside the distribution seen nationally. COMARE hopes to report on this aspect of the study to the Department early next year. When complete, the database will also allow investigation of other environmental factors and their potential relevance to the temporal and spatial distribution of childhood cancer.

  Waiting Lists/Times
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking, in response to the 45th Report of Session 2001–02 by the Committee of Public Accounts on Inpatient and outpatient waiting in the NHS, to reduce the regional variations in (a)waiting lists, (b)waiting times and (c) different specialisms. [142561]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has put a number of measures aimed at reducing inpatient and outpatient waits in the National Health Service and to improve access as outlined in the NHS Plan. Local action continues to implement these measures in reducing local variations in waiting lists, waiting times and different specialties.
  373W

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Big Conversation
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Solicitor-General what visits(a)she and (b)Ministers in her Department (i) have made and (ii) plan to make using public funds in connection with the Big Conversation; how many civil servants accompanied each Minister in respect of such visits; what the cost to public funds was of visits by (A)each Minister and (B)civil servants in connection with the Big Conversation; and if she will make a statement. [143160]

  The Solicitor-General
  Neither the Attorney-General nor I have made any such visits using public funds or accompanied by civil servants and none are currently planned.

  Sand Yachting
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Solicitor-General, what the basis was for the request by the Attorney-General to the Crown Prosecution Service to provide him with an update on whether sand yachting should be allowed to continue at St.Anne's. [142623]

  The Solicitor-General
  I refer the hon. Member to the Attorney-General's letter to him dated 3 December 2003, in which the Attorney stated the following:"I indicated in my last letter that I had asked the CPS to provide me with an update, including the future of sand yachting in the area. I made this comment on the basis that I could see that the CPS decision regarding a criminal prosecution would be relevant to those responsible for licensing sand yachting in the area. The issue of whether sand yachting should be allowed to continue is not a matter for the CPS to determine, as their review of these tragic events is restricted to the more limited issue of criminal culpability."

PRIME MINISTER

  Art Acquisition
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister how much his Office has spent on the acquisition of works of art in each year since 1997, broken down by amounts spent on(a) paintings and (b) sculpture; what the single most expensive piece of art purchased by his Office since 1997 was; how much it cost; and what the total revenue raised by his Office through sales of its works of art has been since 1997. [142365]

  The Prime Minister
  My office has neither sold nor bought paintings or sculptures since 1997.

  Big Conversation
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Prime Minister, what visits(a) he and (b) Ministers in his Department (i) have made and (ii) plan to make using public funds in connection with the Big Conversation; how many civil servants accompanied each Minister in respect of such visits; what the cost to public funds was of visits by (A) each Minister and (B) civil servants in connection with the Big Conversation; and if he will make a statement. [143162]
  374W
  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend, the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Hain) gave him today.

  House of Lords Reform
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister, what continuing role he intends to propose for the Joint Committee on Reform of the House of Lords; and if he will make a statement. [142799]

  The Prime Minister
  The Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform published a press notice on 12 November, together with correspondence between my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Falconer of Thoroton) and my right hon. Friend, the Chairman of the Committee, (Mr. Jack Cunningham) on this issue. Copies are available in the House Library.

  Ministerial Duties
  David Davis
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the(a) role, (b) duties and (c) responsibilities of (i) Mr. Jonathan Powell and (ii) the Deputy Prime Minister. [143200]

  The Prime Minister
  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State deputises for me as required across the range of my responsibilities at home and abroad.

  The Deputy Prime Minister chairs Cabinet Committees on domestic affairs, environment and local government; and Sub-Committees on energy policy social exclusion and regeneration.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has responsibility for policy on local and regional government, local government finance, planning, housing, urban policy, the Fire Service, the Neighbourhood Renewal Unit, the Social Exclusion Unit, the Regional Co-ordination Unit and the Government Offices for the Regions.

  Jonathan Powell is my Chief of Staff and is appointed on special adviser terms. He has direct responsibility for leading and co-ordinating operations across Number 10 and reports to me.

  David Davis
  To ask the Prime Minister what arrangements are in place for delegation of Prime Ministerial duties and responsibilities if the Prime Minister were unable to perform his duties for a period of time. [143201]

  The Prime Minister
  If I am absent for any reason then appropriate arrangements would be put in place as has been the practice under successive administrations.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister, if he will set out the circumstances under which he would authorise the use of UK nuclear weapons. [142568]

  The Prime Minister
  As has repeatedly been made clear, the British Government would only contemplate the use or thereat of use of nuclear weapons in extreme
  375W
  circumstances of self-defence. We would not use our weapons, whether conventional or nuclear, contrary to international law.

  Queen's Speech
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister, if he will bring forward proposals to replace the Queen's Speech with a statement to Parliament by the Prime Minister setting out the forthcoming legislative programme. [143032]

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Composting
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the steps she is taking to promote composting. [142343]

  Mr. Morley
  Defra has set up the Waste Implementation Programme (WIP) to help local authorities meet their targets for reducing the landfilling of biodegradable municipal waste under the Landfill Directive. One of WIP's programmes being taken forward by the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) is to promote kerbside recycling and composting best practice in local authorities.

  This sub-programme has two components:

  A Recycling and Organics Technical Advisory Team (ROTATE) which will provide technical advice to local authorities needing to implement and improve kerbside recycling, with an emphasis on organics collections systems. This is supported by £14.9 million over the next three years.

  An Organics Materials Programme which provides material-specific support and investment to the growing composting sector. It aims to develop markets in compost, with headline targets of increasing the market share of compost in the landscaping and horticultural markets by 35 per cent. and 30 per cent. respectively, by end 2006. This is supported by £12.2 million over the next three years.

  These targets will be achieved through a range of activities including:

  development of compost standards;

  business development initiative for emerging compost companies;

  marketing and product development targeted at the landscaping and horticultural sectors.

  Defra also provides £272,000 over three years to the Composting Association to raise awareness and increase the understanding of composting and uses of compost.

  In addition, Defra's Waste Minimisation and Recycling Fund has supported composting schemes run by local authorities. In 2003–04, 21 green waste-only kerbside schemes and five composting site developments received funding.

  Crop Spraying
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received from(a) the
  376W
  Department of Health, (b) the Health Protection Agency and (c) the Countryside Agency regarding the consultation documents (i) plans for greater access to information about crop spraying and (ii) proposals for buffer zones between spraying areas and residential properties in England and Wales. [141961]

  Alun Michael
  The Pesticides Safety Directorate has not received representations from the Department of Health, the Health Protection Agency or the Countryside Agency regarding the informal consultation on plans for greater access to information about crop spraying or the formal consultation on proposals for buffer zones.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to obtain Land Cover Map information from the Centre of Ecology and Hydrology in order to calculate the number of people in England and Wales living directly adjacent to fields sprayed with pesticides. [141962]

  Alun Michael
  I have asked the Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD) to carry out a Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) on proposals for the introduction of no-spray buffer zones between agricultural spray operations and residential properties. That will include consideration of evidence on the number of people in England and Wales living directly adjacent to fields sprayed with pesticides.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what plans she has for a formal public consultation on greater access to information on crop spraying; [141963]

  (2) what plans she has to implement (a)a mandatory and (b) a voluntary pilot for proposals in the consultation paper, plans for greater access to information about crop spraying. [141966]

  Alun Michael
  The Pesticide Safety Directorate (PSD) issued approximately 1,500 consultation documents for the informal consultation on greater access to information on crop spraying. In addition, a series of meetings were held with interested parties.

  Some 500 written responses were submitted to the PSD, reflecting a broad range of opinions, and officials are currently processing these. Some parties, in responding to the consultation, made the suggestion of running voluntary or mandatory pilot schemes.

  Consideration whether to issue a formal consultation, or to carry out pilot schemes, will be given by ministers after the responses have been analysed.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how many submissions her Department has received to the consultation on Plans for greater access to information about crop spraying; and how many favoured proposals to oblige pesticide users to(a) keep a public register of what pesticides they have used and (b) notify surrounding households when they are going to spray a pesticide, identifying the pesticide; [141964]

  (2) how many submissions her Department has received to the consultation on Plans for greater access to information about crop spraying which are in favour

  377W
  of disclosure of the records of pesticide use (a) directly to members of the public and (b) to parties acting on their behalf. [141965]

  Alun Michael
  The Pesticides Safety Directorate has received about 500 responses to the informal consultation on options for greater access to information about crop spraying. A series of questions were asked in the consultation document, with the aim of identifying practical arrangements for notification and disclosure of pesticide spray activities. Officials are now processing the responses, which contain a broad range of views, but it is possible to identify some general trends.

  The majority of respondents were broadly in favour of greater access to information on pesticide spraying activities in general terms. However many raised potential practical difficulties with respect to the implementation of the proposals, particularly in respect of the issue of prior notification.

  The majority of responses favoured the proposal to oblige pesticide users to keep a public register of what pesticides they had used. In general, members of the public were in favour of direct disclosure of spray records while farmers and industry groups were broadly in favour of disclosure via a third party such as a doctor or lawyer or via a Regulatory Authority.

  Dredging (River Tyne)
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress has been made in discussions between her Department and the Port of Tyne Authority concerning the dredging of the River Tyne and the disposal at sea of contaminated sediment; and what the present position is regarding the dredging and disposal. [140644]

  Mr. Morley
  The Port of Tyne Authority (PoT) applied for a licence in February 2003 to dispose of 315,123 cubic metres of sediment dredged from wharves within the port to the Souter Point disposal ground. Some sediments are contaminated with Tributyl-tin and heavy metals.

  Defra and its advisers from the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquatic Science (CEFAS) have met the PoT on a number of occasions to discuss potential disposal options. I met representatives of the port authority on 3 December.

  On the basis of the currently available information, the levels of contamination are such that we would not be prepared to licence simple disposal of the sediments at sea. I also appreciate that land based disposal or remediation would be prohibitively expensive.

  We have therefore suggested that:

  the PoT should carry out limited further sampling to (a) determine the characteristics of the sediment down to the proposed dredging depth and (b) more closely determine the extent of the most contaminated material. A sampling methodology is to be agreed.

  with assistance from CEFAS, the PoT should prepare a methodology for confined disposal (capping of the contaminated material with clear material) at Souter Point including a strategy for monitoring the effectiveness of this approach.

  378W
  Subject to the results of this work, we would then be prepared to license the disposal of at least part of the amount applied for on this basis.

  Flood Protection
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the new structures for(a) flood defences and (b) flood protection are; and what assessment she has made of efficiency savings in terms of (i) costs and (ii) manpower resulting from the introduction of new structures. [142040]

  Mr. Morley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the conclusions of the flood and coastal defence funding review on 12 March 2003. These include the transfer of responsibility for rivers creating the greatest flood risk to the Environment Agency; funding the Environment Agency through a single stream of Defra grand in aid; and introducing a single tier of flood defence committee by abolishing the local tier where it exists but creating additional regional committees where this is considered appropriate.

  These measures are not designed primarily to secure cost or manpower savings. Rather they are designed to help achieve a more assured, streamline, effective and accountable service of flood defence and flood protection, that achieves a better reduction in flood risk nationally for the investment made.

  Defra is however working with the Environment Agency on process improvement which will take account of the changes referred to above, further rationalise scheme appraisal and approval processes and reduce the proportion of overheads in scheme costs.

  Fly-tipping
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total cost to landowners of clearing their land of waste that has been fly-tipped was in each of the last five years; how many convictions for fly-tipping have been secured by the Environment Agency; and what the total amount of fines paid arising from these convictions was. [142590]

  Mr. Morley
  No national data is available on the cost to landowners of clearing illegally dumped waste on private land.

  The Environment Agency has kept separate data on fly-tipping prosecutions since the beginning of calendar year 2002. Before the time, fly-tipping was not distinguished on their database from other Environmental Protection Act (1990)

  s.3 and 34 offences.

  2002 (Calendar Year)

  Number of prosecutions—252

  Fines—£228,620

  2003 (to end of October)

  Number of prosecutions—210

  Fines—£225,702

  Grand Totals (1 January 20 02–31 October 2003)

  Number of prosecutions—462

  Fines—£454,322

  379W

  GM Crops
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) on what basis the herbicide regime for use on GM maize was chosen for the farm-scale trials; what role Aventis (now Bayer) had in its choice; what international research was conducted to establish whether this was a commercially realistic regime to control weeds; and what research she has conducted on whether farmers in other countries use more aggressive herbicide mixes; [142304]

  (2) what arrangements were made to ensure that farmers growing the GM trial crops managed them in a commercially realistic manner; and whether they were (a) required and (b) allowed to respray if the crop was under threat from excess weeds and was unlikely to produce an optimum yield. [142305]

  Mr. Morley [holding answer 8 December 2003]
  The herbicide regime used by farmers growing GM maize in the farm-scale trials was proposed by the product manufacturer, AgrEvo (now Bayer Crop Science). The way farmers could then use the product was further specified under the terms of the draft product label in line with the experimental approval. The draft product label gave farmers the freedom to apply more than one application of the herbicide if they required, providing it was within the specified crop growth stage limits.

  The experimental approval assumed use of the herbicide under UK conditions. No research was conducted on the method of use of this or any other herbicides in other countries as this was not considered necessary.

  The Scientific Steering Committee overseeing the farm-scale evaluations (FSEs) were content from the outset that the proposals for the use of the pesticide provided by the manufacturers and specified in the draft product label were capable of delivering cost-effective weed control under UK conditions. A full audit of herbicide use was conducted as part of the FSEs and published as part of the results (Champion et al. 2003). This paper also gives details of the number of GM maize fields that received more than one application of herbicide. In the published results it was concluded that cost-effective weed control had been achieved. This conclusion was endorsed by the steering committee and was further validated by the publishing journal through their peer-review process.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the Royal Society was asked to check the methodology of the farm-scale evaluation research, with particular regard to the selection of the herbicide regimes. [142423]

  Mr. Morley [holding answer 8 December 2003]
  The Royal Society was not asked to check the methodology of the farm-scale evaluations. The independent scientific steering committee was established for this purpose, and the committee endorsed both the methodology generally and the herbicide regimes in particular. The work was again independently validated by the publishing journal,The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (Biological Sciences) that operates independently of the Royal Society through its peer review process.

  GM Nation Debate
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will set up a review of the performance of the Central Office for Information in the GM public debate to investigate whether there has been mismanagement or incompetence; [142245]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the implications for the GM Nation debate of constraints on funding. [142246]

  Mr. Morley
  The debate was acknowledged as an innovative process and a learning experience for all involved. We are currently working with the independent Steering Board and COI to consider what lessons can be learned from the GM Public Debate process. We will publish our conclusions in due course.

  Hazardous Waste Directive
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what work was undertaken on preparation for the Hazardous Waste Directive in the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions; [142517]

  (2) when her predecessor Department was informed of the (a) requirements and (b) implementation date of the EU Hazardous Waste Directive. [142518]

  Mr. Morley [holding answer 8 December 2003]:
  The European Commission approved the Hazardous Waste Directive in December 1991. In common with the negotiation of other European Directives, the Government took an active part in proceedings, but there is no detailed record of the amount of work spent on preparation for this particular Directive by the then Department of the Environment.

  The implementation date for the Directive as 27 June 1995 which was set out in an amendment to the Directive approved by the European Commission on 27 June 1994. The Department would have been aware of the Directive's requirements as it was negotiated.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many staff who worked on the EU Hazardous Waste Directive in the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions transferred to her Department to continue this work.[142519]

  Mr. Morley [holding answer 8 December 2003]
  The European Commission approved the Hazardous Waste Directive in December 1991. Its requirements are currently transposed in England by the Special Waste Regulations 1996, but these are to be replaced by new regulations for hazardous waste in 2004. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) was established in June 2001 and all staff that had worked on hazardous waste policy issues in the Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions transferred to Defra to continue this work. The Hazardous Waste Branch of Waste Management Division takes the lad on these issues as well as policy work on the transfrontier shipment of waste and consists of eight staff.
  381W

  Kyoto Protocol
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the implications for UK environment policy of the statement made by the Russian authorities on 2 December on the Kyoto Protocol. [142793]

  Mr. Morley [holding answer 8 December 2003]
  The Government believe that the Kyoto Protocol, with its binding targets and timetables, is an essential first step in international action to tackle climate change, though of course much greater cuts in greenhouse gasses will be needed.

  President Putin stated at the World Conference on Climate Change in Moscow in early October that the Russian Government was still analysing the economic implications of ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. The statement made by President Putin's economic adviser on 2 December does not appear to be an official statement of policy, and we look forward to a decision from the Russian Government when they have completed their assessment of the Kyoto Protocol.

  The Secretary of State and I are attending the ninth Conference of the Parties on the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Milan, where Parties will be putting the finishing touches on preparations for entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol.

  Marine Protection
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the(a) work, (b) resourcing and (c) institutional membership of the Marine Environment Monitoring Group. [141668]

  Mr. Morley
  The Marine Environment Monitoring Group (MEMG), formerly the Marine Pollution Monitoring Management Group, is a group of representatives from the Government organisations with marine environmental protection monitoring obligations. The group is chaired by a representative from the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS). Its aim is to ensure that monitoring of the marine environment is conducted in a co-ordinated way, is as cost-effective as possible and meets national and international requirements.

  MEMG has no specific resources. The Departments and agencies who are members support the work of the group, and carry out the monitoring which it seeks to co-ordinate, as part of their own operations.

  The core members of MEMG are:
  Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Sciences
  Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Environment Agency
  Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (Northern Ireland)
  Environment and Heritage Service (Northern Ireland)
  Fisheries Research Services Marine Laboratory, Aberdeen
  Scottish Environment Protection Agency
  The National Assembly for Wales (Environment Division)
  Scottish Executive Rural Affairs Department
  Sir Alister Hardy Foundation for Ocean Sciences
  Joint Nature Conservation Committee
  IACMST Marine Observations Action Group
  382W
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what resources her Department has committed to support the work of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. [141669]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  No specific resources are committed directly to support the work of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) other than an annual subscription of approximately £130,000. However, an indirect resource commitment to ICES arises from the participation of scientists from the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS), a Defra agency, in ICES science and advisory working groups, and in the governance of ICES itself. These working groups cover areas of marine and freshwater fisheries, aquaculture, the environment and the ecosystem. The Current chairs of the Resource Management Science Committee and the Advisory Committee on the Ecosystem are currently also CEFAS scientists.

  My predecessor, my hon. Friend the member for Scunthorpe (Elliot Morley) also signed, on behalf of the UK, the "Copenhagen Declaration" in 2002 in celebration of 100 years of ICES, wherein we affirmed our continuing support for ICES.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what regulatory impact assessments have been prepared by her Department in respect of agreements made on the control of radioactive substances under the OSPAR Commission; and if she will place copies in the Library. [141670]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department published the UK Strategy for Radioactive Discharges 2001–2020 in July 2002. This constitutes the UK national plan for achieving the objective of the OSPAR Strategy with Regard to Radioactive Substances and it includes a regulatory impact assessment. Copies of the UK Strategy are in the Library.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which OSPAR priority areas in the radioactive materials sector have been volunteered to date by the United Kingdom as ones on which UK scientists will undertake basic scientific work as the lead country for OSPAR; which other areas are being considered for volunteer research; and if she will make a statement on United Kingdom relations with OSPAR. [141671]

  Mr. Morley
  UK experts are closely involved in the work programme of the OSPAR Radioactive Substances Committee. Current tasks for which the UK is the lead country are the preparation of proposals for reporting on discharges of radioactive substances from oil and gas installations and proposals for harmonised reporting procedures for inputs of radioactive substances from the non-nuclear sector.

  UK experts have also participated in three inter-sessional working groups to establish the baseline situation regarding radioactive substances in the marine environment, against which progress in achieving the objective of the OSPAR Strategy with regard to Radioactive Substances will be assesssed. In addition, a

  383W
  UK expert is a member of the Radioactive Discharges Expert Assessment Panel, which examines trends in discharges from nuclear installations.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what joint assessment and monitoring is being undertaken by UK-based scientific institutions on behalf of OSPAR; and if she will publish a list of current research projects in collaboration with OSPAR. [141672]

  Mr. Morley
  OPSAR agreed a revised Joint Assessment and Monitoring Programme at the Commission meeting in Bremen in June. A copy is in the Library of the House, and is available on the OSPAR website www.ospar.org. A large number of scientific institutions provide data which is used to fulfil the reporting requirements in respect of UK waters. These include the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquatic Science, the Environment Agency, English Nature, and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, and the equivalent bodies in the devolved Administrations.

  The Department has an extensive research programme on marine environmental issues, and most projects will in one way or another inform the UK's input into the work of OSPAR. In some cases, such as the development of a number of Ecological Quality objectives, this work is being done by the UK on behalf of OSPAR as lead country; in other cases, the research will inform the UK's input to debate within OSPAR. A list of the 74 projects currently in the programme can be found on the Defra website at www.defra.gov.uk/research/project_data/Default. asp.

  Recycled Products
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of the Government's total procurement of materials and products comprised recycled products in each year since 1997; and what the projections are for(a) 2003, (b) 2004 and (c) 2005. [142593]

  Mr. Morley
  Figures on recycled products and materials bought by the Government are not collected centrally and doing so would incur a disproportionate cost. In regards to the Government's current position on buying recycled paper products, I refer my hon. Friend to the Answer given to the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) on 4 December 2003,Official Report, column 146W. Data on recycled paper bought by Government is available in the "Sustainable Development in Government" and "Greening Government" reports, which are available online at www. sustainable-development.gov.uk/sdig/reports/index.htm. Copies are also available in the Library.

  Government is currently developing sustainable procurement targets under the "Framework for Sustainable Development on the Government Estate". The targets and online guidance will be published by Spring next year.

  Recycling
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, whether the 384W
  processed output from mechanical biological treatment works counts towards local authority recycling targets. [142339]

  Mr. Morley
  Mechanical biological treatment [MBT] describes a range of processes with the common purpose of treating residual waste after material recovery, to prepare it for final disposal. Where this results in the recovery of further materials that are sent for recycling or a compost that meets the criteria set for the composting indicator then these outputs will count towards local authority Best Value targets for recycling and composting.

  Regional Waste Plans
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the status of a local authority waste plan if its policies are in contravention of a regional waste plan. [142307]

  Keith Hill
  I have been asked to reply.

  Local planning authorities are required, in formulating the policies in their development plans, to have regard to regional planning guidance as well as to current national policies. Planning Policy Guidance Note 10 (PPG10), "Planning and Waste Management", sets out a number of matters that waste planning authorities should take into account in developing the waste planning strategy for their area including regional planning guidance on waste management. PPG10 also expects waste planning authorities to plan for a provision of waste management facilities that is consistent with forecasts of local and regional requirements, as well as other planning considerations.

  The weight attached to policies in a development plan depends upon the stage of plan preparation or review, increasing as successive stages are reached. Where an adopted or approved development plan contains relevant policies, section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires that an application for planning permission or an appeal shall be determined in accordance with the plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

  Rural Transport
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the future of the Rural Transport Partnership grants. [142433]

  Alun Michael
  The Countryside Agency's Rural Transport Partnership grant scheme runs until March 2004, as set out in the 2000 Rural White Paper. The Agency has recently reviewed the scheme and the outcome will feed into the Agency's and Defra's decisions on the future direction and funding of the programme. It is hoped to announce the result with the Agency's settlement in the New year.

  Sustainable Development
  Julia Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action she is taking to ensure that her Department's bid to the
  385W
  forthcoming Government spending round contributes towards the UK's objectives on sustainable development. [140493]

  Alun Michael
  Defra's key principle is sustainable development which involves balancing economic, social and environmental considerations and is consistent with the wider approach of government as a whole. In Defra an Integrated Policy Appraisal (IPA) tool, which provides a systematic framework for the identification of the environmental, social and economic impacts of a policy, is actively promoted within the department. We will apply the IPA tool to our spending plans in SR04.

  Timber
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs by what means the policy for purchasing timber and timber products of(a) the Department, (b)the Centre for Science Laboratory, (c) the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, (d) the Pesticides Safety Directorate, (e) the Rural Payments Agency, (f)the Veterinary Laboratories Agency, (g) the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, (h) the Forestry Commission, (i) the Countryside Agency and (j) English Nature ensure that they are obtained from legal and sustainable sources. [141333]

  Mr. Morley
  Details of the policy for purchasing timber are published on the Sustainable Development in Government Site. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs operates in accordance with this policy by using the model contract specification clause devised by Defra on behalf of all central government departments. This clause is designed to ensure that timber and timber products from legal and sustainable sources are supplied and that contractors provide documentary evidence to prove compliance.

  Defra's Estate Strategy and Services Division is responsible for all major works and estate management on the Defra estate and that of the Pesticides Safety Directorate, the Rural Payments Agency, the Veterinary Laboratories Agency and the Veterinary Medicines Directorate. Adherence to the timber policy for the Department and these executive agencies falls to this central body of staff, which is fully appraised of the timber purchase policy.

  The central Science Laboratory and Centre for Environmental Fisheries and Aquaculture are responsible for their own buildings and maintenance. They have also been made aware of the policy and have systems in place to ensure observance.

  The Countryside Agency has confirmed that it has adopted the Government's policy on Timber Procurement for all construction and fitting-out contracts, as evidenced by the inclusion of "Sustainable Sources Only" Condition/Clause within Invitation to Tender/Contract Specification document.
  386W
  The Forestry Commission is the Government Department responsible for forestry policy throughout Great Britain. All the woodland it manages (over 800,000 hectares) has been independently certified as being sustainably managed. On procurement, the Commission implements Government guidance to ensure that timber and timber products it purchases are only from legal and sustainable sources and records details of all such purchases.

  English Nature has confirmed that it too is seeking to purchase timber from legal and sustainable sources and that its contracts are drafted to ensure compliance with this policy.

  Water Supplies
  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what statutory responsibilities apply to(a) owners of private water supplies and (b) local authorities to ensure that water supplied for domestic consumption meets legal requirements in respect of (i) lead content and (ii) coliforms; what action they are required to take to ensure that water supplies which fail to meet required standards are improved; and if she will make a statement. [142446]

  Mr. Morley
  Any person who supplies water in connection with a commercial use is under a general duty of care to consumers, whether the supplier is a commercial supplier or is someone who offers occasional bed and breakfast facilities in their own home.

  A local authority has a general duty to take steps to keep itself informed about the wholesomeness and sufficiency of water supplies, including every private water supply, to premises in their area. A supply is normally wholesome if it meets the standards set by the Private Water Supplies Regulations 1991, which include a maximum permitted concentration for lead and a standard of nil coliform bacteria.

  Local authorities have a duty to monitor private water supplies at the frequencies set out in the Private Water Supplies Regulations 1991. Frequency depends on daily volume of supply or numbers of consumers. There is no statutory monitoring of private supplies that serve single dwellings solely for the daily domestic use of the occupants. Authorities prefer to advise such consumers informally where a supply is unwholesome.

  Where a private supply is unwholesome, a local authority may serve a private supply notice, specifying remedial steps, or one or more "relevant persons". The steps may, for example, include installing a water treatment system, replacing lead pipework or taking protective measures at the source to prevent contamination. Such persons may be owners or occupiers of premises supplied by the private supply, or of premises where the source of the supply is situated, or persons exercising management or control in relation to the source.
  387W

  Tees Estuary
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what inspection has taken place since their arrival to establish whether alien species are present in the ships which have arrived in Hartlepool for decommissioning by Able UK. [142334]
  388W
  Mr. Morley
  No inspections have yet been carried out to establish what organisms are present in the ships. Samples of the ballast water will be required to be taken for inspection and analysis before any discharge of ballast water is authorised.

TREASURY

  Influenza
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many children in the age groups(a) 0 to four and (b) five to 14 have died of influenza in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [142965]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated 9 December 2003:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking how many children in the age groups (a) 0–4 (b) 5–14 have died of influenza in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available.

  The latest available data are for 2002. Figures for the ten years 1993 to 2002 are therefore given in the table below.

  Deaths from influenza1, England and Wales, 1993 to 20022

  0–43

  5–14

  1993

  1

  1

  1994

  2

  0

  1995

  4

  0

  1996

  1

  1

  1997

  2

  0

  1998

  5

  1

  1999

  6

  2

  2000

  3

  0

  2001

  4

  1

  2002

  4

  1

  1Selected using code 487 from the International Classification of Diseases Ninth Revision for 1993 to 2000 and codes J10–J11 from the International Classification of Diseases Tenth Revision for 2001 and 2002.

  2Figures are for deaths occurring in each calendar year.

  3Excludes deaths under 28 days.

  60—year—olds
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many single(a) women and (b) men will reach the age of 60 years between 21 September and 25 December. [143078]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Mr Len Cook to Mr Steve Webb, dated 9 December 2003:

  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your question concerning the number of single women and single men who will reach the age of 60 years between 21 September and 25 December 2003.

  It is estimated that there will be 20,400 single women and 17,100 single men in England and Wales who will reach the age of 60 during this period. Single has been defined to include single (never married), widowed and divorced.
  390W
  These figures are estimates. They have been derived using the latest national population projections produced by the Government Actuary's Department.

  Data from the Office for National Statistics on the pattern of births in 1943 indicates the proportion of the projected total number of 59—year old men and women in June 2003 who will reach the age of 60 between 21 September and 25 December 2003. Date from the national population projections by marital status produced by the Government Actuary's Department have been used to estimate the proportion who are single.

  80-year-olds
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many single(a) women and (b) men will reach the age of 80 years between 21 September and 25 December. [143079]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Steve Webb dated 9 December 2003:

  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your question concerning the number of single women and single men who will reach the age of 80 years between 21 September and 25 December 2003.

  It is estimated that there will be 29,500 single women and 9,800 single men in England and Wales who will reach the age of 80 during this period. Single has been defined to include single (never married), widowed and divorced.

  These figures are estimates. They have been derived using the latest national population projections produced by the Government Actuary's Department.

  Data from the Office for National Statistics on the pattern of births in 1923 indicates the proportion of the projected total number of 79—year—old men and women in June 2003 who will reach the age of 80 between 21 September and 25 December 2003. Data from the national population projections by marital status produced by the Government Actuary's Department have been used to estimate the proportion who are single.

  Big Conversation
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what visits(a) he and (b) Ministers in his Department (i) have made and (ii) plan to make using public funds in connection with the Big Conversation; how many civil servants accompanied each Minister in respect of such visits; what the cost to public funds was of visits by (A) each Minister and (B) civil servants in connection with the Big Conversation; and if he will make a statement. [143100]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House today.

  Companies' Tax
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to propose legislation to
  391W
  require companies to publish in their annual reports a table showing the annual pre-tax profits and tax paid in each country. [142707]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The legal requirements for companies' published annual accounts are covered by the Companies Act which is within the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry. I am not aware of any plans on their part to change the legislation in the way you suggest.

  Computers (Tax Relief)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what definition of computer is used by the Inland Revenue for the purposes of the changes to tax relief on employer-loaned computers introduced in the March 1999 budget. [142248]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The tax law (section 320 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003) which sets out the benefits tax exemption for computers loaned to employees by employers does not define the term. In cases of doubt the Inland Revenue will have regard to the particular facts. In addition to the computer itself, the exemption also covers printers, scanners and other devices designed for use with a computer.

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps Her Majesty's Customs takes to check imported postal packets; and how many cases of(a) imports of banned items and (b) potential tax evasion were detected in the last three financial years. [142422]

  John Healey
  HM Customs and Excise control imported postal packets at the Royal Mail's two international postal depots at Coventry and Mount Pleasant.

  Customs controls are applied to all postal packets imported into the UK from outside the European Union using well-established risk assessment techniques to identify consignments for examination. In addition, Customs examine declarations affixed to packets to ensure that the correct customs duty, excise duty and VAT are charged and collected. This process includes risk-based testing of packets with incomplete or missing declarations.

  Customs records do not identify the number of individual packets on which tax may have been evaded as a result of mis-description or under-evaluation.

  Packets containing banned items, including drugs, tobacco products, obscene material and firearms, are seized by Customs. The following table gives the numbers of packets containing banned items which were seized in the last three years.

  Packets identified and seized

  2000–01

  21,768

  2001–02

  20,008

  2002–03

  18,218

  392W

  Euro
  Mrs. Liddell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the recent work of the Standing Committee on Euro Preparations. [143234]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Chancellor's Standing Committee on Euro Preparations met on 23 October. It welcomed new members appointed by the Chancellor, and discussed next steps for preparations, the third outline National Changeover Plan and the work of the new Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland Euro Preparations committees. They also considered the seventh Report on Euro Preparations, which was published by HM Treasury on 18 November.

  Minutes of the meeting will be available shortly on www.euro.gov.uk.

  Mrs. Liddell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the recent work of the(a)Scottish, (b)Welsh and (c)Northern Ireland euro preparation committees. [143235]

  Ruth Kelly
  Information about the work of the Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland Euro Preparations Committees was published in Chapter 3 of the Seventh Report on Euro Preparations, issued by HMT on 18 November. Minutes of the meetings are available at www.dfpni.gov.uk (Northern Ireland), www.wales.gov.uk (Wales) and www.scottishsecretary.gov.uk (Scotland).

  Film Industry
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the titles of each film production which has benefited from film industry tax relief for each year since 2001–02; and if he will make a statement.[142299]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Details of individual films that have benefited from tax relief cannot be disclosed for reasons of taxpayer confidentiality. Exemption 15 (Statutory and other restrictions) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information applies. There are two main reliefs, section 42 of the Finance (No.2) Act 1992 and section 48 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1997, available for expenditure incurred on the production or acquisition of the master version of a British qualifying film. DCMS certifies British qualifying films under the terms of the Films Act 1985. A list of qualifying films for the period since 1997 has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Iraq
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to re-assess Iraq's debt repayments to the UK to assist the reconstruction of the country. [141558]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government has made clear that we are seeking a fair and sustainable solution to Iraq's debt problems.

  We believe the most effective way to deliver a solution is for the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and other responsible international organisations, to complete first their assessment of Iraq's needs, resources and obligations. That would then be followed by a comprehensive debt restructuring by the Paris Club of official creditors and comparable treatment from other

  393W
  official and private creditors. G7 finance ministries have asked creditors to make their best efforts to complete the process by the end of 2004.

  The Government believes that Iraq's debts should be dealt with under the new "Evian approach" to debt restructuring agreed by the Paris Club in October, which offers a long-term solution for countries with the most serious debt problems, including debt reduction where a need is clearly demonstrated. The Prime Minister has made clear that he hopes creditors will be generous in recognising Iraq's needs for the future.

  London Infrastructure
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will take steps to increase investment in London's infrastucture in response to projected population increases; [143029]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the need for an increase in investment in London's infrastructure to address projected population increases. [143251]

  Ruth Kelly
  Spending plans were set out in the 2002 Spending Review for 2003–06, which included significant resources for infrastructural investment in all areas of the UK, including in London. The allocation of these resources takes in to account a number of factors, some of which relate to population. The Spending Review 2004 will also take into account these factors.

  Public Sector Efficiency Review
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out the terms of reference of the Gershon public sector efficiency review; and whether that review is able to consider the value for money of different(a) project management methods and (b) financing mechanisms [142227]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government have asked Peter Gershon to undertake an independent review of efficiency across public services. He has identified six areas of activity to focus on, and these are the areas that he believes will have the greatest impact on efficiency. They are procurement, back office functions, transactional services, productive time, policy, finance and regulation of the public sector and policy, finance and regulation of the private sector. Further details are set out in the consultation paper which was issued on 20 October, and which was made available to the House on that day.

  Regional Emphasis Documents
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the Regional Emphasis Documents to be submitted to his Department by 31 December. [143028]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Treasury does not intend to publish the Regional Emphasis Documents, which are an input to Spending Review 2004. The documents are being produced jointly in each English region outside London by the Government Office, Regional Development Agency and regional chamber. In London, the Government Office, London Development Agency and Greater London Authority are producing the 394W
  document. It is for the institutions in each region to decide whether to make the documents publicly available.

  Supermarkets
  Matthew Green
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what meetings have taken place between his Department and representatives of(a) Tesco, (b) Sainsbury's and (c) Asda, including Asda's parent company Wal-Mart in the last 12 months; and what the (i)date and (ii)subject of each meeting was. [143022]

  John Healey
  Treasury officials and Ministers frequently meet with representatives of all kinds of businesses at many kinds of events. The Department has had a number of meetings with these supermarkets to discuss a variety of subjects in the last year.

  Tax Avoidance
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information his Department has supplied to the US authorities to help them with their investigations into tax avoidance schemes designed by accountancy firms. [142718]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue cannot comment on particular cases. However, the Government regard exchange of information as essential in combating tax evasion and avoidance. The Inland Revenue regularly provides appropriate information under the provisions of agreements that provide for exchange of information.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the time scale is for the repayment of tax credit overpayments; [142252]

  (2)what methods of repayment of tax credit overpayment are available; [142253]

  (3)how many people in (a) Jarrow constituency, (b) South Tyneside, (c) Tyne and Wear, (d) the North East and (e) the UK have received tax credit overpayments. [142254]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Overpayments of tax credits are identified when circumstances and income for the tax year are known and the award is finalised. Therefore no figures for the number of families with overpayment are yet available. During the year, awards of tax credit may be adjusted when changes of circumstances are reported or to prevent an overpayment arising at the end of the year.

  The Inland Revenue's Code of Practice 26 explains how overpayments identified at the end of the year are recovered, and over what period.

  Tax Penalties
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the yield in each year since 1997 was of(a) tax penalties and (b) interest on overdue tax accruing to (i) the Inland Revenue and (ii) Customs and Excise; and what percentage of total tax revenue this represented. [142249]
  395W
  Dawn Primarolo
  The information is as follows:

  Inland Revenue

  Details of the yield, to include additional tax, interest and penalties resulting from the Inland Revenue's work tackling non-compliance are set out in the Inland Revenue Annual Reports, copies of which are in the House of Commons Library. While separate details of late filing penalties are shown, details of the full amount of other penalties included in yield figures shown are not available and could be ascertained only at disproportionate cost.

  Receipts from interest on overdue tax in the accounting years from 1997 are shown in the following table. Figures for 2002 will not be available until the Board publishes its annual report shortly.

  Total receipts (£ million)

  Interest receipts (£ million)

  Percentage

  1997

  102,431.5

  230.1

  0.23

  1998

  116,237.9

  260.1

  0.22

  1999

  125,888.9

  321.1

  0.26

  2000

  117,298.2

  319.0

  0.27

  2001

  117,842.7

  327.2

  0.27

  Customs and Excise

  The table contains information published in the Customs and Excise Annual Report. The report for 2002–03 is yet to be finalised for publication.

  All taxes and duties (£ million)1

  Fines and penalties (£ million)

  Interest(£ million)2

  Penalties and interest as percentage total yield

  1996–97

  82,381

  82

  28

  0.13

  1997–98

  90,136

  90

  33

  0.14

  1998–99

  94,033

  96

  37

  0.14

  1999–2000

  97,699

  98

  49

  0.15

  2000–01

  102,282

  103

  39

  0.14

  2001–02

  104,874

  88

  41

  0.12

  2002–03

  108,895

  106

  36

  0.13

  1Does not include penalty or interest receipts.

  2Interest is charged only on incorrect tax declarations where it represents commercial restitution.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the current interest rates(a) charged on overdue tax and (b) paid on money owed to taxpayers are; and how these figures have changed since the latest rise in base rates by the Bank of England. [142250]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information is to be found on the Inland Revenue's website at http://newinternet. inrev.gov.uk/rates/interest.htm.

  VAT (Children's Clothes)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to revise the criteria for the size of children's clothes subject to VAT. [142181]

  John Healey
  Following a review which the Government undertook with the industry and others, the scope of the zero rate was simplified and modernised in Budget 2001 to reflect more accurately the size of the average 13-year-old child. There are no plans to revise the criteria further.
  396W

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Alcohol Bans
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made of the effectiveness in tackling antisocial behaviour by the designation by local community safety partnerships of alcohol-free zones in public places; [142106]

  (2) if he will list the local authorities which have banned the consumption of alcohol in designated public places where the premises concerned are not licensed. [142407]

  Ms Blears
  Section 12–16 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (CJPA) came into force on 1 September 2001. The provisions in the Act allow local authorities to designate areas to restrict public drinking where there is evidence that nuisance is alcohol related. In such designated areas the police may use their discretionary powers to confiscate all alcohol where they reasonably believe that continued drinking in that place will lead to further disorder or nuisance. An assessment has not been undertaken on the effectiveness of designation orders.

  Under the CJPA a place is not a designated public place or a part of such a place if it is a licensed premises or a registered club. As of June 2003, over 70 local authorities had notified the Home Office that they have made designation orders under Section 13 of the CJPA to restrict antisocial public drinking in areas that have experienced alcohol-related disorder or nuisance. The local authorities were listed in the response given to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) on 18 June 2003, Official Report, column 257W.

  Air Support Units (Police)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what support he gives to police air support units; in which locations; and what bids have been submitted in the most recent round. [141196]

  Ms Blears
  £4 million is made available each year towards capital funding for police air support units in England and Wales.

  Bids currently under consideration by the Home Office for capital funding in the next financial year have been received from the following forces:

  Cambridgeshire

  Cheshire

  Derbyshire

  Dorset

  Dyfed Powys

  Essex

  Leicestershire

  Metropolitan police

  Northumbria (on behalf of the North East Consortium which includes Durham and Cleveland police)

  North Wales

  Suffolk

  West Yorkshire
  397W
  A decision on the allocation of capital funding for 2004–05 will be announced in January 2004.

  Airwave Service
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether initial problems in the implementation of the Airwave service for the police have been overcome; and whether he is able to quantify the benefit to the police of this service as indicated in the Government's response to the 64th Report of the Committee of Public Accounts of Session 2001–02, Public Private Partnerships: Airwave. [142107]

  Ms Blears
  Yes. The initial problems have been overcome. The Airwave service is now available to more than half of the police forces. It is fully operational in nine police forces, and over 30,000 users are already enjoying the benefits of modern, secure, high-quality communications.

  A Business Benefits project has been set up under the Airwave programme. It will provide a full quantitative analysis of the benefits of Airwave compared with previous police radio systems and will monitor the realisation of those benefits.

  Anti-Social Behaviour Orders
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Anti-Social Behaviour Orders have been granted for(a) juveniles and (b) adults (i) in Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (ii) in the Teesside region and (iii) in England. [141864]

  Ms Blears
  Information on the number of notifications received by the Home Office of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) issued up to 30 June 2003 (latest available) is given in the table.

  Number of ASBOs issued, as notified to the Home Office, within the Cleveland Magistrates Courts Committee area, from 1 April 1999 up to 30 June 2003

  Area

  Total issued

  Total age 10–17

  Total age 18+

  Total age not known

  Cleveland/Teesside region1

  14

  12

  1

  1

  Of which:

  From 1 April 1999 to 31 May 2000 by pfa2

  1

  0

  0

  1

  From 1 June 2000 to 30 June 2003 by local authority area

  13

  12

  1

  0

  Hartlepool BC

  6

  5

  1

  0

  Middlesbrough Council

  3

  3

  0

  0

  Redcar and Cleveland Council

  2

  2

  0

  0

  Stockton on Tees BC

  2

  2

  0

  0

  England

  1,293

  650

  493

  3150

  1The Teeside region includes Hartlepool, Redcar and East Cleveland, Middlesbrough and Stockton on Tees local authority areas.

  2From 1 April 1999 to 31 May 2000 data was collected by police force area (pfa) only on the number of orders issued or refused.

  3Includes 104 orders issued from 1 April 1999 to 31 May 2000.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many anti-social behaviour orders 398W
  have been issued in (a) the Vale of York and (b) North Yorkshire in each of the last three years. [142048]

  Ms Blears
  The number of notifications received by the Home Office of anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) issued within the North Yorkshire magistrates courts committee (MCC) area, which includes the Vale of York, up to 30 June 2003 (latest available) is given in the table.

  The number of notifications, as reported to the Home Office, of ASBOS issued in North Yorkshire from 1 June 20001 to 30 June 2003 (latest available)

  Number

  1 June 2000 to 31 December 2000

  0

  1 January 2001 to 31 December 2001

  7

  1 January 2002 to 31 December 2002

  0

  31 December 2002 to 30 June 20032

  2

  Total

  9

  1From 1 April 1999 up to 31 May 2000 data collected by police force area (pfa).

  2Following implementation of the Police Reform Act (2 December 2002), data for December 2002 is incorporated into the first quarter 2003 data.

  Antiques Burglary
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents of antiques burglary were recorded by police in the SENLAC division of East Sussex in each quarter in the last two years. [140889]

  Ms Blears
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Asylum Law
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the number of people to whom clause 15 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill might apply. [142226]

  Beverley Hughes
  Clause 15 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill, which refers to electronic monitoring, applies to persons subject to immigration control who appear to be at least 18 years of age where a residence restriction is imposed, where a reporting restriction could be imposed and where immigration bail is granted subject to a bail bond (except where bail is granted by a police officer or the Special Immigration Appeals Commission). The number of individuals to whom this would apply would also depend on individual risk assessment and the outcome of pilots which we plan to undertake once the legislation is in place.

  Bedfordshire Police Force
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many officers left the Bedfordshire Police Force in(a) the last year for which figures are available and (b) each of the last five years, broken down by (i) rank and (ii) length of service. [140984]

  Ms Blears
  The available information is given in the table.
  399W

  Police officer leavers for Bedfordshire Police Force (full time equivalents)

  Association of Chief Police Officers rank

  Chief Superintendent

  Superintendent

  Chief Inspector

  Inspector

  Sergeant

  Constable

  31 March 1999

  2

  —

  5

  1

  4

  6

  45

  31 March 2000

  0

  —

  3

  2

  1

  7

  45

  31 March 2001

  1

  —

  1

  0

  2

  6

  62

  31 March 2002

  1

  —

  1

  0

  4

  6

  38

  31 March 2003

  0

  1

  0

  1

  7

  12

  71

  1Not comparable to previous wastage figures as data do not include transfers to other England and Wales forces and offices leaving after a period of secondment.

  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many officers were recruited to the Bedfordshire Police Force in(a) the last year for which figures are available and (b) each of the last five years. [141003]

  Ms Blears
  The available information is given in the table:

  Police officer joining for Bedfordshire Police Force (full time equivalents)

  Bedfordshire

  Number

  3 March 1999

  36

  3 March 2000

  37

  3 March 2001

  82

  3 March 2002

  131

  3 March 2003 1

  136

  1 Not comparable to previous recruitment figures as data inculde transfer from other England and Wales forces and officers returning after a period of secondment.

  Burglaries (Suffolk)
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many burglaries were reported to the police in Suffolk in each year since 1996–97; and how many reported burglaries in Suffolk resulted in a conviction in each year. [140610]

  Ms Blears
  Numbers of reported crimes are not collected centrally. The number of crimes recorded by the police are collected and published annually. Information on recorded burglaries are given in the table.

  All Burglary1 in Suffolk from 1996 to 2002–03)

  Year

  Number of offences recorded

  19962

  6,384

  19972

  6,094

  1998–993

  6,241

  1999–2000

  6,214

  2000–014

  5,738

  2001–02

  6,346

  2002–03

  6,248

  1 All burglary comprises burglary in a dwelling, and burglary in a building other than a dwelling.

  2Recorded on a calendar year basis up to 1997 and on a financial year basis thereafter.

  3There was a change of counting rules for recorded crime on 1 April 1998, which had the effect of increasing the number of crimes counted. Numbers of offences for years before and after this date are therefore not directly comparable.

  4Suffolk implemented the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) on 1 April 2000, two years prior to the national implementation. This will have had the effect of inflating the number of crimes counted.
  400W
  Number of convictions for all burglary offences in Suffolk1 are not available before 1999–2000. The available statistics are given in the table.

  1 Based on court proceedings statistics used for Narrowing the Justice Gap.

  Year

  Number of convictions

  1999–2000

  414

  2000–01

  369

  2001–02

  337

  Closed Circuit Television Cameras
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what funds are available for installation of CCTV cameras in villages. [142170]

  Ms Blears
  There are currently funds available for the installation of CCTV in all locations, including villages, under the Building Safer Communities Fund. The Building Safer Communities Fund is allocated by the Home Office to Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships to enable them to tackle local crime priorities through a number of interventions, including CCTV. For 2003–04 the Building Safer Communities Fund has provided Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships with £72.3 million.

  Community Support Officers
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many community support officers served(a) St. Helens, (b) Merseyside and (c) the North West region in each year since 1992. [141290]

  Ms Blears
  The Community Support Officers (CSO) initiative began in September 2002. Accordingly between 1992 and September 2002, there were no CSOs in St. Helens, Merseyside and the North West region.

  The table gives a breakdown of CSO deployment in the North West region from December 2002 to date and a projection for April 2004.

  Force

  31 December 2002

  1 April 2003

  1Recruitment to date

  21 April 2004

  St. Helens

  0

  8

  10

  20

  Merseyside

  0

  40

  64

  100

  Total North West Region

  21

  278

  357

  426

  11 December 2003

  2Projection
  401W

  Crime (St. Helens)
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what estimate he has made of the number of(a) violent crimes, (b) gun-related crimes and (c) burglaries which were drug-related in Merseyside in each year since 1992; [141288]

  (2) how many reported crimes there were in St. Helens in each year since 1992, broken down by major category. [141289]

  Ms Blears
  Statistical data on numbers of offences recorded in different areas do not indicate which may have been committed due to drug taking. However, results from the NEW-ADAM research programme of interviewing and drug testing arrestees between 1999 and 2000 sheds some light on the links between drugs and crime in 16 sites throughout England and Wales. Summary data published in 2001 found that:

  56 per cent. of arrestees tested positive for an illegal drug with up to 29 per cent. testing positive for opiates (including heroin) and/or cocaine (including crack);

  of those arrestees who reported using illegal drugs in the year prior to arrest, 40 per cent. acknowledged a link between their drug use and offending. Past year users of heroin and/or cocaine/ crack were nearly twice as likely (78 per cent.) to acknowledge a link.

  Those not reporting any drug use in the last year reported an average of 46 acquisitive crimes (including theft, burglary, shoplifting, fraud, handling stolen goods, drugs supply and prostitution offences) over the same period. Drug use in general and especially use of heroin and/or cocaine/crack (hcc), was associated with much higher levels of offending. Among hcc users, respondents reported an average of 432 acquisitive crimes. This was nearly ten times higher than for non-drug users.

  However, it should be noted that because an arrestee tested positive for drugs it does not necessarily mean that the consumption of drugs caused the crime to be committed. As a result, while the NEW-ADAM study advanced our knowledge of the links between drugs and crime, it will always be difficult to calculate precisely what proportion of crime is drug-related.

  In September 2003, the Home Office Arrestee Survey commenced at 60 randomly selected custody suites in England and Wales. The survey is ongoing, and involves interviewing and drug testing a representative sample of around 9,000 arrestees per year about their offending and drug use. The survey will enable research into the links between drugs and offending and will also provide robust data at a national level to allow tracking of the Home Office Public Service Agreement target to reduce drug related crime.

  Numbers of crimes recorded by the police in St. Helens are collected and published at Basic Command Unit (BCU) level. At this level, data is available from 1999–2000 to 2002–2003, and the number of crimes recorded are published for six key offence groups, as given in the table.

  Number of crimes recorded in St. Helens Basic Command Unit from 1999–2000 to 2002–2003

  Year

  Offence

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Violence against the person

  1,693

  1,795

  1,913

  2,406

  Sexual offences

  109

  153

  125

  192

  Robbery

  171

  168

  214

  190

  402W

  Number of crimes recorded in St. Helens Basic Command Unit from 1999–2000 to 2002–2003

  Year

  Offence

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Burglary in a dwelling

  1,550

  1,669

  1,569

  Theft of a motor vehicle

  2,000

  1,923

  1,650

  1,654

  Theft from a vehicle

  1,680

  1,725

  1,652

  1,822

  1Merseyside implemented the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) on 1 April 2002. This will have had the effect of inflating the number of crimes counted. Therefore, following the introduction of the Standard, numbers of recorded crimes are not directly comparable with previous years.

  Crime Figures
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how may crimes were committed per head of population in West Derbyshire police force areas in the last five years for which figures are available; [141427]

  (2) how many deaths there have been because of (a) dangerous driving, (b) driving under the influence of illegal drugs and (c) driving under the influence of alcohol in (i) West Derbyshire and (ii) East Midlands in each year since 2001. [141429]

  Ms Blears
  Information on the total number of crimes in West Derbyshire is not available centrally. Recorded crimes per head of population relating to relating to the Derbyshire Constabulary area is given in the table.

  Number of crimes recorded by the police per 1,000 population

  Derbyshire

  1998–991

  87

  1999–2000

  88

  2000–01

  84

  2001–02

  92

  2002–032

  108

  1There was a change of counting rules for recorded crime on 1 April 1998, which had the affect of increasing the number of crimes counted. Numbers of offences for years before and after this date, and figures calculated from them, are therefore not directly comparable.

  2The National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) was introduced in the Derbyshire Constabulary area in April 2002. Nationally, the NCRS has had the effect of increasing the number or rimes recorded by the police. Therefore, following the introduction of the Standard numbers of recorded crimes and figures derived from them are not comparable with previous years.

  Statistics on the number of deaths caused by dangerous driving, driving under the influence of illegal drugs and driving under the influence of alcohol, are not available.

  Forensic Science Service
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the proposed privatisation of the Forensic Science Service. [141861]

  Ms Blears
  We are not proposing to privatise the Forensic Science Service (FSS). The reasons for the decision to transform the FSS into a Public Private Partnership (PPP) were set out in the Home Secretary's statement to the House on 17 July. The actions we are taking to establish a successful PPP will ensure that the
  403W
  FSS will continue to compete successfully in partnership with government, while continuing to protect the public interest and deliver major benefits to the wider criminal justice system.

  We have accepted the recommendation of the independent Review of the FSS that the National DNA Database should remain exclusively under public sector control. Arrangements for the future ownership, governance and management are currently subject to consultation between Association of Chief Police Officers, the Association of Police Authorities and the Home Office.

  Colin Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what studies have been carried out to estimate the future level of investment needed by the Forensic Science Service in the years 2004 to 2007. [141933]

  Ms Blears
  Internal and external studies have been undertaken in order to estimate the future level of investment needed by the Forensic Science Service (FSS) in the years 2004–07.

  Each year the FSS reviews its short, medium and long-term investment plans as part of its internal corporate and business planning process.

  The recent Review of the FSS led by Robert McFarland in 2002–03 for the Home Office assessed the future level of investment needed by the Agency from an external perspective.

  Additionally, the FSS's requirements in the area of investment will be reviewed as part of the move to establish it as a Public Private Partnership.

  Colin Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what legislation is required to alter the status of the Forensic Science Service in line with the proposed Government plans for the service. [141934]

  Ms Blears
  The transformation of the Forensic Science Service into a Public Private Partnership will require the revocation of The Forensic Science Service Trading Fund Order 1998.

  Colin Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the terms of reference are for the Development and Remuneration Committee of the Forensic Science Service. [141935]

  Ms Blears
  The Development and Remuneration Committee of the Forensic Science Service is responsible for advising on the organisation of the agency, the staff reward and recognition strategy, and its management and succession planning.

  The Committee also reviews and makes recommendations regarding non-executive directors' fees and expenses, and the terms and conditions of the Chief Executive and the Executive Board.

  Dr. Desmond Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will publish the terms of reference of the Home Office Review of the Forensic Science Service. [142191]

  Ms Blears
  I have arranged for a copy of the Final Report of the independent review of the Forensic Science Service to be placed in the Library.
  404W
  Dr. Desmond Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will publish a timetable for the implementation of the recommendations of the Home Office Review of the Forensic Science Service. [142192]

  Ms Blears
  The implementation of the recommendations of the independent review of the Forensic Science Service. including the timetable for its transformation into a Public Private Partnership, are currently the subject of detailed discussions with key stakeholders.

  Gender-specific Drug Treatment
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to create a specialist gender-specific drug treatment service for women in the community. [141623]

  Caroline Flint
  The National Treatment Agency is implementing Models of Care, which lays down a national framework for the commissioning and provision of local drug services. Models of Care sets quality standards, including on services for women and those with dependent children.

  The NTA has also commissioned the University of Central Lancashire and Drugscope to work directly with drug services in three regions on meeting the needs of specific groups including women with dependants.

  All Drug Action Teams are expected to review provision for under represented groups on an annual basis as part of their treatment planning.

  High Crime Areas
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what efforts are being made by his Department to encourage the reporting of crime in high crime areas. [140468]

  Ms Blears
  We are encouraging more people to report crimes in all areas by improving the way in which crimes reported to the police are recorded. The National Crime Recording Standard, formally introduced in all forces in England and Wales in April 2002, aims to bring greater consistency to the way in which crime is recorded by the police and to ensure a more victim centred approach to crime recording.

  There have also been crime specific initiatives aimed at increasing the numbers of such crimes reported to the police, particularly, domestic violence and sexual offences. For example, the British Crime Survey shows that there was a 5 per cent. Increase in the proportion of violent crimes being reported to the police in 2002–03 compared with the previous year.

  With a total sample size of 40,000 interviews a year, more emphasis is now being placed on the British Crime Survey as a way of measuring crime, as it covers unreported and unrecorded crime as well as offences which are reported to the police. As the survey is unaffected by changes in the level of public reporting to the police or police recording, it provides a more accurate picture of crime across England and Wales.
  405W

  Iraq
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many UK civilian police officers have been operating in Iraq in each month since May; and what plans there are for future deployment. [141147]

  Mr. Rammell
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are currently 11 UK civilian police officers in Iraq, in both Baghdad and Basra. The first four officers were deployed in July. They were joined by six more officers in October and one in November. We intend to deploy 24 police officers soon to the Regional Police Training Academy in Basra to help train new recruit to the Iraqi Police Service.

  Knives
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what information his Department records on the types of knives used in assaults and other criminal offences; and what assessment he has made of the trends; [141365]

  (2) how many woundings involving knives were reported in which (a) the perpetrators and (b) the victims were aged (i) under 16, (ii) 16 to 18 and (iii) over 18 in the last five years for which figures are available. [141366]

  Ms Blears
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions his Department has had with Chief Constables on the use of stop and search powers to tackle the carrying of knives. [141549]

  Ms Blears [holding answer 3 December 2003]
  There have been no recent discussions between the Home Department and Chief Constables on the use of stop and search powers specifically to tackle the carrying of knives.

  However, we have consulted the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) on the revision of PACE Code A. It provides the guidance for police officers on the use of the powers of stop and search, including the powers to stop and search for offensive weapons and dangerous instruments. This guidance has recently been revised—a new version came into force on 1 April 2003. A further revision will come into force in April 2004. ACPO will be consulted on future revisions.

  A stop and search sub group has been set up under the Lawrence Steering Group to look at issues around stop and search. ACPO are represented on that group. The sub group's work includes considering ACPO guidance to the police on their powers to stop and search for offensive weapons and dangerous instruments under section 60 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

  Neighbourhood Watch Scheme
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will make a statement on the relationship between the police and neighbourhood watch schemes. [140891]
  406W
  Ms Blears
  The police play a crucial supporting role for Neighbourhood Watch at a local level. This includes providing advice on how to set up schemes and assisting with administration and publicity. In some cases coordinators and scheme members work as part of a "Watch Support Group" in police premises.

  Watch schemes can be vital partners of the police in the fight against crime. Their role in preventing crime, supporting victims and reporting crime is a key one.

  The Government along with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the National Neighbourhood Watch Association are building on this relationship to ensure that those who give their time to their local Neighbourhood Watch schemes and their communities will get as much support as possible from the police.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how much funding was provided by central Government to the Neighbourhood Watch Scheme in each of the last three years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [140892]

  Ms Blears
  Neighbourhood Watch is a movement of over 155,000 local schemes covering around six million households. Local schemes are independent and largely self-financing. Police support for schemes can be considerable but its monetary value has not been calculated.

  The Home Office supports the National Neighbourhood Watch Association. For the last three years it sponsored their annual conference at a cost of £80,000pa. The organisation is largely self-financing with funding from the private sector. Last year the Home Office provided a grant of £150,000 and this year it has provided £200,000 to date. This was to assist the Organisation during a period of transition between private sponsors.

  The Home Office also pays for the production of a range of Neighbourhood Watch Publications, including a training manual for scheme co-ordinators, worth around £100,000 each year.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many Neighbourhood Watch schemes there are in England and Wales; and what estimate he has made of how many people belong to them. [140893]

  Ms Blears
  The 2000 British Crime Survey (BCS) estimated that there were over 155,000 Neighbourhood Watch Schemes in England and Wales covering more than six million households. National Neighbourhood Watch Association estimates that there are approximately 10 million Neighbourhood Watch members in England and Wales.

  A copy of the 2000 BCS Findings on Neighbourhood Watch has been placed in the Library.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of Neighbourhood Watch schemes. [140894]
  407W
  Ms Blears
  The British Crime Survey contains a number of questions about Neighbourhood Watch, including an assessment of its effectiveness. The findings of the 2000 British Crime Survey have been published and a copy has been placed in the Library.

  Police
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what incentives he is providing to attract police officers who are of continuing value to the service to continue beyond 30 years of service. [142109]

  Ms Blears
  The Police Negotiating Board (PNB) Agreement of May 2002 included outline provisions for flexible arrangements that would give managers in the police service scope to retain officers who are entitled to retire with maximum pension benefits where they wish to do so. The main points of the 30 + scheme subsequently agreed by the PNB are:

  Retirement from the force with the option of commuting part of one's pension for a tax-free lump sum;

  Re-engagement at former rank and pay level;

  Pension abatement lifted to allow for any replacement allowances lost on retirement to be made good;

  Eligibility for Special Priority Payments and Competency Related Threshold Payments on the same basis as other officers;

  Officer ceases to be a member of the Police Pension Scheme but can accrue further pension benefits by taking out a personal pension.

  The 30+ scheme has been piloted in a selection of forces in England and Wales since December 2002. A total of 15 forces are currently participating and the initial response to the scheme has been generally positive, both from officers and forces. We are currently reviewing the progress of this scheme and will send a report to the PNB later this month about extending the scheme nationally.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he has issued to police forces in relation to police officers' membership of or affiliation to(a) political parties and (b) other political organisations; and if he will place copies in the Library. [141806]

  Ms Blears
  Schedule 1 to the Police Regulations 2003 states that "A member of a police force shall at all times abstain from any activity which is likely to interfere with the impartial discharge of his duties or which is likely to give rise to the impression among members of the public that it may so interfere; and in particular a member of a police force shall not take any active part in politics".

  Copies of Police Regulations 2003 are in the Library (Statutory Instrument No. 527 of 2003).

  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations have taken place over the last year about the formula for the police financial settlement.[140580]

  Ms Blears
  The policing community was consulted in August and October 2003 on the potential impact of changes in data used in the formula.

  To provide stability in police funding following major changes for 2003–04, no changes to the structure of the police funding formula have been made for 2004–05 so formula change has not been the subject of consultation.
  408W
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many additional police officers have been recruited in(a) England and (b) East Sussex in the last five years; and what percentage increase this represents in each case. [140890]

  Ms Blears
  The available information is given in the table:

  Total police strength1

  31 March

  England

  2Sussex

  1999

  117,195

  2,847

  2000

  115,324

  2,822

  2001

  116,548

  2,855

  2002

  120,073

  2,893

  2003

  124,158

  2,989

  %Change 31 March 1999 to 31 March 2000

  5.9%

  5.0%

  1Full time equivalent

  2Figures are available for the Sussex Police Force as a whole and not East Sussex as requested.

  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers have been(a) killed and (b) injured by drivers (i) failing to stop and (ii) evading arrest in each of the last 10 years; and how many of those injured have retired from the police service as a result.[141326]

  Ms Blears
  Information in the form requested is not held centrally. Data on homicide of police officers where the method is described as being struck by a motor vehicle and the circumstances as resisting arrest or a reckless act involving a motor vehicle are listed in the following table:

  Currently recorded homicides of police officers struck by a motor vehicle

  Circumstances

  Resisting arrest

  Reckless act involving a motor vehicle

  1993

  0

  0

  1994

  0

  0

  1995

  0

  0

  1996

  0

  0

  1997–98

  0

  0

  1998–99

  0

  0

  1999x2013;2000

  2

  0

  2000–01

  2

  1

  2001–02

  0

  0

  Rural Crime
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what representations he has received on the incidence of rural crime, with particular reference to farm land; [141244]

  (2)what representations he has received on the effectiveness of (a) Farm Watch and (b) other rural initiatives to defeat crime; and what support Farm Watch receives from police forces. [141245]

  Ms Blears
  I am not aware of any representations concerning the effectiveness of Farm Watch, other rural crime initiatives, or concerning rural crime with regard to farmland. The Government are committed to
  409W
  tackling rural crime and has a £30 million Rural Policing Fund, specifically intended to enhance policing in rural areas.

  Most rural forces have Watch schemes in place to tackle rural crime. North Yorkshire Police fully supports Farm Watch and the force has three dedicated Watch Co-ordinators supporting the scheme.

  Sexual Assaults
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many sexual assaults were recorded in each Basic Command Unit area of each metropolitan police force in each year for which Basic Command Unit information has been available. [141195]

  Ms Blears
  Numbers of sexual assaults are not available at Basic Command Unit (BCU) level, although the total number of sexual offences have been published at this level. The metropolitan police forces are taken to be the Metropolitan Police Service, City of London, West Midlands, Merseyside, Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire and Northumbria. The published information is available via the Research Development Statistics (RDS) website, at the following locations:

  1990–2000 and 2000–01 BCU data (Home Office Statistical Bulletin 12/01, Table 11):

  http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/1201data3.xls

  2001–02 and 2002–03 BCU data:

  http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb703sup2.xls

  The National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) was introduced across England and Wales in April 2002. Some forces adopted the principles of the Standard prior to this date. Of the eight metropolitan forces, both Greater Manchester (January 2002) and West Midlands (April 1999) adopted the Standard early. Broadly, the NCRS had the effect of increasing the number of crimes recorded by the police. Therefore, following the introduction of the Standard, numbers of recorded crimes are not comparable with previous years.

  Speed Cameras (Vandalism)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many speed cameras have been vandalised in each year from 1998 to 2002.[142238]

  Caroline Flint
  The information is not recorded centrally by the Home Office. We understand from informal reports that such acts are isolated incidents.

  Speeding
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which speed camera resulted in the highest number of prosecutions in(a) 2000, (b) 2001 and (c) 2002.[140826]

  Ms Blears
  Information on the number of prosecutions for speeding offences detected by type of camera device used or individual camera location are not collected centrally.
  410W
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many hand-held speed-detecting radar guns are in operation in the UK, broken down by(a) police force and (b) Safety Camera Partnership. [142236]

  Caroline Flint
  The information is not available centrally. It is a matter for chief officers of police to decide on the number and type of speed detection devices to purchase from the overall funds allocated to them.

  Vehicle Crime
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if his Department encourages the fitting of window security reinforcement systems as part of the campaign to reduce vehicle crime; and if he will make a statement;[141517]

  (2) what plans he has to achieve a reduction in vehicle crimes in which vehicle windows are broken to secure entry.[141518]

  Ms Blears
  The Home Office New Car Security Guidance published in 1998 encouraged car manufacturers to fit glazing that would resist attack by methods commonly used by criminals for a minimum of 30 seconds. This standard applies whether conventional laminated glazing or security film is fitted. Officials are considering the merits of using the recently issued German test standard to measure whether products meet this Home Office requirement. In addition, any glazing (laminated or when fitted with security film) has to meet the appropriate standards set out in the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, Directive 92/22/EEC and UN/ECE Regulation 43 to ensure safety and durability. We will encourage the fitting of any laminated glazing or security film that meets statutory requirements and makes a significant contribution to vehicle crime reduction.

  We aim to raise motorists' awareness of the benefits of laminated glazing through Home Office publicity material, particularly the booklet "Steer Clear of Car Crime" and our website www.secureyourmotor.gov.uk. We also provide links from our Department for Transport websites to the insurance industry website (www.ncsr.co.uk) which provides motorists with information about their assessment of each car's ability to resist criminal attempts to gain entry.

  Victims (Compensation)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for widening access to compensation for victims of crime. [142172]

  Ms Blears
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on 8 December,Official Report, column 235W.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Art Acquisition
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much his Department has spent on the acquisition of works of art in each year since
  411W
  1997, broken down by amounts spent on (a) paintings and (b) sculpture; what the single most expensive piece of art purchased by his Department since 1997 has been; how much it cost; and what the total revenue raised by his Department through sales of works of art has been since 1997.[142355]

  Mr. Pearson
  The annual amount spent on the acquisition of Works of Art by the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments in each financial year since 1997 is detailed in the table. The single most expensive piece of art purchased in that period has been a painting entitled 'Red Chard' at a cost of £7,650. No revenue has been raised through sales of works of art since 1997.

  Paintings (including prints)

  Sculptures (including textiles)

  Total

  1997–98

  21,200

  1,800

  23,000

  1998–99

  35,500

  3,800

  39,300

  1999–2000

  53,000

  6,000

  59,000

  2000–01

  30,000

  —

  30,000

  2001—02

  30,050

  2,950

  33,000

  2002–03

  23,500

  2,500

  26,000

  Benefit Fraud
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to prevent benefit fraud in Northern Ireland.[142666]

  Mr. Spellar
  I would refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson) on 8 December 2003,Official Report, column 266W.

  Cory Report
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he has taken to consult the families concerned prior to the publication of the Cory Report; and if he will make a statement. [143184]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Government are committed to publishing Justice Cory's report as soon as possible, in line with the judge's terms of reference. It remains my priority to inform the families as soon as possible in advance of publication, while bearing in mind my obligations to Parliament.

  Disabled Persons Parking Scheme
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what reasons those with a colostomy in Northern Ireland no longer qualify for the Disabled Persons Blue Badge Scheme; if he will reverse this decision; and if he will make a statement. [142665]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have asked the Chief Executive of Roads Service to write to the hon. Lady in response to this question. A copy of the letter will be placed in the Library.
  412W

  Domestic Central Heating
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many oil-fired domestic central heating installations there are in Northern Ireland.[143170]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Northern Ireland House Condition Survey 2001 found that 377,800 homes in Northern Ireland have oil-fired central heating systems. A further 61,500 homes have dual-fired central heating, where in the great majority of cases oil was the primary fuel.

  Evacuated Dwellings Scheme
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many police officers in Northern Ireland have had their homes purchased under the scheme to Purchase Evacuated Dwellings as a result of terrorist threats in each year since the scheme was established. [143185]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information requested is not readily available. I will write to the hon. Gentleman when the figures have been compiled, a copy of the letter will be placed in the Library.

  Homelessness
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people were registered homeless in Northern Ireland in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement on the measures he is taking to address homelessness in Northern Ireland.[142675]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information requested is as follows:

  Financial year

  Number accepted as homeless

  2002–03

  8,580

  2001–02

  7,374

  2000–01

  6,457

  1999–2000

  5,192

  1998–99

  4,997

  The Government are fully committed towards helping those unfortunate enough to become homeless and while the figures show an annual increase, last year the Northern Ireland Housing Executive re-housed half of all homeless households within three months and 94 per cent. within 12 months. This year the Government plan to fund the provision of 213 new units in Northern Ireland, specifically for homeless families and single people, at a total cost of around £13.5 million. It is also overseeing the implementation of new arrangements for providing housing support services which include provision to help sustain and improve the existing support services provided to homeless people. The Northern Ireland Housing Executive has published the Northern Ireland Homeless Strategy and is working in partnership with all of those who have a part to play in tackling the problem of homelessness. In addition, an inter-departmental, cross sectoral Promoting Social Inclusion Review Group has been set up to consider how to ensure, firstly, that the risk of homelessness is reduced and secondly, that the full range of appropriate services is available to homeless people.
  413W

  Midwives
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, how many(a) part-time and (b) full-time midwives were serving in Northern Ireland in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement on the recruitment of midwives in Northern Ireland.[142668]

  Angela Smith
  The information requested is as follows:

  Number of part-time and full-time midwives working in Northern Ireland in each of the past five years

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Count

  1WTE

  Count

  WTE

  September 1999

  668

  437.89

  563

  563.00

  September 2000

  706

  461.83

  506

  506.00

  September 2001

  738

  477.92

  497

  497.00

  September 2002

  758

  492.76

  498

  498.00

  September 2003

  769

  500.56

  508

  508.00

  1 Whole Time Equivalent

  Source:

  Human Resource Management System

  The Department currently commissions 40 places per annum on an 18 month shortened pre-registration midwifery training programme for registered nurses and the current group of students will complete their course in March 2004. A further group of 40 students commenced training in November 2003. In addition the DHSSPS as a new initiative has commissioned 15 places on a three year direct entry pre-registration midwifery programme in September 2003.

  Monitoring Commission
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether allegations of activities by the Provisional IRA and members of Sinn Fein in(a) Colombia and (b) Florida can be investigated by the International Monitoring Commission. [142775]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave on 18 November 2003,Official Report, column 774W.

  Plastic Baton Rounds
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many and what percentage of plastic baton rounds ordered by the outgoing Northern Ireland Police Authority in November 2001 have(a) been delivered and (b) passed their active shelf life.[142186]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Chief Constable has advised me that no baton rounds were ordered on behalf of the Police Service of Northern Ireland during November 2001.

  Prescription Fraud
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he has taken to tackle prescription fraud in the NHS in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.[141849]
  414W
  Angela Smith
  The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, together with the Health Boards and the Central Services Agency, has been making considerable efforts to reduce losses through patient exemption fraud.

  The key actions taken to date include:
  The establishment of a dedicated Counter Fraud Unit to coordinate work to tackle prescription fraud;
  The introduction for pharmacists of point of dispensing/treatment checks to confirm exemption from charges;
  The introduction of a Fixed Penalty Charge Scheme for those who make false claims for free prescriptions. There have been some 500 charges imposed this year.

  In sustaining efforts to further reduce patient exemption fraud it is planned to take the following actions:
  The implementation of the criminal charge element of the Fixed Penalty Charge regulations. This will provide for a fine, upon conviction, of up to £2,500 for those who have been found to be persistently misclaiming exemption from health service charges; and
  Renewed publicity early in the new year regarding the Fixed Penalty Charge Scheme and the various categories of exemption that apply across the Family Health Services.

  The indications are that the measures introduced over the last few years have contributed to reducing the losses by some £6 million per annum. While this reflects significant progress, we will continue to work for further improvements to ensure that these funds are not denied to the health service.

  School Transport Bill
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to introduce changes in home-to-school transport in Northern Ireland in line with proposals in the School Transport Bill in Great Britain.[142213]

  Jane Kennedy
  I have no plans at present to introduce changes in home-to-school transport in Northern Ireland in line with proposals in the School Transport Bill in Great Britain.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether a lone parent in receipt of income support who receives a lump sum payment of arrears of child maintenance owing to delays in processing by the Child Support Agency will be able to carry forward unused amounts of child maintenance premium to set against the maintenance received. [143108]

  Mr. Pond
  Under the new child support scheme child maintenance premium is attributed to the same period as the payment of maintenance. Thus, if a non-resident parent pays £120 in child support, representing six weeks' liability of £20 per week, the child maintenance premium will be £60 (£10 x 6).
  415W

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what representations he has received from the Health and Safety Commission about whether public sector sickness and absence should be a priority area; and if he will make a statement.[140648]

  Mr. Browne
  The Department has received representations from the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) on rolling out a programme of work addressed at improving health and safety performance in the public sector. We have agreed with them that this will become one of HSC's priority programmes.

  A major element of HSC's "Government Setting an Example" programme will be supporting public sector organisations to reduce work related sickness absence through the development and dissemination of exemplary good practice in managing risks to occupational health, in particular musculo-skeletal disorders and stress.

  The most recent analysis of sickness absence in the Civil Service for 2002 reports that mental illness and musculo-skeletal disorders are a major contributor to absence. HSE's stress management standards pilot includes organisations in the public sector. The pilot will end in Autumn 2003 and evaluation will continue until 2004.

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what progress has been made in addressing the health and safety needs of small and medium sized enterprises in the past 12 months; and if he will make a statement on the funding of further measures.[141036]

  Mr. Browne
  During the last year, the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) has taken a number of extra steps. This year the Commission reappointed a Commissioner specifically to represent small businesses.

  It also piloted a grant scheme, providing matched funding for training and mentoring for micro businesses. The scheme finishes in December 2003, with an evaluation report expected early in 2004. HSC will evaluate the results of this scheme, comparing it with other initiatives, before making any recommendations about extending initiatives in the future.

  The Health and Safety Commission (HSC) promoted new ways to promote positive models of health and safety through the use of new technology with well-tried methods, eg a CD Rom containing case studies and an electronic benchmark questionnaire. Both are supported by a managed visit programme whereby small businesses can learn and experience good practice.

  Housing Benefit Subsidy Reform
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his written statement of 1 December 2003,Official Report, column 49WS, on housing benefit subsidy reform, how the new subsidy system for housing benefit and council tax benefit will he implemented, with particular reference to transitional relief; and what the arrangements will be for payment of the administration grant.[143212]
  416W
  Mr. Pond
  The new subsidy system will be introduced on 1 April 2004 to all local authorities in England, Wales and Scotland. All claims relating to the 2004–05 subsidy year will be made under the new rates and rules. We issued a subsidy Circular (S9/2003) to authorities on 1 December to explain all the detailed changes; a copy of this circular is available in the Library.

  Although the overall levels of funding under the new system will be cost neutral compared to the old system, we recognise that individual authorities may gain or lose under the new arrangements. A transitional protection scheme has therefore been put in place. At the end of 2004–05 subsidy claims from each local authority will be compared with the amounts of subsidy they would have received had they claimed under the subsidy rules in place in 2003–04. The scheme will ensure that in the first year no authority will lose more than 1 per cent. of the funding which they would have received had the rates not changed.

  Details of individual allocations to authorities of administration grant for 2004–05 will be issued in a circular by the end of the month. The administration grant will be paid to authorities in 12 monthly instalments from April 2004.

  New Deal for Disabled People
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will publish statistics for New Deal for Disabled People job broker programmes regularly on the internet.[141498]

  Mr. Browne
  New Deal for Disabled People statistics are currently published quarterly on the New Deal website. The latest figures are available at: www.newdeal.gov.uk/documents/disabled/performancelatest.doc

  Pension Credit
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners he estimates have yet to apply through the Pension Credit scheme in(a) West Derbyshire, (b) the East Midlands and (c) the UK; and what efforts are being made to simplify the Pension Credit process to make it easier for pensioners to claim their entitlement.[141438]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available in the form requested, but we estimate that around 300,000 pensioner households in the East Midlands region and around 3.8 million pensioner households in Great Britain are eligible for Pension Credit. The table gives the numbers of pensioner households and individuals in West Derbyshire, the East Midlands and Great Britain receiving Pension Credit at 17 October 2003. The number of pensioner households in Great Britain receiving Pension Credit had increased to approximately 1.97 million by 31 October.

  The application process for Pension Credit has been designed to be straightforward for pensioners and their family and friends, who may apply on their behalf. The Pension Credit application line (0800 99 1234), which is the main method of applying, is working well and has taken over 1.3 million calls (to the end of October) since it became operational on 7 April. The Pension Service is able to offer alternative ways of applying to suit individual circumstances, including a textphone number

  417W
  and a paper application form. We are working closely with partner organisations to ensure that they can obtain paper application forms, through the Pension Service's local service, for those who want them. The local service can also arrange to see pensioners face-to-face either in a local surgery or, where appropriate, in the pensioner's home.

  We continue to review and improve the application process in the light of experience.

  Pension Credit recipients at 17 October 2003

  Area

  Pension Credit Pension pensioner households

  Pension Credit individuals

  West Derbyshire parliamentary constituency

  2,185

  2.505

  East Midlands Government Office Region(GOR)

  130,935

  155,725

  Great Britain

  1,902,715

  2,247,605

  Notes:

  1. Figures in the table have been rounded to the nearest five.

  2. The parliamentary constituency and the GOR are assigned by matching postcodes against the relevant ONS postcode directory.

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre, Generalised Matching Service, 100 per cent. sample.

  Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in what way the size of the lump sum available to an individual at age 70 to those who defer drawing their retirement pension will relate to the weekly retirement pension entitlement at age 65 of that individual.[143107]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We intend that the lump sum will comprise the total of the state pension given up during the period of deferment, plus a rate of return. Further details will be available when the Pensions Bill is published.

  Research
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the research conducted by his Department comparing a New Deal 25 plus unit of delivery and an Employment Zone in terms of(a) outcomes, (b) costs and (c) other factors; if he will place the findings in the Library; and if he will make a statement.[140481]

  Mr. Browne
  As with all our welfare to work programmes, Employment Zones are subject to extensive evaluation. The following reports have been published and placed in the Library: Working Age Evaluation Report 124—a qualitative study of Zone operations, published in July 2002; Working Age Evaluation Report 139—a qualitative study of Employment Zone and New Deal 25 Plus Personal Advisers, published in August 2002; Working Age Report 175—an economic study on the wider labour market impact of Employment Zones, and Working Age Report 176—a cohort study comparing characteristics and outcomes of Employment Zone participants with those of similar long-term unemployed clients published on 28 November 2003.
  418W
  Report No. 176 compares the outcomes of Employment Zone and New Deal 25 Plus. However, this study does not provide us with a national evaluation of New Deal 25 Plus, but compares Employment Zone outcomes with New Deal 25 Plus outcomes in disadvantaged areas which are similar to the Employment Zone areas.

  We keep all our programmes under on-going review to ensure they provide the most effective approach to helping long-term unemployed people into work.

  Shell Brent Bravo
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to set up an inquiry into the deaths on the Shell Brent Bravo rig on 11 September.[140668]

  Mr. Browne
  A rigorous and detailed investigation into the two deaths on the Brent Bravo offshore installation on 11 September 2003 is already under way by both the Police and the Health and Safety Executive. The Health and Safety Executive will send their report to the Procurator Fiscal before the end of 2003. The Police will independently report to the Procurator Fiscal. Decisions on legal proceedings and Fatal Accident Inquiries are a matter for the Crown. The Health and Safety Commission does not consider it appropriate to seek the Secretary of State's consent for a public inquiry in addition to the investigations in progress.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Sellers' Packs
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister in relation to the proposed seller's packs what the Government's estimate is of the(a) average cost, (b) number of properties that will be involved, (c) total cost, (d) number of surveyors required, (e) number of transactions accelerated and (f) number of transactions that would otherwise be aborted in a calendar year.[142008]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister estimates that:

  The average cost would be £365 at current prices: made up of £300 for a home condition report and energy survey; £200 for local searches; £10 for office copy entries; and legal fees of £125 for pack assembly.

  The proposals would affect around 1.8 million homes put on the market each year. The total cost would be £1.14 billion. Most of this cost is already incurred under the current arrangements, although a majority of these are currently borne by the buyer rather than the seller.

  Between 7,500 and 8,500 surveyors will be needed altogether, to be met from surveyors already in place and others to be recruited and trained before implementation.

  The provision of vital information at the beginning of the process should ensure that almost all transactions will be accelerated.

  and (f) A reduction in the failure rate 10 per cent. is achievable thus avoiding over 380,000 aborted transactions per year. Our research suggests that over 580,000 transactions fail between offer acceptance and exchange of contracts (almost 30 per cent. of the total).

  419W

  Tenancy Deposit Scheme
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of(a) the estimated total number of disputes requiring adjudication under a tenancy deposit scheme and (b) the estimated costs of those procedures.[142827]

  Keith Hill
  The estimated maximum number of disputes is 127,000 per year. Extrapolating from jurisdications which have compulsory deposit schemes, the figure is 19,000 per year. On the second part of the question, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 8 December,Official Report, column 350W.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his latest estimate is of(a) the rate of alleged unreasonable withholding of deposits by landlords or agencies and (b) the cost of their retrieval.[142828]

  Keith Hill
  On the first part of the question, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) on 10 November,Official Report, column 164W.

  On the second part of the question, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 8 December 2003, Official Report, column 350W.

  Transitional Protection Scheme
  Mr. Dennis Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what assumptions will be made in the operation of the transitional protection scheme concerning the use of the option of housing authorities to apply to his Department for a special direction to transfer any amount of the 2001–02 Housing Revenue Account to the General Fund;[142822]

  (2) whether he plans to consult on the possible ways in which the transitional protection scheme will operate;[142824]

  (3) if he will provide before 1 January 2004 exemplifications of the impact of the Transitional Protection Scheme at an individual local authority level based on the latest available audited data on interim grant claims for 2003–04.[142826]

  Keith Hill
  Following publication of the rules of the scheme, authorities would have to write in to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister specifying how much they wished to transfer between the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) and General Fund in 2004–05. So long as this amount fell within the maximum amount permissible to them under the rules of the scheme, a direction would be issued to that effect. An authority would be able to apply for a direction for 2004–05 at any time before the accounts for that year were closed.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is consulting at present on proposals for the transitional protection scheme. Details of the proposed maximum amount transferable based on the audited figures for 2001–02 have been provided at an individual authority level with the current consultation on the draft HRA Subsidy Determination 2004–05. The closing date for consultation is 16 December 2003. The Office intends
  420W
  to issue the final rules of the scheme, including confirmed maximum amounts transferable by each authority in 2004–05, before 1 January 2004.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Afghanistan
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the extent of the areas which are under Taliban or Jihadist control in Afghanistan.[142863]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Although scattered elements of Al Qa'ida and the Taliban remain in Afghanistan and continue to mount attacks against international and Afghan targets, the perpetrators cannot be said to control the areas in which they operate. Many attacks are carried out by insurgents who cross between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Others are mounted on a hit-and-run basis by groups within Afghanistan. Extremists are undoubtedly attempting to establish bases from which to operate. But successful military operations conducted by the Coalition and units of the Afghan National Army are preventing them from doing so. Apparent isolated instances of low-level control generally amount to no more than evidence of Taliban intimidation of local communities.

  Burma
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much(a) heroin and (b) methamphetamine he predicts will be produced by Burma this year; and how much he estimates will reach the UK. [140919]

  Mr. Rammell
  The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) estimated that 81,400 hectares of land were utilised for opium production in Burma in 2002. The UNODC figures for 2003 are not yet confirmed and initial indications suggest that they may show little overall change from 2002.

  Burma is believed by UNODC to be one of the largest producers of methamphetamines in the world.

  Despite Burma being a major producer of heroin and methamphetamines, there is no evidence that either of these substances is trafficked to the UK in significant quantities from Burma.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the involvement of the Burmese Junta in(a) heroin and (b) methamphetamine production and export, with particular reference to the new factory 15 miles west of Maeken.[140920]

  Mr. Rammell
  There are reports that some production and trafficking of opium from Burma is carried out with the knowledge of the Burmese authorities. The Burmese authorities' overall response to the continued production and export of heroin and methamphetamines has been limited. According to figures from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) Burma is the world's second largest source of heroin and one of the largest sources of methamphetamines.
  421W
  I have no specific information relating to a methamphetamine production facility near Maeken, although I am aware that UNODC reports indicate that such facilities exist in Burma.

  Central Asian Drugs Action Plan
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Central Asian Drugs Action Plan since it was signed; how much the UK has contributed to it; and if he will make a statement.[141352]

  Mr. Rammell
  We welcome and support the aims of the European Union's action plan to help tackle the issue of drugs in central Asia. The plan covers Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Ukbekistan and should also be seen in the context of significant UK and EU action in Afghanistan, which is the main source country for heroin trafficked through central Asia. The UK does not directly fund the action plan. However we provide bilateral assistance to countries in the region which supports the plan's overall aims and objectives.

  Colombia
  Clare Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the UK ambassador to Colombia supported the President of Colombia's claim that human rights NGOs were supporters of terrorists.[141510]

  Mr. Rammell
  Our ambassador and I have repeatedly expressed our concerns to the Colombian Government about blanket condemnation of Human Rights groups and made clear that if there are credible allegations of inappropriate conduct by certain groups they should be investigated by judicial process.

  Human Rights (Syria and Iran)
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what talks he has had with his counterparts in(a) Syria and (b) Iran regarding human rights in those countries.[140934]

  Mr. Rammell
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary makes a point of raising our grave concerns about both countries' human rights record whenever he is able to. In 2003 he has done so with his Iranian counterpart on 6 February, 29 June and 24 September. He has not met the Syrian Foreign Minister this year. But we regularly raise human rights concerns with Syria, both bilaterally and in conjunction with EU partners. I spoke of Syria's human rights failings in a Syria adjournment debate on 2 July and my hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Mike O'Brien) raised the issue with President Bashar al-Assad during his visit to Damascus on 5 March.

  Iraq
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many families of the Iraq Governing Council were living in Iraq before the Allied invasion this year; and how many are living in Iraq.[140910]
  422W
  Mr. Rammell
  A number of families of Iraqi Governing Council members were living in Iraq prior to military action, and others returned when hostilities ceased. This number changes as the families come and go.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the contracts which the Office of the Iraq Programme reported in November 2002 had been approved but for which no funds were available due to political disagreements between the governments of the US and UK and the then government of Iraq; what these contracts were for: and if he will make a statement.[141117]

  Mr. Rammell
  Gaps in funding for approved contracts were due to insufficient revenues from Iraqi oil exports, exacerbated by the former regime's unilateral decision on several occasions to halt exports. These contracts covered a range of sectors. The UN regularly urged the Iraqi Government to prioritise its requirements and ensure that minimal funds required to fund priority sector contracts were available, but the former regime refused to do so. Instead, Saddam Hussein continued to abuse the Oil For Food Programme, ordering many non essential goods, such as equipment for a new Olympic sports stadium.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether it is his policy that NATO should have a role in Iraq; and if he will make a statement.[141119]

  Mr. Rammell
  NATO currently provides limited support to the Polish-led Multi-National Division in south central Iraq. We do not envisage NATO taking on a major role in Iraq in the short term, although we do not rule out further involvement at some stage.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps Coalition forces are taking to deal with shortages of medicine in Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [141181]

  Mr. Rammell
  Coalition forces are not responsible for the distribution of medicines in Iraq, but assist where appropriate. The public health system was left an empty shell by the former regime, but since May the Iraqi Ministry of Health has estimated that 15,000 tons of pharmaceuticals and medical supplies have been delivered. New drug supply systems are not yet fully operational. Until the supply accounting and reporting systems are in place, some difficulties will continue to occur.

  Work is under way in the Iraqi Ministry of Health to develop a national drug formulary. This will form the baseline for future purchases throughout the country and will improve the sourcing of drugs. The Iraqi Ministry of Health, the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) and the World Health Organisation are also furthering a complete review of missing drugs and supplies. This is scheduled to finish in three months.

  These initiatives provide the best and only ways to ensure that full medical supplies are getting through to the Iraqi people and we will continue to support them.
  423W
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps Coalition forces are taking to deal with waste water being pumped untreated into rivers in Iraq; and if he will make a statement.[141182]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Coalition has carried out emergency repair and rehabilitation work on several waste water treatment works in Iraq. Coalition partners have also partly funded UNICEF's environmental and sanitation programme in Iraq, with the UK's Department for International Development (DFID) contributing £6,835,187. DFID has also given £16,500,000 to the Red Cross movement, whose work includes water and sanitation activities.

  We understand that a request to the US Congress for £675 million specifically for waster water treatment has been successful and will be invested (by the Coalition's Programme Management Office) over the next two years.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Government's estimate is of the numbers of Muslims killed directly or indirectly by Saddam Hussein since 1979, based on additional information discovered since 1 May.[141282]

  Mr. Rammell
  From 1979 Saddam Hussein's regime was involved either directly, or indirectly in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, the large majority of whom were Muslims. These deaths occurred during conflicts with neighbouring countries and through internal repression. Since 1 May, a large quantity of documentation has been found in Iraq relating to killings and persecution by the former regime. We are working with Iraqi Ministries and other organisations to analyse this documentation. Until this work is complete, a final figure will not be known.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many mass graves have been discovered in Iraq since 1 May; and what estimate he has made of the number of people buried in each of those graves.[141283]

  Mr. Rammell
  Since 1 May, some 270 mass graves have been reported to the Coalition Provisional Authority, with more sites still being discovered. Of these, about one third have been assessed so far, with one third of these confirmed as mass graves. The UK has seconded a forensic team to the CPA to co-ordinate and prioritise forensic work. From documentary and physical evidence found so far, it is estimated that around 300,000 people may be buried in mass graves in Iraq, although the true number will not be known until full investigations have been completed.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evidence of torture and killing of Iraqi citizens under the regime of Saddam Hussein have been discovered in Iraq since 1 May.[141284]

  Mr. Rammell
  Since 1 May, both physical and documentary evidence has been found which details the torture and killing of Iraqi citizens under Saddam Hussein's regime, including systematic abuse in police stations and prisons. UK secondees in the Coalition 424W
  Provisional Authority Office of Human Rights and Transitional Justice are helping to analyse documentary evidence and take personal testimonies of human rights abuses by the former regime.

  Kuwait
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what negotiations he is having with Kuwait over the future operation of border crossings at Safwan.[141048]

  Mr. Rammell
  The UK is not currently engaged in direct negotiations with Kuwait about the Safwan border crossing. Nevertheless, there is a continued dialogue between the Coalition and Kuwait on ways to reduce delays in border crossings. We are awaiting Kuwaiti reaction to a draft Memorandum of Understanding prepared by the US Army in consultation with the Headquarters of Multi-National Division (South East). The MOU aims to ensure the smooth flow of traffic across the border while meeting Kuwaiti requirements for adequate security measures.

  Middle East
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reasons the Government abstained in the vote on 16 September on Syria's draft resolution that Israel desist from any act of deportation and cease any threat to the safety of the elected president of the Palestinian Authority. [140591]

  Mr. Rammell
  The draft resolution before the UN Security Council on 16 September did not recognise both parties' obligations under the roadmap. It could have been detrimental, had it been adopted, to the implementation of the roadmap. As our Permanent Representative to the UN said at the time, we regret that the Security Council was unable to pass a balanced resolution. But the resolution's sponsors would not accommodate UK amendments intended to achieve a better balance, and the UK therefore abstained. A resolution on the situation of President Arafat was subsequently put to an Emergency Special Session of the UN General Assembly. European Union proposals for a more balanced text were then accepted and the UK, with our EU Partners, voted for the resolution.

  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has made clear the Government's view that expelling or harming President Arafat would be wrong and counterproductive. Israel should not allow its justified anger at the continuing violence to lead to actions that would undermine both the peace process and its own interests.

  Olympic Bid
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to ensure that Ministers representing the United Kingdom abroad are adequately briefed on the London 2012 Olympic bid.[140507]

  Mr. Rammell
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on 3 December 2003,Official Report, column 64—64W. As she has made clear, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have in

  425W
  place arrangements for overseas missions to alert our Public Diplomacy Policy Department to relevant visits by Ministers so that appropriate briefing on the London 2012 bid can be provided.

  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office are represented on the working group of officials set up to provide advice to London 2012 on the Government interests in the bid and to Ministers on matters relating to the bid, which the Secretary of State also mentioned in her answer.

  Timber
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by what means the policy for purchasing timber and timber products of(a) the Foreign Office and (b) each of its overseas missions, ensures that they are obtained from legal and sustainable sources.[141334]

  Mr. Rummell
  Our procurement policy follows the best practice guidance set out by Defra.

  The requirement to purchase only legal and sustainable timber and timber products is laid down in the FCO's purchasing manual, which applies to all staff and contractors procuring such materials on behalf of FCO and to those making major purchases on behalf of overseas missions.

  We also mandate the use of the Defra model contract clause on timber source verification in applicable contracts. This is designed to ensure that only timber or timber products from legal and sustainable sources is supplied.

  We are considering the practicalities of extending this policy to cover minor building works and furniture purchase which our overseas missions fund from their devolved budgets.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Big Conversation
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what visits(a) she and (b) Ministers in her Department (i) have made and (ii) plan to make using public funds in connection with the Big Conversation; how many civil servants accompanied each Minister in respect of such visits; what the cost to public funds was of visits by (A) each Minister and (B) civil servants in connection with the Big Conversation; and if she will make a statement.[143163]

  Tessa Jowell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him today by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

  Art Acquisition
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much her Department has spent on the acquisition of works of art in each year since 1997, broken down by amounts spent on(a) paintings and (b) sculpture; what the single most expensive piece of art purchased by her Department
  426W
  since 1997 has been; how much it cost; and what the total revenue raised by her Department through sales of its works of art has been since 1997.[142353]

  Estelle Morris
  In the seven financial years since 2 May 1997 the Government Art Collection has spent a total of £679,657 from its Programme Vote on the purchase of paintings and sculpture. This breaks down as follows:

  £

  Financial year

  Paintings

  Sculpture

  2 May 1997 to 1998

  72,919

  15,800

  1998–99

  61,594

  8,460

  1999–2000

  84,879

  38,588

  2000–01

  43,269

  12,866

  2001–02

  73,922

  9,488

  2002–03

  111,564

  68,444

  2003 to 2 December 2003

  77,732

  132

  The single most expensive work of art cost £63,450; for security purposes it is not possible to give the details of this item.

  The single most expensive work of art cost £63,450; for security purposes it is not possible to give the details of this item.

  The Government Art Collection has sold no works of art from its holdings since May 1997.

  Digital Satellite Television
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action she is taking to encourage BBC, ITV and Channel 4 to broadcast their audio-described programmes on digital satellite as soon as possible. [141994]

  Estelle Morris
  I understand there are still technical and commercial issues to be solved by broadcasters, manufacturers and platform operators before the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 audio-described programmes are available on satellite. But DCMS officials are working within the Digital Television Action Plan to ensure that audio-description can be received on all platforms.

  Fair Trade Products
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport whether it is the policy of her Department to use fair trade products, as a matter of course, in(a) sales on Departmental premises and (b) receptions and meetings involving staff and visitors.[142803]

  Mr. Caborn
  DCMS has a catering contract for staff restaurant facilities and hospitality. While the contractors are encouraged to use Fair Trade products the extent to which they are sold is dependent on the commercial success of so doing. Where Fair Trade products have been accepted by the customers as representing good quality and value for money, they continue to be sold. When renewing the contract in the spring of 2004 DCMS will stipulate that Fair Trade goods should be an option wherever possible.

  Flying Scotsman
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture. Media and Sport what representations she has received about the possible sale by Flying Scotsman plc of the Flying Scotsman locomotive.[142314]
  427W
  Estelle Morris
  In addition to the letter I have received from the hon. Member for the Vale of York, I have received one other letter about the possible sale of the Flying Scotsman locomotive.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will(a) declare the Flying Scotsman as an historic item of national importance and (b) take steps to prevent the sale abroad of the Flying Scotsman. [142315]

  Estelle Morris
  An historic train can only be listed under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 if it can be demonstrated that it has a longstanding permanent home. Moveable objects cannot be added to the list. With regard to a potential sale, I have no locus to intervene in the sale of private property, but if sold to an overseas purchaser the locomotive would of course be subject to the normal export licensing procedures.

  National Lottery
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the total spending on the National Lottery was in each Northern Ireland constituency in each of the past five years; and what proportion of this money was allocated to good causes in Northern Ireland. [142678]

  Estelle Morris
  Information on total National Lottery sales is not available by constituency. The available information about National Lottery sales by postcode area is set out in a table placed in the Library, in response to a question from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett).

  The information needs to be interpreted with care, since it is dependent on a number of factors, including the Post Office's updating of postcode information on a quarterly basis. The table shows total sales since the lottery started, including year to date sales up to the end of September 2003. The data has been extracted from Camelot's sales database and will not directly reconcile to Camelot's financial reporting.

  It is worth noting that the funds that the National Lottery generates for the good causes are shared between 15 distributing bodies—some of which are UK-wide, while others operate only in one of the four home counties—in fixed proportions. There is no necessary correlation between the way in which the proceeds are divided between the 15 distributing bodies, or the way in which grants are allocated by each of the distributors, and the level of ticket sales generated in particular areas. The address of a lottery grant recipient is not necessarily a reliable guide to the area or region which is benefiting from the expenditure (for example, London-based organisations often receive lottery grants but spend the money elsewhere).

  Information on the value of grants awarded is not available as a proportion of sales. The following table shows the amount of money awarded to good causes in Northern Ireland in each of the past five calendar years. This is derived from the Department's Awards Database, which is based on information supplied by the distributing bodies.
  428W

  Amount of money awarded to good causes in Northern Ireland in each of the past five calendar years£

  Amount

  1998–99

  42,069,683

  1999–2000

  66,137,769

  2000–01

  32,330,494

  2001–02

  56,012,802

  2002–03

  42,560,640

  Timber
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport by what means the policy for purchasing timber and timber products of(a) the Department and (b) the Royal Parks Agency ensures that they are obtained from legal and sustainable sources.[141344]

  Mr. Caborn
  DCMS and the Royal Parks Agency have sustainability as a major consideration in all procurement. Contracts for the supply of timber or timber products specify the need for Forest Stewardship Council or equivalent certification. Recent purchases of timber desks at DCMS had full Forest Stewardship Council certification and World Wildlife Fund accreditation.

  Trafalgar Square
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport who owns Trafalgar Square. [142864]

  Mr. Caborn
  Trafalgar Square is land owned by The Queen in Right of the Crown. It is managed by the Greater London Authority under section 383 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999. Westminster City Council owns the roads around Trafalgar Square including the pedestrianised area of the North Terrace.

TRANSPORT

  London Congestion Charge
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the total direct cost to UK businesses of the London congestion charge since its introduction. [142142]

  Mr. McNulty
  We are following the scheme's progress with interest. However, it is the responsibility of the Mayor and Transport for London (TfL) to monitor the scheme's effects, including its impact on business and the economy. TfL's spring 2004 congestion charging annual report will report the full impacts of the scheme and we shall study this carefully.

  A419
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what accidents have taken place in the last 10 years on the A419 between(a) Cirencester and Swindon and (b) Cirencester and Nettleton Bottom due to crossover accidents; and what plans he has to review the types of central reservation.[142011]
  429W
  Mr. Jamieson
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Archie Robertson, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Archie Robertson to Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown dated 9 December 2003:

  I have been asked by David Jamieson to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about cross-over accidents on the A419 between Cirencester and Swindon and Cirencester and Nettleton Bottom.

  On the A419 between Cirencester and Swindon, three crossover accidents occurred between April 1996 and September 2003. There were no such accidents on the Cirencester to Nettleton Bottom section of the road during the same period.

  One of these accidents was on a section of road which, due to design constraints, is without central reserve safety fencing. An improvement to the route at this location is included in the Government's Targeted Programme of Improvements. A second accident occurred on the section of the road through Cricklade where, at the time of the accident, there was no safety fencing in place. However, the Agency has recently completed an improvement scheme which included the provision of safety fencing at this location. The third, and most recent accident occurred at a location with safety fencing. We are investigating and reviewing the causes.

  Airports
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what public consultations are planned within the next two years on further airport construction and expansion in the UK. [142636]

  Dr. Howells
  Following our consultation on the Future Development of Air Transport in the UK, we will shortly be publishing a White Paper setting out our conclusions and our proposals.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the Government's policy is on ring-fencing landing slots at major London airports for the exclusive use for(a) Liverpool John Lennon Airport services and (b) other regional services; and what plans he has to review this policy. [142179]

  Mr. McNulty
  The issue of access to London airports for regional services will be addressed in the air transport White Paper.

  Blue Badges
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what plans he has to change the system for issuing blue badges for disabled drivers; [143043]

  (2) whether he has any plans to reform the powers of inspection over disabled blue badges to police. [143044]

  Mr. McNulty
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 1 December 2003,Official Report, column 4W, on the plans to change the Blue Badge Scheme.

  With regard to powers of inspection, we are committed to introducing a specific power for the police, traffic wardens and local authority parking enforcement officers to inspect badges. We are also looking at the feasibility of establishing a national database of badge holders; the introduction of smartcard technology; increasing penalties for abuse and misuse of the Scheme.
  430W
  The power to inspect, and a number of other measures, will need to be introduced through primary legislation and we are looking for a suitable legislative opportunity to do so. Meanwhile, we are already working on the changes that require secondary legislation, taking forward a number of research projects and drafting new guidance for local authorities to accompany the changes. We aim to implement the changes at the earliest opportunity.

  Civil Servants (Disabled Staff)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many senior civil servants in his Department are disabled staff expressed(a) in actual terms and (b) as a percentage of whole-time equivalent.[143045]

  Mr. McNulty
  There are no senior civil servants in the Department for Transport who have declared a disability to the Department.

  Consultation
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of regulations introduced by the Department have been subject to a consultation period of less than 12 weeks since the introduction of the Code of Practice on Consultations. [142484]

  Mr. McNulty
  There is not always a direct correlation between government consultations and individual regulations. For example, there would not be a consultation prior to certain statutory instruments introducing temporary local speed limits.

  The Cabinet Office Code of Practice on Written Consultation came into effect on 1 January 2001. The Department for Transport was established on 29 May 2002.

  In the period from 29 May 2002 to 31 December 2002 the Department published 28 consultations under the Code, of which one was less than 12 weeks.

  These figures do not include consultations that were carried out by the Department's Executive Agencies.

  A full list of consultations on transport issues that have taken place from May 2002 (as DfT) and from before (as DTLR) can be found on the Department's website www.dft.gov.uk.

  Crash Barriers
  Mr. Mackay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many times(a) steel barrier systems and (b) concrete barrier systems on trunk roads and motorways were breached in the latest year for which he has figures. [142757]

  Dr. Howells
  Information on the number of times(a) steel barrier systems and (b) concrete barrier systems on trunk road and motorways in England have been breached is not available.

  The standard recording procedure for injury accidents does not record detail of the type of barrier hit. No data is available for non-injury accidents.
  431W
  The Highways Agency is not aware of any breaches of concrete barrier on trunk roads or motorways in England. However, this may be influenced by the relatively small proportion of this type of barrier on the network.

  Mr. Mackay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what account is taken of whole-life maintenance costs in the procurement process for barrier systems used on motorways and trunk roads. [142758]

  Dr. Howells
  The Highways Agency requires its Agents to take account of whole-life costs as part of the scheme and programme development process for motorway and trunk roads in England. However, the procurement process for barrier systems on motorways and trunk roads in England does not currently take explicit account of whole-life maintenance costs.

  The Highways Agency is looking to address this through a current research project considering the performance characteristics of different barrier types, as well as the whole life construction, maintenance, repair and replacement costs, including traffic delay costs and safety risks to operatives carrying out the work. This research is expected to be completed in early 2004 and will help in the understanding of the key factors to be taken into account in the procurement process.

  Mr. Mackay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what account is taken of(a) congestion costs and (b) the potential danger to the workforce during repairs to barrier systems when bids for barrier contracts are at tender stage. [142759]

  Dr. Howells
  The Highways Agency's tender assessment process for barrier systems does not currently take formal account of congestion costs or the potential danger to the workforce during repairs to barrier systems when evaluating bids for barrier contracts at tender stage.

  The Highways Agency is looking to address this through a current research project considering the performance characteristics of different barrier types, as well as the whole life construction, maintenance, repair and replacement costs, including traffic delay costs and safety risks to operatives carrying out the work. This research is expected to be completed in early 2004 and will help in the understanding of the key factors to be taken into account in the bid evaluation process.

  Mr. Mackay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to review the type of barrier systems in use on(a) motorways and (b) trunk roads in England and Wales.[142761]

  Dr. Howells
  Since the 1960s, the former Department of Transport, and more recently the Highways Agency, have spent significant amounts developing barrier

  Numbers of fatally injured car drivers and passengers

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Total

  December

  Northern

  1

  1

  0

  3

  0

  0

  5

  Yorks/Humberside

  4

  2

  7

  5

  2

  0

  20

  East Midlands

  2

  0

  2

  2

  0

  2

  8

  Eastern

  2

  0

  2

  3

  3

  3

  13

  South East

  0

  4

  1

  0

  4

  13

  Greater London

  0

  2

  0

  1

  1

  1

  5

  432W
  systems for use on the UK motorway and trunk road network. Products include tensioned and untensioned steel barrier, wire rope barrier and concrete barrier. Over the years, these systems have been placed on the network in varying amounts. There are now sufficient lengths of these different barrier types on the network to obtain data on their respective in-service performance levels. This data is currently being collected and used to support research into the whole-life cost and safety-effectiveness of different types of barrier on motorways and trunk roads.

  The research is considering the performance characteristics of different barrier types, as well as the whole life construction, maintenance, repair and replacement costs, including traffic delay costs and safety risks to operatives carrying out the work. This research is expected to be completed in early 2004 and will help in the understanding of the optimum systems for use in different situations on the motorway and trunk road network.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research has been undertaken on the use of barriers to prevent lorries leaving the road in the event of an accident such as that which occurred recently on the A3 through Guildford.[143012]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Highways Agency has undertaken detailed research into the use of barriers and accidents involving single vehicles leaving the nearside of English roads. This has demonstrated that there are no significant shortcomings in the current standard for safety barriers and that the barrier provision strikes the right balance between the risks or errant vehicles leaving the road and the risks of impact with safety barriers themselves.

  Complementary research is currently being undertaken to examine the performance standard requirements for central reserve barriers. It is expected that the results from this research will give a better understanding of the factors and criteria influencing the choice of safety barrier.

  Drink-driving
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many car drivers and passengers have died in drink-driving accidents in(a) December and (b) January in (i) England and (ii) each region in each of the last six years. [141576]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The following table shows the numbers of fatally injured car drivers and passengers in an accident that involved at least one driver or rider with a blood alcohol concentration over 80mg/100m1 or whose breath test result was positive or who failed to provide a breath test.
  433W

  Number of fatally injured car drivers and passengers

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Total

  SouthWest

  1

  1

  2

  1

  3

  1

  9

  West Midlands

  2

  1

  1

  4

  5

  2

  1

  15

  NorthWest

  2

  0

  2

  1

  2

  2

  9

  England

  14

  11

  20

  21

  16

  15

  97

  January

  Northern

  1

  0

  4

  1

  2

  0

  8

  Yorks/Humberside

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1

  4

  7

  East Midlands

  2

  0

  2

  1

  6

  8

  19

  Eastern

  0

  1

  3

  2

  5

  5

  16

  South East

  7

  1

  3

  4

  3

  2

  20

  Greater London

  0

  1

  1

  2

  1

  0

  5

  SouthWest

  2

  0

  3

  0

  2

  1

  8

  WestMidlands

  0

  3

  5

  2

  7

  2

  19

  NorthWest

  7

  1

  3

  1

  3

  1

  16

  England

  19

  8

  25

  13

  30

  23

  118

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the implications of the introduction of compulsory identity cards for his Department. [142414]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department is continuing to discuss with the Home Office and others the programme of work announced by the Home Secretary on 11 November, including the implications for driving licences.

  Invalid Tricycles
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to amend section 20 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and the Use of Invalid Carriages on Highways Regulations 1988 to allow a mechanically propelled invalid tricycle which is capable in other circumstances of travelling at more than eight miles per hour to be used on public footways at a speed of less than eight miles per hour. [142201]

  Mr. McNulty
  "Invalid Carriages" as they are known in law, provide invaluable independent mobility to many disabled and older people. The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 permits the use of these vehicles on footways and their maximum permitted speeds are set out in the Use of invalid Carriages on Highways Regulations 1988. These vehicles must not travel faster than 4mph on footways and must be incapable of exceeding 8mph on the level under its own power on carriageways. These speed limits are fixed with the safety both of the users of these vehicles and of other road users and pedestrians in mind.

  We are currently conducting a comprehensive review of the legislation beginning with a research study to establish basic facts about current usage and to canvass views of users and other key stakeholders. Subject to the outcome of this investigation we will be considering what changes may need to be made to current legislation governing the construction and use of these vehicles on the highway. The question of speed limits will be included in this review.
  434W

  Ports
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps the Government are taking to comply with the International Ship and Port Facility Code; how many ships and ports have reached the required standard; and what estimate he has made of the date by which the UK will have met these obligations. [141911]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department for Transport's Transport Security Directorate (TRANSEC) is carrying out a programme of assessments of all the UK ports which fall within the scope of the IMO International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code, leading to the approval of Port Facility Security Plans and implementation of security measures. TRANSEC is also approving Ship Security Plans (SSPs) and issuing International Ship Security Certificates (ISSCs) for UK flagged cruise ships and ferries. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency is approving SSPs and issuing ISSCs for the UK flagged cargo fleet.

  The Government expect that all UK ports and UK flagged ships will comply with the required ISPS standards by the deadline date of 1 July 2004.

  Railways (Litter)
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what recent discussions he has had with(a) Network Rail and (b) train operating companies on the collection of litter; [142514]

  (2) what standards apply to the levels of cleanliness in and around rail stations; and what fines can be levied for failure to maintain railway premises free of litter. [142515]

  Mr. McNulty
  No recent discussions have taken place over the collection of litter at stations. It is a condition of station access agreements between the train operating companies and Network Rail, that the station and any adjoining road frontage be kept free from refuse, and in a clean and tidy condition.

  Section 91 and 92 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 confers powers on councils and magistrates courts to enforce the duty to clear litter from railway

  435W
  land. Where litter abatement orders or notices are not complied with, those responsible would be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a maximum Level 4 fine.

  Re-signalling Project (Dorset)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the safety aspects of the Dorset re-signalling project. [142787]

  Mr. Darling
  None. I understand that the project was approved following the submission to Her Majesty's Railway Inspectorate (HMRI) by Network Rail of a rigorous safety case. This document demonstrated compliance to Network Rail's Railway Safety Case and safety management systems. The scheme also followed the rail industry internal approval process, which included the appointment of an independent safety assessor. Network Rail and HMRI have conducted regular reviews throughout the project.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the Dorset re-signalling project to be completed; and if he will make a statement on the timetable of the project from tendering to completion.[142788]

  Mr. Darling
  Network Rail advises that the project will be commissioned during the week ending 14 December 2003. The timetable from the tendering process to completion has been 42 months.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what training has been made available to drivers and signallers to operate the new signal system in the Dorset region; and when that training will he complete.[142789]

  Mr. Darling
  Network Rail advises that it has completed training for all signalling staff required to operate the new signalling system including its associated radio systems. Nework Rail has provided training packs which include route learning videos, to enable driver training to be carried out by the train companies who operate along this section of railway—English Welsh and Scottish Railway, South West Trains and Virgin Trains. They have indicated that this training will be complete prior to project commissioning.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which parties were involved in the decision to go ahead with the Dorset re-signalling project; when the decision was taken; and what information was available at the time on the comparative safety of the available signalling systems. [142791]

  Mr. Darling
  Network Rail advises that the Dorset Coast signalling project uses tried and tested technology already in use elsewhere in Europe. The decision to proceed with the project was taken during the early part of 2000 by Railtrack. This followed extensive consultation involving Her Majesty's Railway Inspectorate, signalling suppliers, train operating companies and the then infrastructure maintenance contractor Balfour Beatty Rail Infrastructure Services.
  436W
  An assessment was carried out during this time comparing existing systems to the selected system from a safety, performance, reliability and maintenance perspective. The findings of this assessment were satisfactory.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people were(a) killed and (b) seriously injured in road accidents in each year since
  1997.[142232]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information requested is shown in the following table.

  Fatal and serious road accident casualties: GB 1997–2002

  Fatalities

  Serious

  1997

  3,599

  42,984

  1998

  3,421

  40,834

  1999

  3,423

  39,122

  2000

  3,409

  38,155

  2001

  3,450

  37,110

  2002

  3,431

  35,976

  Total

  20,733

  234,181

  South Coast Multi-Modal Study
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) in respect of the recommendations relating to rail in the South Coast Multi-Modal Study, how many(a) are being implemented, (b) have been ruled out by the Strategic Rail Authority, (c) have been ruled out by train operating companies and (d) have not yet been subject to decision;[142340]

  (2) in respect of the recommendations relating to roads in the South Coast Multi-Modal Study, how many (a) are being implemented, (b) have been ruled out and (c) have not yet been subject to decision.[142341]

  Mr. McNulty
  Our 9 July 2003 response to the South Coast Multi-Modal Study, which was sent to MPs within the South East as part of an announcement package, set out in detail where we have asked for further work to be undertaken by the respective delivery agencies. This includes where we have asked for schemes to be taken forward, where we have asked for schemes to be considered further or where to look at alternatives. Implementation of all schemes included in the announcement is subject to the successful completion of all necessary consultation and statutory procedures.

  The Highway Agency, Local Authorities and the Strategic Rail Authority are taking this work forward in liaison with interested parties.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the total cost was of the South Coast Multi-Modal Study.[142342]

  Mr. McNulty
  The total cost of the South Coast Multi-Modal Study (SoCoMMs) including call-off contract is around £1.8 million, excluding VAT.

  Speed Cameras
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 1 December 2003,
  437W
  Official Report, column 7W, on speed cameras, how many people were (a) killed and (b) seriously injured at the camera sites within the pilot areas. [142233]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Data and analysis are described in the Department's report. Numbers of killed and seriously injured (KSI) casualties are added together for sites in six areas. Sites were phased in so have different numbers of months of data.

  For sites with two years of after data, there were 0.66 KSI casualties per year per site before cameras and 0.36 KSI per year per site afterwards. For sites with one year's data it was 3.83 to 2.02 KSI per site per year.

  Train Punctuality
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to monitor reliability and punctuality on train performance into Paddington station, with specific reference to the performance of First Great Western, in the last 12 months for which figures are available.[142234]

  Project Financial

  Financial year started

  Government funding (­000)

  Outcomes

  St. Helens Bus Station

  1992–93

  2,200

  Quality Bus Corridor

  St. Helens Linkway

  1992–93

  8,037

  Transport Corridor Improvements

  Earlestown Station

  1993–94

  180

  Refurbishment

  St. Helens Subway Design

  1994–95

  8

  Design for subway to industrial development

  IT St. Helens Bus Station

  1995–96

  132

  IT equipment to provide information at bus stations

  St. Helens Rail Station

  1995–96

  38

  Refurbishment/upgrade

  St. Helens Junction Study

  1996–97

  114

  Study of useage

  St. Helens Junction

  1998–99

  599

  Developing major scheme

  Lea Green New Station

  1997–98

  2,293

  New Station Construction

  St. Helens Corridor Appraisal

  1999–2000

  73

  Assessment of Bus Corridor outcomes

  Corridor Q

  2001–02

  2,188

  Smart bus route

  Centre 6

  2001–02

  651

  Town centre highway and environmental improvements

  Capital Challenge

  1998–99

  858

  Town centre transport improvements

  Newton 21

  1998–99

  93

  SRB Environmental Improvements

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what central Government expenditure has been allocated by his Department in(a) St. Helens and (b) Merseyside in each year since 1992. [141301]

  Mr. McNulty
  The following table shows allocations to St. Helens and across all five Merseyside authority areas since the 1997–98 financial year:

  £000

  Financial year

  Allocations to St. Helens

  Allocations to five Merseyside authorities

  1997–98

  934

  8,752

  1998–99

  1,055

  8,134

  1999–2000

  1,533

  11,310

  2000–01

  2,378

  15,618

  2001–02

  3,890

  29,364

  2002–03

  3,974

  32,098

  2003–04

  4,508

  39,501

  Comparable information is not available for the period prior to 1997.
  438W
  Mr. McNulty
  The Strategic Rail Authority monitors the performance of all train operating companies and publishes statistics in its quarterly "National Rail Trends" publication, copies of which are placed in the Library of the House. The next edition covering performance to the end of September 2003 will be published later this month. Information is provided for the services of each operator in aggregate, not by specific destination stations.

  Transport Projects (St. Helens)
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which projects have been(a) wholly and (b) partly funded by his Department in St. Helens since 1997; when each project was announced; when it started or was expected to start; what funding was provided by (i) Government and (ii) a third party; what third party provided funding; what the target group of the project was; what the projected outcome of the project was; and what the name of the project was.[141275]

  Mr. McNulty
  The information is not available in the form requested. The table shows capital expenditure projects in St. Helens since 1992. Maintenance-related projects are too numerous to list here.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the level of government expenditure on(a) rail, (b) bus and (c) road infrastructure was in (i) St. Helens, (ii) Merseyside and (iii) the North West region in each year since 1992.[141302]

  Mr. McNulty
  The information is not available in the form requested. During the period 1997–98 to 2005–06, St. Helens are committed to spend a total of £14 million on a range of integrated transport schemes. During the same period the total commitment by all five Merseyside authorities on integrated transport schemes is £126 million. In addition to this, funding has been provided direct to enable Merseytravel to deliver schemes with a total value of £417 million across Merseyside during the same period.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the projects assisted by central Government expenditure which(a) have been started and (b) are expected to start on (i) rail, (ii) bus and (iii) road infrastructure in (A) St. Helens and (B) Merseyside in each year since 1992.[141303]
  439W
  Mr. McNulty
  The following table shows capital expenditure projects in St. Helens from the 1992–93 financial year onwards:

  Project

  Authority area

  Financial year started

  St. Helens Bus Station

  St. Helens

  1992–93

  St. Helens Linkway

  St. Helens

  1992–93

  Earlestown Station

  St. Helens

  1993–94

  St. Helens Subway Design

  St. Helens

  1994–95

  IT St. Helens Bus Station

  St. Helens

  1995–96

  St. Helens Rail Station

  St. Helens

  1995–96

  St. Helens Junction Study

  St. Helens

  1996–97

  St. Helens Junction

  St. Helens

  1998–99

  Lea Green New Station

  St. Helens

  1997–98

  St. Helens Corridor Appraisal

  St. Helens

  1999–2000

  Corridor Q

  St. Helens

  2001–02

  Centre 6

  St. Helens

  2001–02

  Capital Challenge

  St. Helens

  1998–99

  Newton 21

  St. Helens

  1998–99

  A total of 336 integrated transport schemes taken forward in Merseyside since 1992; too many to list individually here.

  Trunk Roads (Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many stretches of new trunk road have been opened in(a) Stroud and (b) Gloucestershire in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [143030]

  Mr. Jamieson
  North facing slip roads were added to M5 Junction 12 in Gloucestershire as part of a full rebuilding of the junction. The work was completed on 27 November 2002.

  There have been no other new stretches of trunk road opened in Stroud or Gloucestershire in the last three years.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Anti-retroviral Drugs (Illegal Trade)
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what action her Department is taking to combat the illegal trade in anti-retroviral drugs; [142145]

  (2) what estimate she has made of the value of anti-retroviral drugs traded illegally in each of the last five years. [142146]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  No specific estimate has been made of the value of anti-retroviral drugs traded illegally in the last five years.

  However, with the increased emphasis on trade in differentially priced drugs—including anti-retroviral drugs—to developing countries, it is likely that there will be an increase in the number of attempts made by unscrupulous traders to divert differentially priced drugs from their intended markets in developing countries to markets in developed countries in order to take advantage of the higher prices (and therefore higher profit margins) which can be obtained in markets in developed countries.
  440W
  It is important that we address this issue, both in order to ensure that such drugs reach the people in developing countries who need them most and to ensure that diverted drugs do not undermine the market in developed countries which is necessary to allow for further research and development into new drugs.

  The Government have consistently supported suitable measures to combat the diversion of differentially priced drugs. We have supported the introduction of a new EU Regulation intended to combat the diversion of differentially priced drugs; worked with our G8 colleagues to secure commitments to action on this issue at the G8 summit in Evian; and ensured there were suitable provisions addressing the issue of diversion in the recent agreement in the WTO on how countries with insufficient manufacturing capacity in the pharmaceutical sector can make effective use of the compulsory licensing provisions in the WTO TRIPS Agreement.

  Art Acquisition
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much her Department has spent on the acquisition of works of art in each year since 1997, broken down by amounts spent on(a) paintings and (b) sculpture; what the single most expensive piece of art purchased by her Department since 1997 has been; how much it cost; and what the total revenue raised by her Department through sales of its works of art has been since 1997. [142354]

  Ms Hewitt
  There has been no significant expenditure on works of art by the Department since 1997 nor any sales.

  Auditing
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what assessment she has made of the effects of raising the audit exemption threshold to £5.6 million; and if she will make a statement; [140887]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the impact of raising the audit exemption threshold to £5.6 million on the business environment, with particular reference to (a) standards of business behaviour, (b) quality of financial information available to stakeholders and (c) levels of economic crime. [140888]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government estimate that raising the audit exemption threshold has the potential to save small companies around £94 million a year. There are inevitably risks as well as benefits associated with raising the threshold. The Government concluded, following consultation, that these risks are small and are outweighed by the benefits in terms of costs savings and greater flexibility for small businesses. The Government's consultation document on the proposal contained a draft impact assessment discussing the risks and benefits. The consultation document "Raising the Thresholds", which was published on 11 July 2003, is available on the Department's website at http:// www.dti.gov.uk/cld/published.htm. A final version of the impact assessment will also be available there in due course.
  441W

  Big Conversation
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what visits(a) she and (b) Ministers in her Department (i) have made and (ii) plan to make using public funds in connection with the Big Conversation; how many civil servants accompanied each Minister in respect of such
  to public funds was of visits by (A) each Minister and (B) civil servants in connection with the Big Conversation; and if she will make a statement. [143156]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House today.

  Biotechnology
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the availability of long-term sources of finance in the biotechnology industry. [140517]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government has taken a number of steps to improve the financial environment for the biotechnology industry. The R&D Tax Credit system, has benefited many bioscience companies. UK-based companies can also take advantage of the DTI's business support products. Four products have been launched to date, all of which may be of use to biotechnology companies:

  Small Firms Loan Guarantee

  Grant for Investigating an Innovative Idea

  Grant for Research and Development

  Knowledge Transfer Partnerships

  The Higher Education Innovation Fund (£187 million over 2004–05 and 2005–06) and Public Sector Research Exploitation Fund (£15 million over 2004–05 and 2005—06) are examples of Government's support for commercialisation of research.

  Commercial funding of the industry through financial markets is essential, however, for its long-term success. Government will normally intervene only in financial markets where it can identify a clear market failure, but where such failures are identified, the track record of intervention is strong. For example the UK High Technology Fund (UK HTF), an element of the £180 million Enterprise Fund was announced in 1998. Other initiatives include the Regional Venture Capital Funds launched on a national basis for England through the Small Business Service in 2002, and funds set up by the Regional Development Agencies and Devolved Administrations to tackle localised market failures.

  The UK has the most liquid capital markets in Europe and the most developed venture capital sector in the world after the USA. Optimism about the long-term prospects for bioscience is starting to return to public markets after a global downturn and good UK biotechnology companies are still receiving venture capital investment. The UK is also home to some of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies, providing long-term finance for biotechnology companies through deals to purchase or license technology.
  442W
  The Government is not complacent, however. The DTI and Department of Health prompted the establishment of the Bioscience Innovation and Growth Team, to identify and clarify the issues that are critical to the future competitiveness of the UK biosciences sector. The BIGT report was published in November 2003 and includes recommendations on the flow of seed capital, improvement of public sector technology transfer activity, and the provision of a favourable regulatory and fiscal environment. The Government will examine these recommendations carefully and respond to them all in due course.

  Business Start-ups
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many Government schemes, and how much state funding, have assisted business start-ups in 2001 to 2003(a) in Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland, (b) in Teesside and (c) in the United Kingdom. [141863]

  Jacqui Smith
  Advice and support to business startups are provided by a range of organisations in the region. This includes DTI's Small Business Service and Business Link Organisations (and the Small Firms Loan Guarantee), ONE NorthEast (the regional development agency), local authorities, universities, community organisations, and Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise. Support for investment projects can be accessed by start-up businesses through DTI's Regional Selective Assistance (administered by ONE NorthEast—the regional development agency) and the Small Business Service's Enterprise Grant. Training and skills support is provided through Business Link Organisations and Local Learning and Skills Councils. Funding comes from a range of sources including central Government, European Structural Funds, and local authorities. It is not possible to identify easily the value of assistance accessed by start-up businesses within the overall totals of advice and support.

  The available statistics for the value of assistance to start-up businesses in the areas requested are as set out.

  The value of Business Link Organisation for Tees Valley's "Start Right in Business" scheme is shown in the following table. This is the closest available match to the geographic analysis requested. There is no national equivalent.

  Assistance to start-up businesses

  Period

  Tees Valley

  Middlesbrough

  Redcar and Cleveland

  2001 to date

  388,188

  113,652

  72,324

  The Small Business Service's Enterprise Grants (EG) for small and medium sized enterprises, including startup business give support to capital investment for manufacturing and service to manufacturing companies. The following table shows the values of assistance for all businesses. While a number are known to be start-ups specific information for start-up businesses is not readily available.
  443W

  Value of assistance for all businesses

  Tees Valley

  Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland

  2001 to date

  1,635,260

  114,250

  European Structural Funds are available through the North East of England Objective 2 Programme 2000–06.

  Specific measures within the programme are designed to assist business start-ups.

  1.Measure 1.1—Growing New Businesses and Marrying Entrepreneurs with Ideas. Is funded regionally as follows:

  Funding

  £million

  European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)

  26.904

  Public Sector Funds (includes other Government funding)

  28.783

  Private Sector Funding

  1.479

  The target number of Small to Medium Enterprises (SMEs) to be assisted is 9,973. From 2001 to date grant offered regionally totals £16.476 million and 1,628 SMEs have been assisted, of which 184 (Grant Value £3.968 million) are in Teesside.

  2. Measure 1.2—Providing Access to Finance for Entrepreneurs. Is funded regionally as follows:

  Funding

  £million

  European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)

  14.121

  Public Sector Funds (includes other Government funding)

  8.796

  Private Sector Funding

  8.553

  The target number of SMEs to be assisted is 2,065.

  From 2001 to date grant offered regionally totals £1.616 million and 554 SMEs have been assisted, of which 32 are in Teesside.

  European Social Fund (ESF) funding is also available to assist with the training needs of beneficiaries associated with new SMEs.

  3. Measure 1.4—Entrepreneurial Attitudes and Skills. Is funded regionally as follows:

  Funding

  £million

  European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)

  9.866

  Public Sector Funds (includes other Government funding)

  9.866

  Private Sector Funding

  2.192

  From 2001 to date offers worth £1.941 million have been made regionally, with 4,355 people trained, of which 1,611 (Grant Value £0.650 million) are in Teesside.

  Arts Council England North East operates the Cultural Business Venture, providing support to the cultural sector for business expansions including start-ups. Additional funding is provided by ONE NorthEast and European Structural Funds Objective 2 programme. The following figures show the value of assistance offered. There is no national equivalent.
  444W

  Assistance to start-up businesses

  £million

  Period

  2001 to date

  Tees Valley

  388,188

  Middlesbrough

  113,652

  Redcar and Cleveland

  72,324

  Canada Lottery
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action the Government are taking to protect people from being defrauded by people purporting to represent the Canadian Lottery. [142856]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) launched a consumer awareness campaign on 3 December in response to the increase in telephone marketing scams originating from Canada.

  The OFT is working closely with the Canadian authorities to ensure prompt and effective action is taken against these scams.

  The campaign includes a telephone hotline set-up by the OFT to collect evidence which the Canadian authorities can use to prosecute the scam operators.

  Employment Rights
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what representations she has received from(a) overseas companies and (b) British companies regarding the rights of overseas workers to pursue unfair dismissal claims against their employers under the Employment Rights Act 1996; [142839]

  (2) if she will make a statement on the recent Employment Appeal Tribunal ruling on the rights of overseas workers to pursue unfair dismissal claims under British employment law. [142852]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Department has received representations on behalf of one company with bases in Great Britain and overseas.

  The Employment Rights Act 1996 confers the right to complain of unfair dismissal. When territorial limits in the Act were abolished in 1999, the Government's intention was that employees working overseas would be able to claim unfair dismissal only if there was a proper connection with Great Britain. The employment Appeal Tribunal has confirmed that this is the test which the employment tribunals must apply.

  European Molecular Biology Organisation
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what UK contributions at current prices have been made to the European Molecular Biology Organisation in(a) each of the last three years and (b) the current year; what contributions are proposed for the next three years; and what assessment she has made of the benefits the UK has gained from its contributions. [141753]

  Ms Hewitt
  The UK government, through grant-in-aid to the Medical Research Council (MRC), contributes to the European Molecular Biology Conference (EMBC) which is the funding body for the
  445W
  European Molecular Biology Organisation (EMBO). The UK's contributions for the last three years and the current year are as follows:

  Euros

  Year

  Actual contribution

  Contribution at 2003 prices

  2000

  1,224,222

  1,291,063

  2001

  1,446,010

  1,531,246

  2002

  1,502,628

  1,531,246

  2003

  1,531,246

  1,531,246

  EMBC management is proposing an increase, over the next three years, of around 18 per cent. extra in 2004 rising to 44 per cent. extra in 2006 (about £700,000 per annum extra for the MRC). This is currently under discussion with EMBC and the UK contributions are not therefore known.

  It is a matter for the MRC to decide/agree what level of subscription they should pay to EMBC, taking into account other commitments and priorities. They undertake periodic reviews of the relevant EMBO schemes in preparation for EMBC budget discussions. The main benefits of participation are association with, and access to, prestigious and well-run fellowships schemes that have added value to the development of the European molecular biology.

  Family Friendly Employment
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what(a) training and (b) support is provided to managers to help them to institute family-friendly employment procedures; [141886]

  (2)what information and support is available for employers regarding flexible working arrangements for employees; [141887]

  (3)what plans the Government have to provide specialist guidance for small and medium enterprises, with particular reference to effective family-friendly working practices among small firms. [141888]

  Mr. Sutcliffe [holding answer 8 December 2003]
  An extensive package of support and guidance to help businesses implement and benefit from the laws for working parents has accompanied their introduction in April this year.

  This includes:

  Detailed guidance incorporating standard letter templates, summary flowcharts and 'how to' hints and tips.

  Interactive web-based guidance via the TIGER website (www.tiger.gov.uk)

  A case studies booklet "Flexible Working—The Business Case: 50 Success Stories" giving real examples of how businesses have introduced flexible working practices and how they have benefited. Half of those featured are small businesses.

  Specific information concerning the payment of statutory maternity, paternity and adoption pay for employers is available on the Inland Revenue website (www.inlandrevenue. gov.uk/employers/during.htm). In addition, information on the new laws was sent to all employers registered with the Inland Revenue (1.5—1.7 million copies) in August 2002.

  An awareness raising campaign incorporating national newspaper and online adverts aimed specifically at business. Further adverts are planned early next year in the national press
  446W
  and specialist business publications. The DTI also intends to mail in excess of 100,000 SMEs to further raise awareness and facilitate uptake and signpost them to further information.

  A series of six seminars for Business Link advisers on family-friendly policies run by the DTI in the spring of 2003. A Business Link factsheet on flexible working, tailored specifically for SMEs, is also available.

  A number of projects in partnership with external stakeholders. For example DTI supported a joint partnership project by the Federation of Small Business (FSB), British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. An awareness raising poster was circulated to 155,000 FSB members and 1,300 BCC branches, and a collection of case studies promoting the business case for flexible working in smaller businesses and giving examples of good practice was developed. (Getting it Right: Improving work-life balance in your business.)

  Free confidential advice to employers via the Acas helpline service (08457 474747), which is signposted on guidance and advertising.

  A programme of seminars, reaching almost 10,500 employers throughout the UK, run by Acas during the first quarter of 2003. They continue to run seminars on all issues relating to working parents as part of their core seminar programme.

  The Government's work-life balance campaign, which actively promotes family-friendly working practices across the workplace. Part of the non-legislative agenda for employment relations policy, the campaign focuses on researching and disseminating best practice to industry and business.

  All guidance material is accessible through the DTI website: www.dti.gov.uk/workingparents.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps the Government are taking to promote the take-up of family friendly options at work by men.[142659]

  Mr. Sutcliffe [holding answer 8 December 2003]
  In April this year, the Government introduced new laws for working parents which cover fathers as well as mothers, including the right for fathers of children aged under six or disabled children under 18 to request flexible working and the right to two weeks paid paternity leave. These new rights together with the existing rights to parental leave and time off for dependants recognise that men increasingly want to play a greater role in the family and provides them with more choices for doing so.

  To facilitate take-up, the Government are running an on-going awareness raising campaign which includes national newspaper adverts targeted specifically at fathers. In addition posters have been circulated to CAB's GP's surgeries and libraries. We are working in partnership with stakeholders to raise awareness. We provided support to the charity, Fathers Direct for their pilot magazine aimed at new fathers—'Dad', launched in five different maternity units in April 2003 and distributed to all new fathers coming into contact with those units.

  The Government's Work-Life balance campaign also encourages employers to adopt best practice and provide family-friendly policies right across the work force.
  447W

  Gas Bills
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the average household gas bill was in(a) England and (b) each English region in each financial year since 1996–97.[142273]

  Mr. Timms
  Information on average gas bills is regularly published by my Department in "Quarterly Energy Prices", available at www.dti.gov.uk/energy/inform/energy_prices/index.shtml. The available information is as follows:

  Average annual domestic gas bills: England and Wales

  £

  Standard credit

  Direct debit

  Prepayment

  1998

  315

  277

  331

  1999

  304

  268

  318

  2000

  295

  264

  311

  2001

  293

  266

  309

  2002

  310

  281

  327

  20031

  315

  287

  333

  1 Provisional bills for 2003 cover consumption from Q4 2002 to Ql 2003 and are then grossed up to take account of Q2 2003 and Q3 2003.

  Notes:

  1. Figures for 1996 and 1997 are not available for England and Wales as the survey from which regional information is produced began in 1998.

  2. Bills relate to total bill received in the year e.g. covering consumption from Q4 of the previous year to Q3 of the named year.

  3. All bills are calculated using an annual consumption of 18,000 kWh. Figures are inclusive of VAT.

  Regional annual average domestic gas bills (England and Wales)

  £

  Region

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Standard credit

  West Midlands

  317

  312

  297

  296

  313

  319

  South East

  314

  311

  296

  295

  311

  317

  Wales

  313

  311

  291

  291

  306

  314

  Eastern

  318

  311

  296

  291

  309

  316

  Northern

  315

  312

  290

  292

  312

  314

  Northwestern

  314

  311

  295

  294

  309

  316

  London

  318

  311

  295

  293

  309

  316

  North East

  309

  312

  294

  294

  309

  314

  East Midlands

  316

  312

  292

  290

  309

  309

  South West

  312

  312

  299

  290

  312

  319

  Southern

  316

  312

  299

  297

  311

  318

  Direct debit

  West Midlands

  280

  271

  265

  268

  284

  287

  South East

  276

  269

  262

  270

  279

  286

  Wales

  278

  266

  265

  249

  283

  291

  Eastern

  280

  266

  264

  265

  280

  286

  Northern

  277

  262

  259

  262

  281

  285

  Northwestern

  277

  267

  267

  268

  283

  285

  London

  280

  268

  267

  268

  282

  290

  North East

  271

  268

  263

  268

  282

  280

  East Midlands

  278

  266

  261

  264

  281

  285

  SouthWest

  275

  268

  265

  261

  281

  288

  Southern

  278

  270

  265

  267

  280

  290

  Prepayment

  West Midlands

  331

  318

  312

  309

  327

  332

  South East

  331

  317

  311

  309

  327

  331

  Wales

  330

  325

  311

  310

  329

  352

  Eastern

  331

  317

  311

  308

  326

  331

  Northern

  331

  320

  312

  308

  327

  330

  Northwestern

  331

  318

  311

  309

  326

  331

  London

  331

  318

  311

  308

  326

  332

  North East

  331

  319

  312

  309

  327

  330

  East Midlands

  331

  316

  312

  309

  326

  330

  South West

  330

  318

  312

  309

  327

  333

  Southern

  331

  320

  312

  309

  328

  339

  Note:

  Regions quoted are Gas Local Distribution Zones
  448W

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to encourage manufacturing investment in the UK. [140949]

  Ms Hewitt
  We published the Government's Manufacturing Strategy in May 2002—the first such strategy for 30 years—which we developed in partnership with industry, trade unions and other stakeholders, following a summit meeting on the challenges facing manufacturing held in December 2001.

  By maintaining a stable macroeconomic climate, together with measures such as reforming capital gains tax; making permanent enhanced capital allowances for small and medium sized firms; introducing the R&D tax credit for small and large firms; establishing Regional Venture Capital Funds; and extending the Small Firms Loan Guarantee, we are providing a climate conducive to investment for the long term in UK manufacturing.

  Insolvency Service
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much revenue has been generated by the Insolvency Service in each year since 1997; and what the cost of administering the Insolvency Service has been(a) in each year since 1997 and (b) in each quarter of 2003. [143142]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Income and Expenditure of the Insolvency Service as reported in its Annual Report and Accounts since 1997 was:

  £000

  Income from fees

  Investment income

  Expenditure

  1997–98

  37,495

  50,980

  78,538

  1998–99

  41,935

  47,500

  78,159

  1999–2000

  45,341

  43,400

  80,512

  2000–01

  51,270

  45,100

  80,314

  2001–02

  52,260

  39,400

  81,840

  2002–03

  58,674

  34,800

  90,332

  Investment Income derived from the Insolvency Services Investment Account was surrendered to the Consolidated fund in accordance with Section 405 of The Insolvency Act 1986. 2003–04 is the last year of this funding regime. A new financial regime will be introduced on 1 April 2004 under the Enterprise Act 2002. Under the new financial regime investment income will be paid to creditors and The Insolvency service will seek to cover its case administration costs in full through a revised fees structure.

  In year financial monitoring and management control information is being produced monthly. These unaudited figures are not directly comparable with previous years as they include the costs and income of the Redundancy Payments Service together with estimates of non-cash and other charges that can only be known at year-end.

  International Trade
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the impact of EU trade rules on developing countries. [142169]
  449W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The overall impact of EU trade arrangements on developing countries is determined by a number of factors. The European Union offers preferential access to European markets to developing countries under the Cononou Agreement with African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries, the 'Everything But Arms' initiative for Least Developed Countries and the Generalised System of Preferences for Developing Countries. In addition to preferential arrangements, other instruments have a direct or indirect impact on developing countries, including anti-dumping measures, the common agricultural policy, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, and technical regulations. The impact of such factors differs from country to country, and there is little research on the aggregated net effect either on specific developing countries or on developing countries as a group.

  We continue to work closely with the European Commission and other member states to ensure the greatest benefit to developing countries of increased international trade through, for example, the WTO negotiations on the Doha Development Agenda, and Economic Partnership Agreement negotiations under the Cotonou Agreement.

  Iraq
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many representatives from her Department are in Iraq; how many representatives of her US counterparts are in Iraq; and if she will make a statement on the effect on UK industry of the numbers. [140534]

  Ms Hewitt
  There are five staff from my Department working in Iraq. Three are seconded to the Coalition Provisional Authority, including one responsible for trade development. Two are based in the British Office to promote trade relations with Iraq. A further staff member will go to Basra early in the New Year to promote trade. We have had positive feedback for my Department's work to support British firms in Iraq and we will continue to work with all interested British firms as well as with trade associations and other industry bodies. I am not in a position to comment on US Government staffing for Iraq.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the level is of Iraq's debt to the UK which was accrued up to the point of the fall of Saddam Hussein; how much has been written off; what the nominal repayment due each year is; and what debt repayments were made in each year since 1997.[141557]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  ECGD has unrecovered claims of around £623 million arising from contracts with Iraq signed prior to the first Gulf conflict in 1991. This amount does not include interest, which it is estimated could bring the figure to some £1 billion. The only monies recovered by ECGD since 1997, all through the United Nations Compensation Commission were £2.68 million in 2001—02 and £320,000 in 2003—04.

  No debt has been written off but the Paris club group of creditors, including the UK, has announced that it intends to agree a comprehensive treatment of Iraq's debt problem by the end of 2004. In the meantime no payment of these arrears of debt will be sought.
  450W
  The Government have made it clear that it is seeking a fair and sustainable solution to the Iraqi debt problem. We believe that the debts should be dealt with under the new Paris Club 'Evian approach' which offers a long-term solution for countries with the most serious debt problems, including debt reduction where the need is clearly demonstrated.

  ISO 9001:2000
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how she intends to encourage further implementation of ISO 9001:2000 following the employment of this standard by suppliers to the Ministry of Defence. [140663]

  Ms Hewitt
  ISO 9001:2000 is the latest version of the quality management systems standard. It has been substantially revised to take account of modern management practice and the experience gained in industry over the past 25 years. It is already the most widely recognised management standard in the world and I am sure that the advantages and benefits of the new version will encourage its use still further. The DTI welcomes tenders from suppliers that have certification to this standard for a relevant scope but it is not a mandatory requirement and it is acceptable for a potential supplier to use other means to demonstrate how it has implemented its quality policy.

  Motor Industry
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations her Department has received from the motor industry regarding possible membership of the euro. [142127]

  Jacqui Smith
  I have had discussions with many companies from the automotive sector, and had a range of representations on whether the UK should join the euro. The Government's policy on membership of the single currency is unchanged. The determining factor is the national economic interest, as assessed by the Government's five economic tests.

  Pension Payments
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will initiate an inquiry into the reasons underlying the number of pensioners receiving their state pension by means of direct payment into a Post Office card account on 6 September. [141519]

  Mr. Timms
  No. The reasons for opting for a Post Office account are a matter for individual customers. The Department of Work and Pensions provides customers with all the information that they need to choose the type of account into which they want to have their pension or other benefit paid, including those with Post Office access. It is for the customer to take the final decision on which account is best for them in their own particular circumstances.

  Posting of Workers Directive
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what guidelines she gives under the
  451W
  Posting of Workers Directive; whether collective agreements in construction will be enforced; and if she will make a statement. [142418]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Guidance on the Posting of Workers Directive is available on the DTI website. Unlike most EU countries, the UK has a voluntarist system of collective employment relations. Collective agreements in construction are not universally applicable and accordingly are extended by law to cover employers and workers not party to them. These collective agreements are, therefore, not covered by the Directive, which we have fully implemented in the UK.

  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she last met representatives from trade unions representing construction industry workers to discuss the Posting of Workers Directive, with particular reference to its implication for(a) collective agreements and (b) health and safety.[142436]

  Mr. Sutcliffe [holding answer 8 December 2003]
  I meet the TUC periodically to discuss various issues, including matters relating to the construction industry. I am meeting representatives from the Transport and General Workers Union on 10 December, and I will be discussing the Posting of Workers Directive among other issues.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to change the targets for the purchase of renewable energy by UK companies. [142130]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government have set a target that, by 2010, 10 per cent. of sales from licensed electricity suppliers should come from renewable sourced electricity. There are no plans to change this target.

  The Renewables Obligation, enforced under the Renewables Obligation Order 2002 in England and Wales, and the Renewables Obligation (Scotland) Order 2002, is the main mechanism which the Government have introduced to help achieve the growth necessary to reach this target. The Obligation will remain in place until 2027, and licensed electricity suppliers are required to supply a specified and growing proportion of their sales from renewable sourced electricity each year. The level of the Obligation was 3 per cent. in its first year of operation, and now stands at 4.3 per cent. and is set to rise to 10.4 per cent. in the 2010–11 period.

  The Government have recently announced their intention to bring forward proposals to raise the levels of the Obligation for the years beyond 2010–11, by further annual increases, reaching 15.4 per cent. in the 2015–16 period. This is a further sign of our commitment to developing the renewables industry.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of companies have met their targets for the purchase of renewable energy in the last 12 months. [142147]

  Mr. Timms
  Under the terms of the Renewables Obligation Order (2002), and the Renewables Obligation (Scotland) Order 2002, licensed electricity suppliers in Great Britain are required to supply specific 452W
  proportions of their electricity sales from renewable sourced electricity—with the aim of reaching the target of 10.4 per cent. in the period 2010–11.

  For the year to April 2003, the level of the Obligation was set at 3 per cent. (The current level is 4.3 per cent.). Suppliers demonstrate their compliance with the Obligation through presenting Renewables Obligation Certificates (ROCs) to Ofgem. If they do not present ROCs in this way, they must buy out all or part of their obligation target. Payments made to this buyout fund are then subsequently recycled to those suppliers who have demonstrated their compliance through the ROC mechanism.

  The proportions of suppliers meeting their obligations through (1) complete fulfilment and (2) partial fulfilment are shown in the tables.

  Suppliers and the 3 per cent. Renewables Target in England and Wales (Renewables Obligation)

  Number

  Percentage

  Suppliers reaching 3 per cent, target

  12

  31

  Suppliers partially meeting 3 per cent, target

  11

  29

  Suppliers failing to meet any of 3 per cent, target

  14

  40

  Suppliers and the 3 per cent. Renewables Target in England and Wales (Renewables Obligation)

  Number

  Percentage

  Suppliers reaching 3 per cent, target

  15

  54

  Suppliers partially meeting 3 per cent. target

  4

  14

  Suppliers failing to meet any of 3 per cent. target

  9

  32

  Taking all licensed electricity suppliers in Great Britain together, the proportion of the Renewables Obligation met by the actual supply of renewables in 2002–03 was 58.9 per cent.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the cost to UK companies of meeting current targets for the purchase of renewable energy. [142148]

  Mr. Timms
  The costs of the Renewables Obligation, the Government's main policy instrument for the achievement of our 10 per cent. renewable energy target for 2010, are expected to be passed on by electricity supply companies to electricity consumers across the industrial, commercial and domestic sectors. The Government estimates that, by 2010–11, the impact of the Renewables Obligation on electricity prices will be the equivalent of an average increase of 4.9 per cent. in real terms over actual 1999 prices.

  Standardisation
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures she is taking to push standardisation as part of an export and growth drive. [140536]

  Ms Hewitt
  The National Standardisation Strategic Framework (NSSF) sets out to promote standardisation to the benefit of business, government and society. Within this Framework, the British Standards Institution (BSI) is aligning its activity in international standards making (ISO standards) to changing British business interests. An objective stated
  453W
  in the NSSF is to "Optimise the use of standardisation as an international gateway to achieve more open markets, reduce technical barriers to trade, UK trading advantage, technology transfer and international development objectives". We are currently determining how best to pursue this objective. It may be that promotion of UK or European standards will form part of the Government's support for certain sectors of UK business in key export markets.

  Timber
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry by what means the policy for purchasing timber and timber products of(a) the Department, (b) Companies House, (c) the Employment Tribunals Service, (d) the Insolvency Service, (e) the National Weights and Measures Laboratory, (f) the Patent Office, (g) the Radiocommunications Agency and (h) the Small Business Service ensures that they are obtained from legal and sustainable sources. [141341]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Department's London headquarters estate (including SBS) operates an environmental management system certified to IS014001. This environmental management system (EMS) sets out the policy and procedure to be followed in the procurement of timber products. The EMS requires timber to be FSC or equivalent certification. All other buildings within the DTI HQ estate but outside of London are subject to the same procurement criteria.

  Letter from David Smith to Mr. Barry Gardiner, dated 9 December 2003:
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has asked me to reply on behalf of the Radiocommunications Agency to your Parliamentary Question detailing by what means the policy for purchasing timber and timber products ensures that they are obtained from legal and sustainable sources.
  I can confirm that, where the Agency has had the need to procure timber products, it has followed the Department's strict guidelines on purchasing from qualified and certified organisations. All of the Agency's timber products are purchased from suppliers who have satisfied the Department's and the OGC's strict monitoring and inspections regime on producing goods from legal and sustainable sources.

  Letter from Alison Brimelow to Mr. Barry Gardiner, dated 9 December 2003:
  I am replying to this parliamentary question, tabled on 28 November 2003, regarding the policy of purchasing timber and timber products.
  The Patent Office does not purchase timber direct from any suppliers. However, furniture is purchased through the Office of Government Commerce's (OGC) Buying Solutions Framework Agreement where it is a requirement that preferred suppliers hold the relevant Forestry Stewardship Council (FSC) certification. Where we engage the use of contractors for minor building work requirements, they must provide evidence that timber products are sourced from managed and sustainable sources.
  In addition, the Patent Office is presently working towards an environmental management system certified to EN ISO 14001.

  Letter from Dr. J. W. Llewellyn to Mr. Barry Gardiner, dated 9 December 2003:
  The Secretary for Trade and Industry has asked me to reply on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory (NWML) to your question on what means the policy for purchasing timber and timber products of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory ensures that they are obtained from legal and sustainable sources.
  454W
  The National Weights and Measures Laboratory (NWML) is part of the DTI HQ estate and thus is within the scope of the Department's environmental management system, which is certified to ISO 14001. This management system sets out the policy and procedure for procurement of timber products and requires FSC or equivalent certification. Furniture for NWML is purchased from Kinnarps who are an approved OGC supplier. Stationery is purchased mainly from Guilbert (UK) who hold the DTI stationery contract. Where possible products are obtained from their 'environmental benefit' range.

  Letter from Desmond Flynn to Mr. Barry Gardiner, dated 9 December 2003:
  I refer to your question tabled on 28 November 2003 to Patricia Hewitt regarding the use of timber and timber products. I have been asked to reply to you in relation to The Insolvency Service.
  Although we are not major consumers of timber products The Service's policy is always to specify to contractors and suppliers that these materials are provided from sustainable sources. We also require prospective suppliers to confirm this with their bids for our work. Timber is mainly used in office refurbishment projects whereas our office furniture these days is invariably made from melamine-faced chipbord (MFC), rather than virgin timber.

  Letter from Roger Heathcote to Mr. Barry Gardiner, dated 9 December 2003:
  You asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry by what means the Department's policy for purchasing timber and timber products ensures they are obtained from legal and sustainable sources. I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Employment Tribunals Service (ETS), which is an Agency of the DTI.
  All furniture supplies are purchased through contracts let by the Office of Government Commerce in respect of which the suppliers have already established proof of conforming with the necessary legal and sustainable requirement in respect of timber. The same requirement is built into our standard terms of contract for works services.

  Letter from Claire Clancy to Mr. Barry Gardiner, dated 9 December 2003:
  I am responding to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on behalf of Companies House, which is an Executive Agency of the DTI.Companies House operates an environmental management system certified to ISO1400I. This sets out the policy and procedure to be followed in the procurement of timber products. Any purchases are therefore from Forestry Stewardship Council accredited sources.

  US-UK Energy Dialogue
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made in the US-UK Energy Dialogue to enhance co-ordination and co-operation on energy issues between Britain and the United States of America; on what dates since 1 January she has held meetings with the United States Commerce Secretary at which the US-UK Energy Dialogue was discussed; and where each of these meetings was held. [142390]

  Mr. Timms
  Officials from US Departments of Energy, Commerce and State meet regularly with officials in the Department of Trade and Industry and FCO to discuss shared interests in the field of energy. Topics include security and diversity of international energy supplies, the role of energy in development, how to promote clean energy technologies to address security of supply and environmental challenges, and national energy policy. We have had detailed discussions on science and technology matters and used the existing
  455W
  Memorandum of Understanding to develop joint activities on the contribution of basic science to meeting energy challenges, cleaner fossil fuels, the development of a hydrogen economy and carbon capture and storage.
  456W
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has not had any meeting with Department of Commerce Secretary Don Evans to discuss energy issues this year.

WALES

  Powys NHS Trust
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain)
  Pursuant to the dissolution of the Powys NHS trust on 1 April 2003 and its absorption into the Powys Local Health Board, and the remission of the outstanding debt of the dissolved trust, HM Treasury has presented a Minute to the House on 27/11/2003 giving particulars and circumstances of the remission proposed by the National Assembly for Wales which it has approved in principle.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain)
  The Wales Departmental Expenditure Limit will be increased by £1,344,000, from £10,608,142,000 to £10,609,486,000. The increase is a result of:

  (a) £1,957,000 adjustment for Council Tax Benefit and Rural Rate Relief measures;

  (b) £1,368,000 in respect of Countryside Commission for Wales pensions; and

  (c) Net transfers to other Government Departments from the National Assembly for Wales of £1,981,000.

  Resources

  Capital

  Change

  New DEL

  Of which voted

  Non-voted

  Change

  New DEL

  Of which voted

  Non-voted

  126,848

  3,765,954

  2,891,954

  874,000

  500

  11,500

  11,500

  —

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from:

  RfR 1: Eliminating Poverty in Poorer Countries

  a transfer of £10,000,000 resource from the Unallocated subhead to the Reducing Poverty in sub-Saharan Africa Grants subhead;

  a transfer of £14,000 resource from DFID Reducing Poverty in Asia subhead to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as a contribution to a British Geological Survey visit to Afghanistan;

  a transfer of £3,250,000 resource from the Central Reserve to the Reducing Poverty in the Rest of the World Administration subhead;

  a transfer of £1,000,000 resource from DEFRA representing a contribution to the Environmental Know-How Fund;
  2WS
  These transfers are as follows:

  (i) £4,168,000 to the Department for Constitutional Affairs in respect of the Wales Office;

  (ii) £137,000 to ODPM for Ordnance Survey Pan Government Agreement (CCW);

  (iii) £410,000 to ODPM for Ordnance Survey Pan Government Agreement (Planning);

  (iv) £90,000 to ODPM for Ordnance Survey Pan Government Agreement (WDA);

  (v) £395,000 from DWP for administration costs of additional financial assessments for Residential Allowances;

  (vi) £97,000 from ODPM for Community Fire Safety;

  (vii) £500,000 from the Home Office for Operation Tarian;

  (viii) £371,000 from the Home Office for Staff Costs;

  (ix) £193,000 from the Home Office for non—pay costs for regional government offices;

  (x) £1,268,000 from the DTI for End of Life Vehicles.

  D.E.L provision for the Wales Office of £4,154,000 (net of depreciation) including £3,330,000 for administration costs is included within the limits of the Department for Constitutional Affairs.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  The Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn)
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the Department for International Development DEL for 2003–04 will be increased by £127,348,000 from £3,629,106,000 to £3,756,454,000 and the administration costs limits has been increased by £3,250,000 from £209,000,000 to £212,250,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the following table:

  a transfer of £116,250,000 resource from the Central Reserve to the Reducing Poverty in the Rest of the World Grants subhead;

  a transfer of £75,000,000 resource from the Unallocated subhead to the Reducing Poverty in the Rest of the World Grants subhead;

  a transfer of £38,000 resource from DFID Developing Innovative Approaches to Development subhead to the Home Office as DFID's contribution to GRECO membership;

  a transfer of £6,400,000 resource from the Central Reserve to the Developing Innovative Approaches to Development Grants subhead.

  The change in the capital element of the DEL arises from:

  a transfer of £500,000 from the Central Reserve to the Reducing Poverty in the Rest of the World capital subhead.

HOME OFFICE

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett)
  Plans of changes to the Departmental Expenditure Limit and Administrative Cost Limit for 2003–04 are set out below.

  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the Home Office's Departmental Expenditure Limits for 2003–04 will be decreased by £11,514,000 from £12,546,484,000 to £12,534,970,000 and the administration costs limit will be increased by £80,386,000 from £3,351,317.000 to £3,431,703,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the following table:

  New DEL

  Change

  Voted

  Non-voted

  Total

  Resource

  27,367

  10,155,844

  1,544,825

  11,700,669

  Capital

  -38,881

  822,573

  233,546

  1,056,119

  Depreciation*

  —

  -182,725

  -39,093

  -221,818

  Total

  -11,514

  10,795,692

  1,739,278

  12,534,970

  * Depreciation, which forms part of resource DEL, is excluded from the total DEL since capital DEL includes capital spending and to include depreciation of those assets would lead to double counting.
  Details of the changes are available in the House Library.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott)
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of any necessary Supplementary Estimate, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's Departmental Expenditure Limits for 2003–04 will change as follows:

  (1) the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's Main Programmes DEL will be increased by £259,342,000 from £6,655,307,000 to £6,914,649,000 and the administration costs limit will be increased by £29,268,000 from £367,110,000 to £396,378,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resource and capital are tabled below.

  (£000)

  New DEL

  Change

  Voted

  Non-voted

  Total

  Resource

  212,829

  3,036,150

  1,978,998

  5,015,148

  Capital

  46,513

  640,465

  1,259,036

  1,899,501

  Depreciation*

  1,594

  -16,468

  -2,000

  -18,468

  Total

  260,936

  3,660,147

  3,236,034

  6,896,181

  * Depreciation, which forms part of resource DEL, is excluded from the total DEL, since capital DEL includes capital spending and to include depreciation of those assets would lead to double counting. The change in depreciation is due to capital spending on The Rent Service and Planning Inspectorate Executive Agency programmes and transfer from the provision for Regional Development Agencies to the Department of Trade and Industry.
  4WS
  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from:

  (i) take up of End Year Flexibility of £266,254,000 comprising:

  (a) £81,762,000 for the Sustainable Communities Plan;

  (b) £64,727,000 for Housing programmes expenditure;

  (c) £35,104, 000 for Fire Services (mass decontamination, search and rescue, firelink radio systems and the White Paper;

  (d) £5,550,000 for the Fire Service College building refurbishment;

  (e) £6,200,000 for Regional Policy programme expenditure;

  (f) £500,000 for the Audit Commission:

  (g) £300,000 for research expenditure;

  (h) £7,269,000 (administration costs) for administration expenditure by The Rent Service and Planning Inspectorate Executive Agencies;

  (i) £2,761,000 for programme expenditure by the Planning Inspectorate Executive Agency;

  (j) £23,000 from the Evidence Based Policy Fund for Research;

  (k) £41,038,000 non-voted for the Housing Corporation;

  (l) £21,020,000 non-voted for Regional Development Agencies.

  (ii) a net transfer of £52,925,000 to other government departments, comprising:

  (a) £1,600,000 from Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, £1,404,000 from Department for Transport, £8,000 from Department for Health, £125,000 from Department for Culture, Media & Sports, £58,000 from Her Majesty's Treasury, £30,000 from Home Office, £686,000 from The Scottish Executive, £177,000 from Department for Trade & Industry, £275,000 from Ministry of Defence, £244,000 from Her Majesty's Custom & Excise, £148,000 from Forestry Commission and £637,000 from The Welsh Assembly for Payment to Ordnance Survey in relation to the Pan Government Agreement for supply of mapping data;

  (b) £181,000 (administration costs) from Cabinet Office following the transfer of the Civil Contingencies Secretariat;

  (c) £75,000 (administration costs) to Department for Transport for the Honours Secretariat and the Equality and Diversity Unit;

  (d) £162,000 (administration costs) to Department for Health, £20,000 to Department for Culture, Media and Sports, £60,000 to Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, £258,000 to Department of Education and Skills, £75,000 to Department for Transport, £70,000 to Department for Work and Pensions, and £60,000 to Home Office in respect of Local Government Public Service Agreements;

  (e) £502,000 (administration costs) to Department for Constitutional Affairs following Machinery of Government changes;

  (f) £700,000 from the Department for Transport to the Research Team to reverse a previous Machinery of Government change;

  (g) £130,000 from Home Office for Special Grants programme;

  (h) £100,000 from the New Ventures Fund to the Department of Education and Skills for a joint Residents' Consultancy Project;

  5WS

  (i) transfers to Home Office of £2,000,000 for a joint Capacity Building and Crime Initiative, £250,000 for Community Support Teams, £1,500,000 for the Pathfinder projects and £30,000 for the Good Practice Events from the New Ventures Fund;

  (j) £861,000 (administration costs) from Government Offices administration to the Department of Trade and Industry to reflect the reduction in review work;

  (k) £2,315,000 (administration costs) from Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to Government Offices administration for additional core agenda work;

  (l) £17,104,000 (administration costs) from the Home Office to Government Offices administration in respect of Crime reduction, Active Communities Unit, Street Crime initiative, Community Cohesion, Drugs Prevention Advice, Communities Policy, Business Crime Advisors and core funding from SR2002 settlement;

  (m) £762,000 (administration costs) from the Department for Culture, Media and Sports to Government Offices administration for Core agenda and funding from SR2002 settlement;

  (n) £1,365,000 (administration costs) from Department for Transport to Government Offices administration for work on DfT agenda and funding from SR2002 settlement;

  (o) £2,415.000 (administration costs) from Department for Education and Skills to Government Offices administration for core agenda, adult basic skills, additional Connexions funding and SR2002 settlement;

  (p) £97,000 to the Welsh Assembly for Community Safety schemes;

  (q) £77,169,000 from provision for Regional Development Agencies to Department for Trade and Industry.

  (iii) An increase in receipts of £10,667,000 to offset similar increase in provision for Payment to Ordnance Survey and £850,000 to offset a similar increase in provision for Research.

  (iv) A transfer of £500,000 to Request for Resources 2, to fund Audit Commission Performance Assessment.

  (v) A net transfer of £21,844,000 from voted to non-voted provisions comprising:

  (a) a transfer of £107,462,000 to non-voted DEL for the Housing Corporation;

  (b) a transfer of £81,141,000 from non-voted to increase voted resource investment for the Sustainable Communities Plan;

  (c) a transfer of £4,477,000 from non-voted Departmental Unallocated provision to voted provision (£2,000,000 for central administration) and (£2,477,000 for the Planning Inspectorate Executive Agency administration costs).

  (vi) A reclassification of £91,462,000 New Deal for Communities resource investment provision as capital by a transfer to the Housing Corporation, non-voted provision fully offset by a transfer of capital from the Sustainable Communities Plan.

  (vii) As a result of the changes to Request for Resources 1, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's administration provision has been increased by £29,268,000 from £379,652,000 to £408,920,000.

  The change in the capital element of the DEL arises from:

  (a) take up of end year flexibility of £44,093,000 comprising

  (i) £21,360,000 for the Sustainable Communities Plan;

  (ii) £2,994,000 for Housing programmes expenditure;

  6WS

  (iii) £9,647,000 Capital Modernisation Fund for fire services (New Dimension);

  (iv) £1,500,000 for The Rent Service;

  (v) £40,000 Capital Modernisation Fund (Evidence Based Policy Fund) for The Rent Service;

  (vi) £8,552,000 for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's own capital expenditure;

  (b) a transfer of £2,420,000 from the Department for Trade and Industry for core funding from SR2002 settlement.

  Within the capital element of the DEL there is a net transfer of £66,267,000 from non-voted to voted provisions, comprising: £14,500,000 from provision to non-voted English Partnerships; £8,078,000 supplementary credit approvals for other housing programmes; £5,556,000 local authority Supplementary credit approvals for Fire New Dimension Search and Rescue and £67,133,000 to partly fund the New Deal for Communities reclassification).

  (2) The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's Local Government DEL will be increased by £27,947,000 from £41,331,545,000 to £41,359,492,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are tabled below.

  £000

  New DEL

  Change

  Voted

  Non-voted

  Total

  Resource

  19,498

  40,928,700

  98,082

  41,026,782

  Capital

  8,449

  324,710

  8,000

  332,710

  Depreciation*

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  27,947

  41,253,410

  106,082

  41,359,492

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from:

  (i) take up of End Year Flexibility of £13,298,000 comprising:

  (a) £3,375,000 for Valuation Services;

  (a) £335,000 for Local Government on Line;

  (a) £240,000 for Electoral Law;

  (a) £8,475,000 for Other Grants and Payments;

  (a) £873,000 draw down from Invest to Save Budget;

  (ii) a transfer of £500,000 from Request for Resources 1 for Audit Commission Performance Assessment;

  (iii) a transfer of £5,700,000 from capital for Local Government on Line.

  The change in the capital element of the DEL arises from draw down of £12,000,000 from the capital modernisation fund (end year flexibility), £2,149,000 from the Invest to Save Budget and a transfer of £5,700,000 to resource to increase provision for Local Government on Line.

  Non-domestic Rates (2004-05)
  The Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire (Mr. Nick Raynsford)
  On Wednesday 19 November 2003, I presented the provisional local government finance settlement for 2004–05. Included in the announcement was the
  7WS
  amount available of non-domestic rates in England for 2004–05 to be redistributed to local authorities. This statement details the calculation of the distributable amount and announces provisionally the non-domestic rate poundage (multiplier) for 2004–05 as 45.6 pence.

  £million

  2001–02 Outturn

  2002–03 Outturn

  2003–04 Provisional outturn

  2004–05 Estimated contribution

  1. Income from local lists

  Multiplier (p)

  43.0

  43.7

  44.4

  45.6

  Gross rate yield in respect of current year

  16,952

  17,195

  17,200

  17,400

  (i)Reliefs

  (a) Net Transitional Relief

  -493

  -182

  -93

  -110

  (b) Empty or partly occupied properties

  -1,049

  -1,144

  -1,147

  -1,160

  (c) Charitable

  -583

  -603.

  -616

  -622

  (d) Rural shops and post offices

  -5

  -6

  -6

  -7

  (e) Community amateur sports clubs

  -

  -

  -

  -8

  (f) Discretionary

  -43

  -42

  -46

  -49

  Net rate yield in respect of current year after reliefs

  14,778

  15,219

  15,292

  15,444

  (ii) Collection costs and other reductions to contributions

  (a) Costs of collection

  -84

  -84

  -84

  -84

  (b) Losses on collection

  -95

  -106

  -120

  -121

  (c) City of London offset

  -7

  -7

  -7

  0

  Total contribution in respect of current year

  14,592

  15,023

  15,082

  15,238

  (iii) Prior year adjustments

  (a)Interest on repayments

  -70

  -50

  -42

  -38

  (b) Repayments

  -270

  -479

  -472

  -429

  Net rate yield from local lists

  14,252

  14,484

  14,568

  14,771

  2. Income from Central list

  Net central list yield

  1,049

  l'O44

  1,045

  1,050

  3. Income from the former Crown list

  Contributions in lieu of rates

  12

  8

  9

  9

  Total yield

  15,313

  15,536

  15,622

  15,830

  4. Exchequer Contributions

  Exchequer contribution towards transitional relief

  262

  41

  0

  77

  Total NNDR pool payments (= 1+2 + 3+4)

  15,575

  15,577

  15,622

  15,907

  5. Adjustments

  Surplus brought forward

  -305

  134

  -915

  -893

  Combined total

  15,270

  15,711

  14,707

  15,014

  Distributable amount

  15,136

  16,626

  15,600

  15,000

  Surplus carried forward

  134

  -915

  -893

  The above calculation involves estimating several figures that are inherently difficult to forecast accurately, such as the gross rate yield and the prior year adjustments. The resulting figure of £15.014 billion has therefore been rounded to £15 billion exactly to avoid spurious accuracy.

  Notes:

  For 2001–02 and 2002–03 the amounts shown are those recorded in the outturn (NNDR3) returns. For 2003–04 the amounts shown are the provisional outturn for the year based mainly upon authorities' provisional contributions to the non-domestic rating pool. For 2004–05 the estimates are based on:

  1. Item 1: The gross calculated rate yield represents the total value of non-domestic hereditaments on local rating lists adjusted in relation to previous years outturn information regarding the gross rate yield times the multiplier.

  2. Item 1(i)(a): The transitional decrease adjustment includes the estimated amount of rates that will not be recouped from local list ratepayers under the transitional arrangements made by egulations under section 58 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and the transitional relief scheme, announced by written PQ on 25 November 1999, Official Report, column 770W.

  3. Item 1(i)(b): The empty property relief adjustments include voids and partially occupied hereditaments. The 2004–05 figure includes an allowance for the increase in the gross rate yield.

  4. Item 1(i)(c): Charitable rate relief. The 2004–05 figure includes an allowance for the increase in the gross rate yield.

  5. Item 1(i)(d): Rural Shops and Post Office relief. Figures include mandatory relief for general stores and post offices under the Local Government and Rating Act 1997. Figures for 2001–02 onwards includes mandatory relief for petrol filing stations and public houses under the Non-Domestic Rating (Public Houses and Petrol Filling Stations) (England) Order 2001 (SI 2001/1345) and mandatory relief for new enterprises on former agricultural premises under the Rating (Former Agricultural Premises and Rural Shops) Act 2001. The 2004–05 figure includes an allowance for the increase in the gross rate yield.

  6. Item 1(i)(e): Community Amateur Sports Clubs (CASCs). Mandatory rate relief for sports clubs registered with the Inland Revenue as Community Amateur Sports Clubs under the Section 64 of the Local Government Act 2003. This provision comes into effect on 1 April 2004. Sports Clubs that have not registered will still be eligible for discretionary relief allowed to non-profit making bodies.

  7. Item 1(i)(f): Discretionary relief granted to charities, non-profit making organisations and for other reasons including discretionary relief for village shops and post offices under the Local Government and Rating Act 1997. Figures for 2001–02 onwards include discretionary relief for petrol filing stations and public houses under the Non-Domestic Rating (Public Houses and Petrol Filling Stations) (England) Order 2001 (SI 2001/1345) and discretionary relief for new enterprises on former agricultural premises under the Rating (Former Agricultural Premises and Rural Shops) Act 2001. The 2004–05 figure includes an allowance for the increase in the gross rate yield.

  8. Item 1(ii)(a) and (b): The allowances for the costs and losses incurred by authorities in collecting non-domestic rates from ratepayers.

  8WS
  The amount of non-domestic rates in England for 2004–05 to be redistributed to local authorities will be £15 billion.

  The calculation of the distributable amount for 2004–05 is set out in the table below.
  9WS
  9. Item 1(ii)(c): City Offset—the amount which the City of London will not be required to pay into the non-domestic rating pool. It is the amount which will be retained by the City to meet its own expenditure. In 2004–05, City offset is to be set to zero.

  10. Item 1(iii): net adjustment in respect of appeals and other amendments to the rating list affecting liability for previous years rates settled in that year: comprising repayments and associated interest payments.

  11 Item 2: the rateable value of non-domestic hereditaments on the central rating list times the multiplier, less the net effect of transitional arrangements, and adjusted for appeals and other changes in respect of previous years.

  12. Item 3: Almost all properties previously included in the Crown List are included in the local list figures at item 1.

  13. Item 4: the contribution from central government to offset the amount of the Secretary of State's estimate of income foregone as a result of transitional arrangements established by regulations under section 58 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and the transitional relief scheme, announced by written PQ on 25 November 1999, Official Report, column 70W.

  Town and Country Planning (Use Classes Order)
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill)
  In January 2002, the Government issued a consultation document on possible changes to the Town and Country Planning Use Classes Order. Responses were to be received by 24 April 2002. We received over 2000 responses, which the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has since been considering.

  `A' USE CLASS

  The consultation document proposed amalgamating the Al and A2 Use Classes. This would have resulted in a broad Use Class, comprising of shops and premises in the financial and professional services sector. However, response from a range of sectors in the marketplace expressed anxiety and further research suggested that this proposal may not prove beneficial for business growth and would on the whole do more harm than good. As a consequence, the Government will not be taking this proposal forward, the Al and A2 Use Classes will remain separate.

  However, the Government will be making a number of amendments to the A 1 Use Class to bring it up to date and ensure that it reflects Government policy on town centres. These are:
  Internet cafes will be classified as an A1 use;
  Warehouse clubs will be taken out of the Use Classes Order, thus becoming sui generis;
  Motor vehicle showrooms will no longer enjoy permitted development rights for a change-of-use to any Al use.
  There will be no other changes to the Al or A2 Use Classes.

  The current A3 Use Class includes cafes, restaurants, pubs, bars, and takeaways. The consultation revealed that there is widespread concern that such a broad classification, which allows change of use from restaurants to pubs without the need for planning permission, contributes to the increase in the number of licensed premises. On 4 March this year, the hon. Member for Harrow East, Mr McNulty made a statement to the House announcing the Government had considered these representations carefully and proposed to put pubs and bars into a separate class.

  Although restaurants and cafes will retain their A3 classification, this class will be modified to omit the reference to the sale of hot food for consumption off the premises. Class A3 will therefore be restricted to restaurant or cafe type uses. A change of use to Al or A2 Use Classes will be permitted but all other changes of use will require planning permission. Pubs and bars will be classified under a new Use Class A4.
  10WS
  Takeaways will be classified under a new Use Class A5 due to the high level of concern expressed during the consultation about the specific impacts on amenity caused by such businesses and their customers. Both A4 and A5 Use Classes will be permitted a change of use to Al, A2 or A3 classification. Any other proposed changes of use will require planning permission.

  We do not propose to make any amendments to the current B Use Classes.

  Neither do we propose to make changes to the current C Use Classes.

  We propose to make one change to the current D Use Class, an additional Use Class D3: Late Night Leisure. Most existing late night uses are already covered by existing classes, however nightclubs do not have a clear classification within the current Use Classes Order, and the impact on amenity of nightclubs is distinct and different from other uses. We will, therefore introduce a new Use Class D3 will be the classification for nightclubs. Planning permission will be required for any change of use from or to a D3 classification.

  A statutory instrument giving effect to these changes will be made in due course.

  The order will be made under section 55(2)(f) of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 and it is therefore not subject to the Parliamentary procedures set out in section 333 of the Act.

TREASURY

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly)
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of any necessary Supplementary Estimate, HM Treasury DEL will be decreased by £3,576,000 from £212,025,000 to £208,449,000 and the administration costs limits will be increased by £2,525,000 from £137,063,000 to £139,588,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the following table:

  New DEL

  Change

  Voted

  Non-voted

  Total

  Resource

  -3,576,000

  178,732,000

  31,104,000

  209.836,000

  Capital

  0

  7,668,000

  0

  7,668,000

  Depreciation*

  0

  -9,055,000

  0

  -9,055,000

  Total

  -3,576,000

  177,345,000

  31,104,000

  208,449,000

  * Depreciation, which forms part of resource DEL, is excluded from the total DEL since capital DEL includes capital spending and to include depreciation of those assets would lead to double counting.
  11WS
  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from:
  an increase in total Treasury administrative costs of £2,525,000 resulting from:
  a partial draw down of eyf of £3,700,000 for the central Treasury, this increases voted central Treasury administration spend to the planned level published in the 2002–03 Departmental Report;
  a partial draw down of eyf of £1,500,000 for DMO;
  a transfer of £18,000 to the Cabinet Office for the transfer of the honours and dignities function;
  an increase in AinA of £1,000,000 from secondments with matching spend;
  a switch of £2,600,000 from OGC administration costs to OGC programme spend;
  a transfer of £58,000 from OGC to ODPM, for the Ordnance Survey pan government agreement, this switch was not included in the Winter Supplementary as it would have produced a negative RfR;
  an increase in AinA of £999,000 from OGC consultancies with £1,000,000 spend, giving a token £1,000 increase;
  a partial draw down of programme eyf of £300,000 for Budget documentation;
  a reduction in HM Treasury programme cost of capital of £7,758,000;
  funding of £350,000 programme spend from the Invest to Save Budget for a project on banking;
  a net transfer of £990,000 programme costs, for the honours and dignities function, to the Cabinet Office;
  an increase in OGC programme spend of £2,600,000 resulting from the switch from administration costs mentioned above;
  an increase in DEL CFERs of £603,000

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo)
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the Inland Revenue Departmental Expenditure Limit will be increased by £147,821,000 from £3,079,864,000 to £3,227,685,000 and the administration costs limit will be increased by £102,094,000 from £2,932,555,000 to £3,034,649,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the following table:

  (£000s)

  New DEL

  Change

  Voted

  Non-voted

  Total

  Resource

  103,250

  2,669,864

  350,440

  3.020,304

  Capital

  44.571

  182,381

  25,000

  207,381

  Depreciation*

  -2,097

  -158,564

  -

  -158,564

  Total

  145,724

  2,693,681

  375,440

  3,069,121

  * Depreciation which forms part of resource DEL, is excluded from the total DEL since capital DEL includes capital spending and to include depreciation of those assets would lead to double counting.

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from the draw down of £103,246,000 administration costs EYF; draw down of £36,000 allocated funds from the Evidence Based Policy Fund and a net reduction in the forecast asset figure of £32,000.
  12WS
  The change in the capital element of the DEL arises from the draw down of capital EYF and other resources EYF, totalling £44,031,000 as set out in the Public expenditure Outturn White Paper (CMS884), and an increase of £540,000 to VOA costs for the book value of assets sold.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey)
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of any necessary Supplementary Estimate, the H M Customs and Excise DEL will be increased by £69,803,000, from £1,221,392,000 to £1,291,195,000 and the administration costs limits will be increased by £58,986,000, from £1,073,736,000 to £1,132,722,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the following table:

  New DEL

  Change

  Voted

  Non-voted

  Total

  Resource

  69,803,000

  1,208,359,000

  -

  1,208,359,000

  Capital

  -

  81,836,000

  1,000,000

  82,836,000

  Depreciation*

  -

  -52,980,000

  -

  -52,980,000

  Total

  69,803,000

  1,237,215,000

  1,000,000

  1,238,215,000

  * Depreciation, which forms part of resource DEL. is excluded from the total DEL since capital DEL includes capital spending and to include depreciation of those assets would lead to double counting.

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from:
  administration costs changes resulting from the take up of DEL end year flexibility of £56,563,000 as set out in the Public Expenditure Outturn White Paper (Cm 5884); a transfer of £2,500,000 from capital investment to administration costs to meet Lorry Road User Charging costs; a transfer of £77,000 to the Rural Payment Agency in respect of VAT recipe verifications; a transfer of £8,500,000 from non-voted Departmental Unallocated Provision in resource DEL to voted administration costs in resource DEL; and
  programme expenditure changes in respect of the take-up of DEL end-year flexibility of £5,907,000 as set out in the Public Expenditure Outturn White Paper (Cm 5884): a transfer of £4,000,000 from DEFRA for work undertaken in respect of the illegal importation of Products of Animal Origin; a transfer of £154,000 from the Cabinet Office to cover the cost of a transferred asset; a transfer of £1,000,000 from capital investment to programme expenditure to meet Lorry Road User Charging costs; and a transfer of £244,000 to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in accordance with the Ordnance Survey Pan Government Agreement.

  As a result of the specified resource DEL changes mentioned in the above paragraph, the administration costs limit has increased by £58,986,000.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly)
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of any necessary Supplementary Estimate, the Office for National Statistics DEL will be increased by £3,863,000 from £141,651,000 to £145,514,000 and the administration
  13WS
  costs limit will be increased by £863,000 from £138,960,000 to £139,823,000. Within the DEL change. the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the following table:

  (£000)

  New DEL

  Change

  Voted

  Non-voted

  Total

  Resource

  863

  140,181

  -

  140,181

  Capital

  3,000

  19,170

  -

  19,170

  Depreciation*

  -

  -13,837

  -

  -13,837

  Total

  3,863

  145,514

  -

  145,514

  * Depreciation, which forms part of resource DEL, is excluded from the total DEL since capital DEL includes capital spending and to include depreciation of those assets would lead to double counting.

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from the draw down of £1,500,000 resource from the Invest to Save Budget to fund the Citizen Information Project. This is partially offset by a transfer of £637,000 in total to other government departments in relation to work to develop the Neighbourhood Statistics programme. The transfers comprise £281,000 to the Home Office, £198,000 to the Department for Education and Skills, £94,000 to the Department for transport, £59,000 to the Department of Health and £5,000 to the

  £

  Resources

  Capital

  DfEs

  Change

  New DEL

  Of which: Voted

  Non-voted

  Change

  New DEL

  Of which: Voted

  Non-voted

  RfRl

  790,835

  21,885,292

  7,781,032

  14,104,260

  71,775

  3,338,670

  2,230,909

  1,107,761

  RfR2

  -23,163

  480,13

  503,294

  -23,163

  0

  27,625

  27,625

  0

  RfR3

  13

  200,013

  200,000

  13

  51

  51

  0

  51

  OFSTED

  418

  207,418

  207,418

  0

  0

  2,900

  2,900

  0

  Sub Total

  768,103

  22,772,854

  8,691,744

  14,081,110

  71,826

  3,369,246

  2,261,434

  1,107,812

  Depreciation*

  -4,472

  -46,988

  -11,291

  -35,697

  Total

  763,631

  22,725,866

  8,680,453

  14,045,413

  71,826

  3,369,246

  2,261,434

  1,107,812

  * Depreciation, which forms part of resource DEL, is excluded from the total DEL since capital DEL includes capital spending and to include depreciation of those assets would lead to double counting.

  Within the Administration Cost limits changes, the impact is set out in the following table:

  £000

  DfES

  Original

  Change

  Revised

  DfES (RfR1)

  200,744

  +6,380

  207,124

  Sure Start (RfR2)

  7,999

  +1,137

  9,136

  Children"s Fund (RfR3)

  4,400

  4,400

  OFSTED

  30,000

  30,000

  Total

  243,143

  +7,517

  250,660

  The change in the resource element of the DEL of £768, 103,000 arises from £683, 160,000 increase in the voted element if the resource DEL and an increase of £84,943,000 in the non-voted element of the resource DEL.

  VOTED RESOURCE DEL

  The £683, 160,000 increase in the voted element of the resource DEL arises for RfR1 from the Machinery of Government change of £648,227,000 (Department of Health £634,557,000; Home Office £7,447,000 and Department for Constitutional Affairs £6,223,000); the net transfer in from the Department for Culture, Media
  14WS
  Depcartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The Administration costs limit will be increased by £863,000 from £138,960,000 to £139,823,000

  The change in the capital element of the DEL arises from the partial take up of DEL end year flexibility of £3,000,000 capital expenditure as set out in the Public Expenditure Outturn White Paper (Cm 5884).

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke)
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of any necessary Supplementary Estimate, the Department for Education and Skills DEL (including the Office for Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools (OFSTED) which has a separate Estimate) will be increased by £839,929,000 from £25,302,171,000 to £26,142,100,000 and the administration costs limits will be increased by £7,517.000 from £243,143,000 to £250,660,000.

  Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the following table:

  and Sport of £35,920,000 for the School Sports Co-ordinator Programme; the net transfer in from the Department of Health of £4,258,0000 for Standards Fund for Health; the net transfer in from the Home Office of £3,397,000 for Positive Activities for Young People, for Adult Basic Skills and for the Community Champions Programme; the transfer in from the Office for National Statistics of £198,000 for the Neighbourhood Statistics Programme; the transfer in from the Department of Trade and Industry of £ 108,000 for the Mutual Recognition of Qualifications Programme and the transfer in of £2,300,000 from RfR2 Sure Start for SEN Tribunal Early Support Pilot projects and Adult Basic Skills; the net transfer to the Department for Work and Pensions of £12,586,000 for Basic Skills programme through Jobcentre Plus and for the Disability Rights Commission; the net transfer to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister of £2,057,000 for the Regional Co-ordination Unit support; the take up of existing provision of £3,140,000 for the Parenting Fund programme and the ex-TEC property provision; and the take up of Evidence Based Policy Funding of £65,000 for understanding the impact of child poverty and progression routes; the transfer to the Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England (OFSTED) of £228,000 for Specialist Schools,

  15WS
  Evaluation of Training in Schools and for the Independent State Schools Partnership, which is departmental DEL neutral, movement of £190,000 (OFSTED inspection of FE Training) from non-voted to voted DEL is departmental DEL neutral.

  NON-VOTED RESOURCE DEL

  The £84,943,000 increase in the non-voted element of the resource DEL arises from a £108,093,000 increase in RfRI from the Machinery of Government change of £94,833,000 for the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) Non departmental public body; the transfer in from the Home Office of £7,000,000 for the Higher Education Funding Council for England to support the Active Community Fund project; the transfer in from the Department for Work and Pensions of £5,750,000 for the Adult Learning Inspectorate to inspect Jobcentre Plus training providers; the transfer in of £1,000,000 from RfR2 Sure Start for the Learning Skills Council for the delivery of FE childcare places; the transfer out of £300,000 from the Higher Education Funding Council for England to the Department of Health for Clinician Awards; the transfer out from the Adult Learning Inspectorate to Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England of £190,000 to inspect FE training in Higher Education Institutes which is departmental DEL neutral.

  The £23,163,000 decrease in RfR2 arises from the £23,300,000 transfer to RfRI for the SEN Tribunal Early Support Pilot projects, for Adult Basic Skills and for the delivery of FE childcare places and the transfer in of £137,000 from the Department for Work and Pensions for the ongoing costs of the childcare team.

  The £13,000 increase in RfR3 arises from the net transfer out of £160,000 to the Home Office for citizenship survey project; the transfer out of E30,000 to the Department for Work and Pensions for the family and children survey and the increase from the drawdown of Invest to Save Budget of £203,000 for the Children's Centre project aiming to improve the quality of partners existing services.

  ADMINISTRATION COST LIMITS

  The £7,517,000 increase in the Administration Cost limit arises from a £6,380,000 increase in the Administration Cost limit for RfRI from the Machinery of Government changes of £6,458,000 (Department of Health £4,878,000; Department for Constitutional Affairs £1,070,000 and Home Office £510,000); the transfer in of £860,000 from the Department for Work and Pensions for Employment Service contributions to shared services and for support of the Detached National Experts; the transfer in of £198,000 from the Office for National Statistics for the Neighbourhood Statistics programme; the transfer in of £108,000 from the Department of Trade and Industry for the Mutual Recognition of Qualifications programme; the net transfer out of £2,157,000 to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister for the Regional Co-ordination Unit support and the programme to administrative expenditure reclassification of £913,000 for education in Prisons and Custodial institutions.
  16WS
  The £1,137,000 increase in the Administration Cost limit for RfR2 arises from the reclassification of £1,000,000 programme to administrative expenditure; the transfer in of £137,000 from the Department for Work and Pensions for the ongoing costs of the Childcare team.

  CAPITAL DEL

  The change in the capital element of the DEL of £71,826,000 arises from a £62,473,000 increase in the voted element of the capital DEL and an increase of £9,353,000 in the non-voted element of the capital DEL.

  VOTED CAPITAL DEL

  The £62,473,000 increase to the voted element of the Capital DEL arises from an increase for R FRI from an in year draw down of £26,750,000 to fund the Capital Modernisation Fund projects through the Standards Fund; from the £20,000,000 transfer in from RfR2 Sure Start for Nursery Education grants; from the Machinery of Government changes of £ 15,723,000 from the Department of Health (£45,000) for IT and furniture; (£9,500,000) for Capital Modernisation Fund Children Services and (£6,178,000) for Secure Accommodation.

  NON-VOTED CAPITAL DEL

  The £9,353,000 increase to the non-voted element of Capital DEL arises from an increase for R FRI of £9,302,000 for the Machinery of Government changes from the Department of Health for Credit Approvals for Personal Social Services. An increase to the non-voted element of Capital DEL in RFR3 for the take up of £51,000 from the Invest to Save Budget for the Children's Centre project aiming to improve the quality of partners existing services.

PRIME MINISTER

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair)
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of any necessary Supplementary Estimate, the Security and Intelligence Agencies' DEL will be increased by £39,176,000 from £1,458,270,000 to £1,497,446,000 and the administration costs limits will be increased by £7,949,000 from £558,375,000 to £566,324,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the following table:

  New DEL

  Change

  Voted

  Non-voted

  Total

  Resource

  35,161,000

  11,105,287,000

  11,750,000

  1,117,037,000

  Capital

  4,015,000

  516,009,000

  5,000,000

  521,009,000

  Depreciation*

  -

  -140,600,000

  -

  -140,600,000

  Total

  39,176,000

  1,480,696,000

  16,750,000

  1,497,446,000

  * Depreciation, which forms part of resource DEL, is excluded from the total DEL since capital DEL includes capital spending and to include depreciation of those assets would lead to double counting.

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from:
  the take up of £10, 875,000 for Serious Crime funding. This was allocated to the Home Office at SR2000;
  a claim on the Reserve of £21,300,000 for work in Iraq;

  17WS
  the take up of End of Year Flexibility of £3,000,000;
  a transfer of £154,000 to Her Majesty's Customs and Excise (HMCE) for a building which is solely used by HMCE staff;
  a switch from capital to resource of £ 145,000;
  a decrease of £5,000 resource due to a reduction of £5,000 in the forecast loss on sale of an asset. This is a non-cash item;
  a transfer from non-voted DEL to voted DEL of £2,000,000;
  a further increase in resource of £5,015,000. This is offset by an increase of £5,015,000 Operating Appropriations in Aid.

  The change in the capital element of the DEL arises from:
  a claim on the reserve of £3,700,000 for work in Iraq;
  a transfer of £460,000 from the Cabinet Office;
  a switch from capital to resource of £145,000;
  a further increase in Capital of £5,000. This is offset by an increase in non-operating appropriations in aid of £5,000.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell)
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport DEL will be increased by £144,665,000 from £1,401,271,000 to £1,545,936,000 and the administration costs limits will be increased by £3,005,000 from £44,182,000 to £47,187,000.

  Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the following table:

  New DEL

  Change

  Voted

  Non-voted

  Total

  Resource

  24,831,000

  195,840,000

  1,229,799,000

  1,425,639,000

  Capital

  119,834,000

  109,551,000

  98,054,000

  207,605,000

  Depreciation*

  0

  -3,555,000

  83,753,000

  -87,308,000

  Total

  144,665,000

  301.386,000

  1,244,100,000

  1,545,936,000

  * Depreciation, which forms part of resource DEL, is excluded from the total DEL since capital DEL includes capital spending and to include depreciation of those assets would lead to double counting.

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from transfers to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister of £125,000 toward costs of reimbursing the Ordnance Survey under the Pan Government Agreement; a transfer from the Department for Education and Skills of £1,250,000 toward the costs of strategic commissioning of educational initiatives in museums and galleries and £130,000 for funding of the Club Links sporting programme; transfers to the Department for Education and Skills of £37,000,000 for funding of the School Sports Co-ordinator programme and £300,000 for funding of the schoolteachers' coaching programme; transfers from the Home Office of
  18WS
  £2,000,000 for match funding of the Step into Sport volunteer initiative and £134,000 for match funding of the Public Library Volunteer Scheme; and £104,794,000 other Resource DEL to fund ongoing programmes.

  The increase in the Department's administration costs limit arises from the transfer of £20,000 administration costs from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister toward the costs of local public service agreements and transfer of £762,000 administration costs to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister toward the administration costs of Government Offices; and take up of £3,747,000 of administration costs end year flexibility as set out in the Public Expenditure Outturn White Paper (Cm 5884).

  The change in the capital element of the DEL arises from take up of end year flexibility as set out in the Public Expenditure Outturn White Paper (Cm 5884) of £5,000,000 for further development of Culture Online; £3,256,000 for the royal parks and £62,521,000 other Capital DEL to fund ongoing programmes.

  The increases will be offset by inter-departmental transfers and drawdown of end year flexibility entitlement and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Tote
  The Minister for Sport and Tourism (Mr. Richard Caborn)
  The Government remains committed to the sale of the Tote, and we plan to bring forward the necessary legislative proposals very shortly.

  As part of the preparations for the sale, the Government has had to consider whether the Tote's current exclusive right to offer pool betting on British horseracing should continue once it has been transferred into the private sector. We have concluded that it will be in the public interest to open up the pool betting market to effective competition, but that a reasonable preparatory period is necessary in order to safeguard the policy aims underlying the sale.

  The Government has therefore decided that if our plans to sell the Tote to a racing consortium proceed, then the current intention is to issue the Tote's successor company with an exclusive licence to operate horserace pool betting on British racing for seven years.

  This licence will not be extended and at the end of that period there will be a new regulatory regime that will allow other operators to provide pool betting as well. We believe that this proposal provides necessary certainty for all concerned.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  The Solicitor-General (Ms Harriet Harman)
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of any necessary supplementary estimates, the Attorney General's DEL will be increased by £81,807,000 from £471,797,000 to £553,604,000 and the Administration Costs Limit will
  19WS
  be increased by £78,607,000 from £350,984,000 to £429,791,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are set out in the following table:

  New DEL

  Change

  Voted

  Non-voted

  Total

  Resource

  81,807,000

  546,604,000

  7,000,000

  553,604,000

  Capital

  700,000

  15,300,000

  0

  15,300,000

  Depreciation*

  -100,000

  -4,573,000

  0

  4,573,000

  Total

  82,407,000

  557,331,000

  7,000,000

  564,331,000

  * Depreciation is included in both the Resource and Capital DEL figures so it must be removed to arrive at the correct figure for total DEL.

  The Crown Prosecution Service's element of the Attorney General's DEL will be increased by £76,367,000 from £435,294,000 to £511,661,000 and the Administration Costs Limit will be increased by £76,367,000 from £325,207,000 to £401,574,000.

  The increase of £76,143,000 in the resource element of the DEL is from the Criminal Justice Reserve to fund the CPS's core business so that it can continue contributing to meeting criminal justice performance targets.

  The increase of £200,000 arises from a transfer from the Home Office to support the six-month extension to the Visual Recording of Suspects' pilots and the increase of £24,000 is from the Department of Constitutional Affairs (DCA) for the Case Preparation Project pilots.

  The Capital Modernisation Fund provided £1,800,000 in 2003–04 to enable the CPS to develop a Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) that would support secure e-mail and data transfer with other CJS organisations: and barristers and solicitors in the private sector. During the planning stage, an alternative simpler solution was identified and tested and it is this initiative that will be taken forward by Criminal Justice Information Technology (CJIT). CJIT have indicated that they do not require the funding to be transferred and consequently the decrease in the capital element of the DEL arises from the CPS returning £1,800,000 capital to the Capital Modernisation Fund.

  The Serious Fraud Office's (SFO) DEL will increase by £5,440,000 from £23,410,000 to £28,850,000 and the Administration Costs Limit will increase by £2,240,000 from £16,235,000 to £18,475,000.

  The increase in the resource element of the DEL arises from additional costs relating to two blockbuster fraud cases; £2,240,000 relates to increased administration costs and £3,200,000 relates to programme costs— mainly investigation and prosecution costs.

  The change in the capital element of the SFO DEL arises from a £450,000 increase in I.T. hardware spending, which relates to one of the blockbuster cases. These changes in DEL are supported by a claim on the DEL Reserve. This was agreed due to these cases being considered different from normal SFO cases in terms of their size and complexity and because of the strong public interest in pursuing them.

  There is no change in the resource element of the DEL for the Treasury Solicitors' Department (TSOL). The increase in capital of £2,050,000 from £3,200,000 to £5,250,000 arises from major areas of capital
  20WS
  expenditure relating to the implementation of new systems and the upgrading of the Department's I.T. infrastructure. The new major systems include a practice and case management system, (which enables the Department to more effectively manage and monitor its casework), a new electronic records and electronic document management system and, also, an upgrade to the Department's financial systems.

  There is no increase in the TSOL's administration cost limit.

CABINET OFFICE

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander)
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of any necessary supplementary estimate, the Cabinet Office DEL will be increased by £11,446,000 from £299,843,000 to £311,289,000 and the gross administration costs limits will be increased by £10,243,000 from £213,490,000 to £223,733,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the following table:

  £000

  New DEL

  Change

  Voted

  Non-voted

  Total

  Resource

  11,133

  276,115

  0

  276,115

  Capital

  313

  85,328

  0

  85,328

  Depreciation*

  0

  -50,154

  0

  -50,154

  Total

  11,446

  311,289

  0

  311,289

  * Depreciation, which forms part of resource DEL. is excluded from the total DEL since capital DEL includes capital spending and to include depreciation of those assets would lead to double counting.

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from additions from the DEL reserve of £8,600,000 to support core departmental activities, additions of £2,206,000 from the Policy Innovation Fund for the newly formed shareholder executive and net transfers from other government departments of £327,000.

  The change in the capital element of the DEL arises from additions of £23,000 from the Policy Innovation Fund for the newly formed Shareholder Executive and net transfers from other departments of £290,000.

HEALTH

  Disabled People (Annual Report)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman)
  The annual report for 2002 is being published today and copies have been placed in the Library. The report covers research and development work carried out by or on behalf of any Government Department in relation to equipment that might increase the range of activities and independence or well being of disabled people.

  The current report places such research in the context of national service frameworks and the Valuing People White Paper, and outlines the role of assistive technology

  21WS
  in making independent living easier for older people and people with disabilities. The report describes the wide range of Government funded projects supporting the development, introduction and evaluation of assistive technology.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  The Secretary of State for Health (Dr. John Reid)
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate the Department of Health and the Food Standards Agency Departmental Expenditure Limits (DELs) will be decreased by

  £million

  New DEL

  Change

  Voted

  Non-voted

  Total

  Department of Health

  Resource DEL

  39,817

  63,070.172

  -141.395

  62,928.777

  Capital DEL

  -344.217

  1,214.994

  1,439.442

  2,654.436

  Total Department of Health DEL

  -304.400

  64,285.166

  1,298.047

  65,583.213

  Depreciation*

  -1.752

  -352.648

  -44.369

  -397.017

  Total Department of Health

  -306.152

  63,932.518

  1,253.678

  65,186.196

  Food Standards Agency

  Resources

  16,840

  136.368

  0

  136.368

  Capital

  0.012

  2.659

  0

  2.659

  Total Food Standards Agency DEL

  16.852

  139.027

  0

  139.027

  Depreciation*

  0

  -2.004

  0

  -2.004

  Total Food Standards Agency

  16.852

  137.023

  0

  137.023

  * Depreciation, which forms part of resource DEL, is excluded from the total DEL since capital DEL includes capital spending and to include depreciation of those assets would lead to double counting.

  The change in the resource element of the departmental expenditure limit for the Department of Health arises from: take up of End Year Flexibility (EYF) £349.632 million as set out in table 6 of the public expenditure 2002–03 provisional outturn white paper Cm 5884 published in July 2003; a transfer from the capital DEL £318 million; additions from the invest to save budget £0.803 million; net transfers from the Home Office of £7.369 million for drug treatment and care and match funded social care projects, offset by contributions to the Home Office invest to save substance misuse project; to the Scottish Executive £-2.565 million (£0.067 million administration cost limit) for out of area treatments, offset by a contribution for the high security infectious diseases unit and national screening committee costs; transfer to the Department for Education and Skills £-637.965 million (f-4.976 million administration cost limit) mainly for the machinery of Government change for child care policy; a transfer to Department of Trade and Industry £-0.056 for a contribution to review body costs; a transfer from Office of the Deputy Prime Minister £0.154 million (£0.162 million administration cost limit) mainly for local government public service agreements; a transfer from Office for National Statistics £0.059 million (administration cost limit) for a neighbourhood survey and a transfer from Department for Work and Pensions £4.386 million for a contribution the residential allowance grant.

  The change in the capital element of the Department Expenditure Limit for the Department of Health arises from: a transfer to the resource DEL £-318 million; additions from the invest to save budget £0.191 million; a transfer to the Department for Education and Skills £-25.575 million for the machinery of government
  22WS
  £287,548,000 from £66,009,788,000 to £65,722,240,000 and the Administration Cost Limits (ACL) decreased by £10,377,000 from £349,302,000 to £338,925,000.

  The Department of Health DEL will be decreased by £304,400,000 from £65,887,613.000 to £65,583,213,000 and the ACL will reduced by £15,229,000 from £312,677,000 to £297,448,000. The Food Standards Agency DEL is increased by £16,852,000 from £122,175,000 to £139,027,000 and the ACL will increase by £4,852,000 from £36,625,000 to £41,477,000. The impact on resource and capital are set out in the following table.

  change for child care policy; a transfer to Cabinet Office £-0.750 million for development of a website and a transfer to Home Office £-0.083 million for a contribution to the invest to save budget.

  The changes to the Food Standards Agency resource element of the Departmental Expenditure Limit arise from: a claim for end year flexibility of £16,840,000 (£13,872,000 programme and £1,468,000 administration costs) to fund existing 2003–04 pressures; to incorporate a transfer of £1,500,000 from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) to cover the cost of additional illegal import enforcement and inspection work; to correctly record the split of FSA income between programme and administration income; and to transfer £3,419,000 from the FSA to the Meat Hygiene Service, an executive agency of the FSA.

  The Department of Health's administration cost limit has reduced by £-15.229 million from £312.677 million to £297.448 million as detailed above and by a transfer of £-10.541 million to programme costs. The Food Standards Agency (FSA) administration cost limit has increased by £4.852 million from £36.625 million to £41.477 million as a result of incorporating administration cost EYF and correctly classifying FSA income.

TRANSPORT

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling)
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of any necessary Supplementary Estimate, the Department for Transport departmental expenditure limit (DEL)
  23WS
  for 2003–04 will be increased by £299,876,000 from £10,342,932,000 to £10,642,808,000 and the administration costs limits will be increased by £22,838,000 from £356,423,000 to £379,261,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the following table:

  (£000)

  New DEL

  Change

  Voted

  Non-voted

  Total

  Resource

  312,102

  4,580,715

  3,073,981

  7,654,696

  Capital

  -12,226

  1,816,823

  1,469,442

  3,286,265

  Depreciation*

  -

  -298,153

  -

  -298,153

  Total

  299,876

  6,112,985

  4,529,823

  10,642,808

  * Depreciation, which forms part of resource DEL, is excluded from the total DEL since capital DEL includes capital spending and to include depreciation of those assets would lead to double counting.

  The change in the voted resource element of the DEL arises from:

  (i) take up of £182,000,000 reserve claim for London Underground to reflect the carry over of unspent grant from 2002–03, arising from delays in completing the London Underground Public Private Partnership;

  (ii) take up of £79,691,000 end year flexibility, comprising:

  (a) £18,603,000 for expenditure by the Highways Agency consisting of £14,803,000 programme and £3,800,000 administration costs;

  (b) £8,400,000 for expenditure by London Underground on Canary Wharf agreement, contributions to Wembley Park and outstanding Jubilee Line contractors costs partly met by the take up of the reserve claim and internal savings;

  (c) £5,317,000 for expenditure on water freight grants;

  (d) £4,585,000 for expenditure by the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency;

  (e) £4,359,000 for expenditure on railways, including consultancy expenditure and, in particular, financial advice on Network Rail securitisation and cross channel railways issues;

  (f) £4,467,000 for expenditure by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency consisting of £3,500,000 programme and £967,000 administration costs;

  (g) £3,381,000 for expenditure resulting from the extension of the Air Transport White Paper timetable following judicial review that Gatwick options should be considered as part of the South East airport consultation;

  (h) £1,137,000 for expenditure for the Cycling Fund project;

  (i) £129,000 for recruitment and retention and other front line costs in the Marine Accident Investigation Branch;

  (j) £4,476,000 for Transport Security costs;

  (k) £500,000 for increased staff and building rental costs for the Rail Accident Investigation Branch;

  (l) £17,599,000 (administration costs) for expenditure by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency consisting of £11,570,000 for the Motor Vehicle Registration Implementation Board and £6,029,000 for Electronic Service Delivery to provide on-line services to customers;

  (m) £6,738,000 (administration costs) for expenditure by the Department for Transport; and

  (iii) a net transfer of £5,089,000 to other government departments, comprising:

  (a) £100,000 from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for costs associated with the setting-up of a Register of Shipping for certain Caribbean Overseas Territories;

  24WS

  (b) £32,000 from the Department for Trade and Industry for the enforcement of working time directives;

  (c) £94,000 (administration costs) from the Office for National Statistics for Neighbourhood Renewal Unit statistics;

  (d) £75,000 (administration costs) from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister for local Government Public Service Agreement costs;

  (e) £75,000 (administration costs) from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister for Honours Secretariat and Equality and Diversity Unit costs;

  (f) £700,000 to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister for the new Horizons programme;

  (g) £1,210,000 (administration costs) to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister for Government Offices;

  (h) £155,000 (administration costs) to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister for London Transport agenda;

  (i) £1,400,000 to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister as part of the pan-government Ordnance survey agreement; and

  (j) £2,000,000 (administration costs) to the Department for Works and Pensions to assist the Health and Safety Executive to implement the recommendations of the Cullen Inquiry.

  (iv) a transfer of £13,699,000 from the voted capital element of the DEL for the Driving Standards and Vehicle and Operator Services Agencies Electronic Service Delivery project.

  (v) an increase in receipts of £23,025,000 comprising;

  (a) £2,283,000, reclassification of interest payments from Consolidated Funds Extra Receipts to Appropriationsin-Aid;

  (b) £7,142,000 Rail track Administrators fees receipt; and

  (c) £13,600,000 transfer from the Scottish Executive to reflect a reduction in ScotRail access charges and ScotRail performance penalty payments.

  (vi) transfer from non-voted resource provision of £610,000 for shipping services.

  Within the non-voted resource element of the DEL, there has been a net increase of £50,616,000 comprising:

  (i) a take up of £44,168,000, non voted end year flexibility for the Strategic Rail Authority;

  (ii) £7,142,000 use of Rail track receipts transferred from voted resource provision to offset expenditure by the Strategic Rail Authority;

  (iii) £4,000 to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister from the Strategic Rail Authority as part of the pan-government Ordnance Survey agreement;

  (iv) £610,000 of Consolidated Fund Extra Receipts transferred to resource voted provision;

  (v) £80,000 of receipts from ports in respect of land sales; and

  (vi) £13,600,000 use of Scottish Executive voted transfer by the Strategic Rail Authority.

  As a result of the above changes to the resource element of the DEL, and technical reclassification of £3,145,000 from administration to programme expenditure, there has been a net increase of £22,838,000 in the gross administration costs limit, from £356,423,000 to £379,261,000.
  25WS
  The decrease of £25,717,000 in the voted capital element of the DEL arises from:

  (i) a transfer of £13,699,000 to the resource element of the DEL for the Driving Standards and Vehicle and Operator Services Agencies ESD project;

  (ii) a transfer of £11,500,000 to non voted capital provision; and

  (iii) an increase in receipts of £518,000 as a result of capital repayments following the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency's deemed loan.

  The net increase of £13,491,000 in the non-voted capital element of the DEL arises from:

  (i) a transfer of £11,500,000 from voted programmes comprising:

  (a) £11,000,000 for de-trunking credit approvals;

  (b) and £500,000 for the Strategic Rail Authority; and

  (ii)a technical reclassification of £1,991,000 interest payments from Consolidated Fund Extra Receipts to Appropriation in Aid, the effect of which will be to increase capital DEL and reduce resource DEL.

  Resources

  Capital

  Change

  New DEL

  Of which: Voted

  Non-voted

  Change

  New DEL

  Of which: Voted

  Non-voted

  37,190

  1,108,064

  372,186

  735,878

  8,424

  72,852

  22,452

  50,400

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from the draw down of £37,190,000 End Year Flexibility.

  The extra resource costs cover a range of areas within the Department such as policing + security, central administration, political, criminal justice and prisons.

  The change in the capital element of the DEL arises from the draw down of £8,424,000 End Year Flexibility.

  The extra capital costs cover a range of areas within the Department such as policing + security, central administration, political, criminal justice and prisons.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy)
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the Department of Trade & Industry"s DEL will be increased by £280,631,000 from £5,016,724,000 to £5,297,355,000 and the administration costs limits will be increased by £8,329,000 from £423,366,000 to £431,695,000.

  Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the following table:

  (£000)

  New DEL

  Change

  Voted

  Non-voted

  Total

  Resource

  198,170

  980,210

  3,738,490

  4,718,700

  Capital

  82,461

  289,936

  288,719

  578,655

  Depreciation*

  0

  -20,841

  -93,159

  -114,000

  Total

  280,631

  1,249,305

  3,934,050

  5,183,355

  26WS

ORTHERN IRELAND

  Tourism Ireland
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ian Pearson)
  Copies of Tourism Ireland Limited's Annual Report and Accounts 2002 were placed in the Library today.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy)
  Subject to Parliamentary approval the Northern Ireland Office(NIO) will be taking a 2003/2004 Winter Supplementary Estimate. The effect this will have is to increase the NIO"s DEL by £45,614.000 from £1,135,302,000 to £1,180,916,000. There will be no change to the administration costs limit. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the following table:

  * Depreciation, which forms part of resource DEL, is excluded from the total DEL since capital DEL includes capital spending and to include depreciation of those assets would lead to double counting.

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from:

  RFR1

  (i) to transfer £2,202,000 to the Scottish Executive in respect of the End of Life Vehicles Directive;

  (ii) to transfer £1,268,000 to the Welsh Executive in respect of the End of Life Vehicles Directive;

  (iii) to reclassify £775,000 from voted expenditure to non-voted expenditure, to reflect the funding of Smart and Enterprise Grant Teams and Business link regional teams co-location costs, via Regional Development Agencies;

  (iv) to utilise £6,900,000 from the unused balance of the Department's End-Year Flexibility entitlement for Industry Forum, Fit for the Future and Partnership Activities;

  (v) to utilise £12,000,000 from the unused balance of the Department's End-Year Flexibility entitlement for Business Link core services;

  (vi) to utilise £15,000,000 from the unused balance of the Department's End-Year Flexibility entitlement for Rover Task Force;

  (vii) to utilise £6,000,000 from the unused balance of the Department's End-Year Flexibility entitlement for University Innovation Centres;

  (viii) to reclassify £1,869,000 from voted expenditure to non-voted expenditure, to reflect funding of administration of Regional Selective Assistance via Regional Development Agencies;

  (ix) an increase of £77,169,000 to reflect the transfer of non-voted, non-cash RDA budgets from the ODPM;

  (x) to transfer £2,000,000 to UK Trade and Investment (formerly British Trade International) in respect of UK Global Partnerships;

  27WS

  (xi) to transfer £524,000 to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in respect of the Red Meat Industry Forum under the Industry Forum Adaptation Initiative;

  (xii) to utilise £7,000,000 from the unused balance of the Department's End-Year Flexibility entitlement for external financial and legal advisers in relation to British Energy;

  (xii) to implement a classification change of £ 1,929,000 to make a technical correction to the Department's Cost of Capital allocation;

  (xiv) to utilise £2,800,000 from the unused balance of the Department's End-Year Flexibility entitlement for advisers in relation to BNFL;

  (xv) to transfer £32,000 to the Department of Transport for Enforcement of the Working Time Directive;

  (xvi) to transfer from the Department of Health £32,000 for the Doctors and Dentists Pay Review Body and £24,000 for the Nurses and Allied Professions Pay Review Body;

  (xvii) to utilise £3,500,000 from the unused balance of the Department's End-Year Flexibility entitlement in respect of development of the MENTOR project;

  (xviii) to reclassify £2,000 from voted expenditure to non-voted expenditure and then to transfer £177,000 to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister for the Pan Government Agreement for Supply of Ordnance Survey Data;

  (xix) to increase by £490,000 the non-voted expenditure of Postwatch and record an equivalent increase in voted receipts;

  (xx) to increase by £2,093,000 the non-voted expenditure of the Gas and Electricity Consumer Council (Energywatch) and record an equivalent increase in voted receipts;

  (xxi) an increase of £100,000 due to a reclassification in respect of non-voted accruing cost of pensions for the National Consumer Council;

  RFR2

  (i) to utilise £687,000 from the unused balance of the Department's End-Year Flexibility entitlement for OST initiatives;

  (ii) to utilise £20,126,000 from the unused balance of the Department's End-Year Flexibility entitlement for increased non-voted expenditure of the Medical Research Council;

  (iii) to utilise £3,047,000 from the unused balance of the Department's End-Year Flexibility entitlement for increased non-voted expenditure of the Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils;

  (iv) to utilise £44,000,000 from the unused balance of the Department's End-Year Flexibility entitlement for the Joint Infrastructure Fund;

  (v) a reduction of £5,105,000 in the non-voted expenditure of the Science Research Councils to reflect the reclassification of 50% of EU receipts from non-Departmental AME to DEL;

  (vi) a utilisation of £835,000 from the Department's End Year Flexibility entitlement in respect of non-voted EU DEL cover for the Natural Environment Research Council.

  Also within the change to resource DEL, the changes to administration costs limit are (RfR1):

  (i) to transfer £861,000 of administration from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in respect of Government Offices for the Regions;

  (ii) to utilise £1,693,000 from the unused balance of the Department's End-Year Flexibility entitlement for Departmental administration;

  28WS

  (iii) to transfer £108,000 of administration to the Department of Education and Skills for Certificates of Experience and First Diploma Directive;

  (iv) to utilise £5,883,000 from the unused balance of the Department's end-year flexibility entitlement in respect of UK Trade & Investment (formerly British Trade International) administration;

  The change in the capital element of the DEL arises From:

  (i) to utilise £2,074,000 of capital from the unused balance of the Department's End-Year Flexibility entitlement for Rover Task Force;

  (ii) to utilise £7,300,000 of capital from the unused balance of the Department's End-Year Flexibility entitlement for University Innovation Centres;

  (iii) to utilise £24,000,000 of capital from the unused balance of the Department's End-Year Flexibility entitlement for support for the establishment of Ofcom;

  (iv) to utilise £18,913,000 of capital from the unused balance of the Department's End-Year Flexibility entitlement for the Regional Venture Capital Fund and Enterprise Fund Early Growth Funding;

  (v) to utilise £15,000,000 of capital from the unused balance of the Department's End-Year Flexibility entitlement for investment aid to the Coal Industry;

  (vi) to utilise £2,737,000 of capital from the unused balance of the Department's End-Year Flexibility entitlement in respect of implementation of the Parental Leave Regulations;

  (vii) to utilise £3,811,000 of capital from the unused balance of the Department's End-Year Flexibility entitlement in respect of the business.gov Capital Modernisation Fund project;

  (viii) to utilise £113,000 of capital from the unused balance of the Department's End-Year Flexibility entitlement in respect of the Employment Tribunals Service Capital Modernisation Fund project;

  (ix) to utilise £2,000,000 of capital from the unused balance of the Department's End-Year Flexibility entitlement in respect of expenditure on accommodation and relocation;

  (x) to utilise £4,604,000 of capital from the unused balance of the Department's End-Year Flexibility entitlement to increase non-voted expenditure of the Natural Environment Research Council;

  (xi) to utilise £1,909,000 of capital from the unused balance of the Department's End-Year Flexibility entitlement to increase non-voted expenditure of the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt)
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, UK Trade & Investment's Resource DEL will be increased by £2,000,000 from £95,048,000 to £97,048,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are set out in the following table:

  New DEL

  Change

  Voted

  Non-voted

  Total

  Resource

  2,000

  97,048

  0

  97,048

  Capital

  0

  1,248

  0

  1,248

  Depreciation*

  0

  -187

  0

  -187

  Total

  2,000

  98,109

  0

  98,109

  * Depreciation, which forms part of resource DEL, is excluded from the total DEL since capital DEL includes capital spending and to include depreciation of those assets would lead to double counting.
  29WS
  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from a transfer of resources from the Department of Trade and Industry to UK Trade & Investment of £2,000,000 in respect of the Global Partnerships programme.

DEFENCE

  Defence Science and Technology Laboratory
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin)
  The Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) will reduce the number of sites on which it operates to three core sites: Fort Halstead in Kent, Porton Down in Wiltshire, and Portsdown West, near Portsmouth in Hampshire. Approximately 1400 Dstl staff, who are currently geographically dispersed, from Farnborough in Hampshire, Malvern in Worcestershire, and Winfrith in Dorset, as well as other minor sites, will relocate to the three core sites over the next few years. The programme is likely to be completed in 2007.

  Among the benefits that will accrue to Dstl and MOD are:
  increased technical synergy and coherence;
  improved operational effectiveness;
  better integration of teams;
  enhanced development opportunities and career prospects for staff; and,
  reduced overhead costs.

  MOD has undertaken a regional impact assessment to assess the effect on staff and local communities. This particularly supports the move of staff to Portsmouth, an area of economic deprivation. Of the options open to Dstl, the plans are most consistent with the aims of the review of public sector relocation being undertaken by Sir Michael Lyons on behalf of the Chancellor and Deputy Prime Minister, and have been approved the Treasury.

  Operation Telic Roulement
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon)
  The Multinational Division (South-East) (MND(SE)) in Iraq was successfully instituted on 13 July and the UK now leads a 10-nation contingent in the southern Iraqi provinces of Basra, Maysan, Dhi Qar and Al Muthanna.

  As part of our routine management of the UK's land deployment we intend shortly to conduct a roulement of our forces in theatre. This will begin with an incremental replacement of HQ 3 (UK) Division with a composite headquarters for MND(SE), the staff for which will be drawn from across UK Defence and from allies. 1 Mechanised Brigade will begin to replace 20 Armoured Brigade as the foundation for the UK's military commitment inside Iraq in April 2004. We intend that the process will be complete by the end of April 2004. We expect the level of the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force presence in theatre to remain broadly stable.

  As part of this roulement forces and in line with our policy of employing the reserves as an integral component of the Armed Forces, we shall be mobilizing
  30WS
  a further tranche of around 1,100 Reservists to support operations in Iraq. We expect these personnel to deploy from mid February 2004 onwards. Although a significant mobilisation, this is both in absolute terms a smaller number than have been mobilised for previous tranches, and will constitute a smaller proportion of the service personnel deployed to theatre than previously. These Reservists will be employed in a number of roles: about a third in theatre at any one time will be deployed in the infantry role as force protection, a little under a quarter will provide reinforcement to regular infantry units deployed, about a sixth will be medical personnel and the remainder will provide a variety of specialist capabilities.

  We aim to issue the majority of call-out notices around 9 January 2004 and begin mobilisation in mid February 2004. Reservist personnel will receive at least 21 days' notice to mobilise. Mobilisation will be followed by a period of individual training to confirm basic skills, theatre specific pre-deployment training, role-specific collective training, integration into receiving units and then a short period of leave before deployment. For the majority of those called-out their deployed tour will last six months; and for most the total period of mobilisation, including post-tour leave, is expected to last between eight and nine months, though for a very small proportion it may be slightly longer.

  We intend to spend the period between now and January identifying for selection as accurately as possible those Reservists who are believed to be fit and available for deployment. As in previous practice, to ensure that we successfully mobilise the required number, we will need to issue a greater number of call-out notices than our actual in-theatre requirement.

  We will continue to keep the size and mix of forces in theatre under careful review and we can expect to make further adjustments to our force structures and undertake further mobilisations in order to ensure that we continue to have the appropriate capabilities for the tasks in hand. While we remain determined to maintain appropriate forces deployed in Iraq and the wider Gulf region for as long as is necessary, we are equally determined that no forces should remain deployed for any longer than is necessary.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram)
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of any necessary Supplementary Estimate, the Ministry of Defence Departmental Expenditure Limits will be increased by £1,550,586,000 from £29,241,795, 000 to £30,792,381,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the following table:

  (£000)

  New DEL

  Change

  Voted

  Non-voted

  Total

  Resource

  1,220,784

  31,597,524

  375,142

  31,972,666

  Capital

  329,802

  6,455,352

  2,250

  6,457,602

  Depreciation*

  -

  -7,537,887

  -100,000

  -7,637,887

  Total

  1,550,586

  30,514,989

  277,392

  30,792,381

  31WS
  * Depreciation, which forms part of Resource DEL, is excluded from the total DEL since capital DEL includes capital spending and to include depreciation of those assets would lead to double counting.

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from:
  The take up of the Resource end year flexibility of £80,872,000.
  An increase in RfR2 of £1,140,000,000 for military operations.
  A transfer of £275,000 to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister as a share of Ordnance Survey costs under a pan Government agreement.
  An increase of £80,000 from the Invest to Save budget for quadrupole resonance detectors.
  An increase of £98,000 from the Invest to Save budget to introduce an alert system for pluvial flooding to complement the Environment Agency's flood warning service.
  A transfer of £9,000 from the Department of Work and Pensions as a contribution to the Veteran Agency's helpline.
  An increase in Resource Appropriations In Aid of £50,300 from an out of court settlement relating to a breach of confidentiality, which will be offset by a donation to charity of the same amount.

  The change in the capital element of the DEL arises from:
  An increase in RfR2 of £256,000,000 for military operations.
  An advance of £73,782.000 for Landing Ship Dock Auxiliary vessels as agreed in SR2000.
  An increase of £20,000 from the Invest to Save budget for quadrupole resonance detectors.

  Defence Communications Services Agency (Key Targets)
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram)
  Key Targets have been set for the Chief Executive of the Defence Communications and Services Agency (DCSA) for financial year 2003-04. The targets build on progress already made and are as follows:

  KT1 SERVICE ASSURANCE
  To meet an average of 99 per cent for measured services against agreed performance targets.

  KT2 SERVICE FULFILMENT
  To commission an average of 95 per cent of new service requests on, or before, dates agreed by Customers with the DCS A.

  KT3 SERVICE RESTORATION
  To restore an average 97 per cent. of interrupted services classed as Operationally Urgent within four hours of the fault being reported to the DCSA, or within other specific periods agreed with customers and to restore Business Critical services in accordance with periods as specified in CSAs.

  KT4 SERVICE SUPPORT
  To achieve an average 90 per cent. success rate against standards in response to demands on all DCSA Operator Assistance Centres (OACs) and helpdesks facilities.

  KT5 CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
  To achieve a Customer Confidence Index of 54 in Financial Year 2003–04. Key Target measurement has changed from last year and will be achieved by the Agency 's Customer Relationship Management staff undertaking a series of
  32WS
  face-to-face interviews with DCS A customers. The information obtained from these interviews will be processed and a Customer Confidence Index (CCI) produced. If this measure is delivered it will represent an eight percent increased compared to 2002–03.

  KT6 EFFICIENCY MEASUREMENT
  To achieve an improvement in effectively by reducing the average unit cost of output by 3 per cent.

  KT7 INTRODUCTION OF NEW PROJECTS AND SERVICES
  To deliver new projects to time, cost and performance as expressed at the 90 per cent confidence level to a tolerance of 10 per cent.

  Army Training and Recruiting Agency
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin)
  The Army Training and Recruiting Agency (ATRA) currently runs a 28 week course for junior soldiers at the Army Technical Foundation College (ATFC) at Rowcroft Barracks, Arborfield. The Course is aimed at recruits to the Royal Engineers (RE), the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (REME), the Royal Signals (R Signals) and the Royal Logistics Corps (RLC).

  Amongst REME recruits especially the quality of output from the College has not been high enough. This has resulted in failure at Phase 2 specialist training by an unacceptably high number of individuals. ATRA has considered a number of ways of addressing this problem and has come to the conclusion that the best solution entails the closure of the College and the transfer of students to, principally, the Army Foundation College (AFC) at Harrogate, where a new technical training stream will be introduced. There will be other changes to the way in which junior recruits are trained within ATRA, but these will not involve closures of any other establishments.

  No final decision regarding the closure date has yet been taken. I have given approval in principle to this course of action and ATRA is undertaking a full consultation exercise with the relevant Trades Unions. This is expected to take until January 2004, at which time I will consider the outcome, come to a conclusion and advise the House accordingly.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell)
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of any necessary Supplementary Estimate, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) will be decreased by £19,000 from £1,651,679,000 to £1,651,660,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources is as set out in the following table:

  New DEL

  Change

  Voted

  Non-voted

  Total

  Resource

  -19,000

  1,432,068

  219,592

  1,0651,660

  Capital

  0

  51,289

  5,800

  57,089

  Depreciation*

  0

  -105,994

  -31,800

  -137,794

  Total

  -19,000

  1,377,363

  193,592

  1,570,955

  33WS
  * Depreciation, which forms part of Resource DEL, is excluded from the total DEL since capital DEL includes capital spending and to include depreciation of those assets would lead to double counting.

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from:

  (i) A Public Expenditure Survey (PES) transfer to the Department of Transport of £100,000 in respect of the setting up of a Register of Shipping by the Maritime and Coastguard agency for certain Caribbean Overseas Territories.

  (ii) A PES transfer to the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs of £67,000 in respect of payments due to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS),

  (iii) A PES transfer from the Department for International Development of £14,000 in respect of costs incurred by a British Geological Survey visit to Afghanistan,

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Large Combustion Plants Directive
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw)
  The Government published a consultation paper on 30 June 2003 setting out the options for implementing the Large Combustion Plants Directive (2001/80/EC) in the UK for plants first licensed before July 1987. For these plants, there is a choice between either setting emission limit values individually for each plant, or establishing a 'national plan' under which a "bubble' for each of the pollutants covered by the Directive (sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and dust) could be shared between plants in the scheme.

  Consultations closed on 30 September. We received a number of detailed submissions on the consultation paper which we have been considering. No consensus has emerged from the responses to the consultation and there are strongly held views in favour of both implementation options. The choice between the options is also sensitive to other policies on which decisions will be taken in the next few months.

  The Directive requires that any national plan is submitted to the European Commission by 27 November 2003. However, we consider that further analysis is required before we can be sure which implementation approach it is in the UK interest to adopt. We are therefore submitting a national plan to the Commission at the same time as undertaking this further analysis. This will in effect keep either option open, We would withdraw the plan if this farther analysis suggested that the emission limits approach was to be preferred. A decision on whether to withdraw the national plan would be taken before spring 2004.

SCOTLAND

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alistair Darling)
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates, the Scotland 34WS
  Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) will be increased by £450,211,000 from £20,351,621,000 to £20,801,832,000.

  The DEL increase takes account of the following:
  the take-up of End Year Flexibility (EYE) by the Scottish Executive amounting to £391,203,000;
  an increase of £25,424,000 for Council Tax Benefit adjustments;
  an increase of £14,964,000 for Rent Rebate adjustments; and
  an increase of £9,286,000 for safety cameras.

  The DEL increase also includes the following transfers between the Scottish Executive and other Government departments, amounting to a net increase of £9,334,000. These are:
  a transfer of £30,100,000 from the Department for Transport;
  net transfers of £2,565,000 from Department of Health;
  a transfer of £2,202,000 from the Department for Trade and Industry;
  net transfers of £17,895,000 to the Department for Work and Pensions;
  net transfers of £6,952,000 to the Department for Constitutional Affairs; and
  a transfer of £686,000 to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

  Administration costs provision for the Scotland Office and Office of the Advocate General is £6,552,000, with DEL provision at £6,952,000.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Asylum Legal Aid
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. David Lammy)
  Asylum legal aid costs have risen from £81.3 million in 2000£01 to £174.2 million in 2002–03. There are a number of reasons for this increase, but it remains the case that the majority of claims for asylum are refused. As we set out in our Consultation Paper of 5 June 2003, this increase in costs, coupled with concerns about the quality of some work undertaken under legal aid, and evidence of duplication of some cases, requires action from the Government to ensure that taxpayers' money is spent most effectively and efficiently.

  Following the consultation, the Government will introduce measures which will:
  introduce a financial threshold of 5 hours for the initial decision-making process, which can only be exceeded with prior authority of the LSC;
  ensure that no legal aid work is undertaken in asylum appeal cases without prior approval from the Legal Services Commission, which will set financial thresholds in individual cases which pass a merits test for legal aid;
  introduce accreditation for all lawyers and case-workers doing legally aided asylum work;
  introduce a Unique Client Number to reduce unnecessary changes of solicitor.

  The LSC will have the power to vary the financial threshold up or down for individual firms whose track record justifies this. The LSC will also continue to allow top quality firms with a good track record on appeal

  35WS
  cases to proceed without prior authority up to a set financial threshold. Any autonomy granted by the LSC will have to be earned.

  These measures will apply in England and Wales.

  THE CONSULTATION

  We outlined three proposals:
  a curb on the amount of time for which lawyers would be paid in individual cases;
  accreditation of lawyers and other case-workers to ensure quality representation;
  the introduction of a Unique Client Number to prevent unnecessary changes of solicitor.

  We received 260 responses to the Consultation Paper. The House of Commons Constitutional Affairs Committee also inquired into our proposals and reported on 31 October 2003.

  There was overwhelming support for the introduction of accreditation and the Unique File Number. There was widespread concern about the proposals to curb the amount of time for which lawyers would be paid in individual cases. Respondents also made many suggestions about where savings might be achieved and there was some criticism of Home Office systems and procedures. Officials from the Home Office, Department for Constitutional Affairs and Legal Services Commission are examining the initial decision-making stage of the asylum process, with particular regard to the role that legal aid and publicly funded practitioners play. This work may lead to further changes in the way that legal aid for asylum seekers is delivered beyond those now proposed. In particular, consideration is being given as to whether legal aid is needed at the initial stage in all cases. The Government will make a further announcement on any further changes in due course. We are very grateful for all the responses, and especially the report of the Constitutional Affairs Committee. We have considered carefully all the points which have been made.

  OUR REVISED PROPOSALS

  In our consultation paper, we proposed that there should be a cap of 5 hours' work at the initial stage, that is prior to the initial decision by the Home Office as to whether asylum should be granted. There would be higher caps for stated exceptions. We now propose that there should instead be a financial threshold for preparation time allowed for the generality of cases up to the initial decision for asylum cases. The norm for this threshold will be 5 hours. The LSC will also introduce a threshold for immigration non-asylum cases. This will normally be between 3 and 5 hours depending on the circumstances of the case. Once this threshold is reached, suppliers will only be allowed to proceed under legal aid with prior authority from the LSC. Professional disbursements and VAT will not count towards these thresholds. The LSC will introduce separate thresholds for professional disbursements which require prior authority to exceed. Extensions are only likely to be granted, on application to the LSC, in genuine and complex cases where there is a real prospect of success. The LSC propose to allow a limited number of firms, where it is confident work is to a high standard, devolved powers to self-grant to a higher figure.
  36WS
  In all but exceptional cases (unaccompanied minors; applicants going through fast-track initial decision processes; those suffering from a recognised and verifiable mental incapacity which makes it impractical to undergo an interview without support) funding for attendance by a representative at the substantive asylum interview will not be authorised. The LSC will introduce rules to ensure that in these exceptional cases where attendance at interview is authorised, this will be by the advisor in the case or the immigration supervisor, not by an agent or outdoor clerk, until accreditation is introduced.

  Before any preparatory work can be carried out under legal aid for an asylum appeal, the LSC will need to be satisfied itself that the case merits being pursued. Currently, this decision can be made by individual firms. There will therefore be no guarantee of any legally aided work being allowed at the appeals stage in individual cases. If, however, the LSC is satisfied that the appeal case merits representation, it will set a financial threshold up to which firms will be able to work before they need to seek an extension from the LSC. Thresholds would be set for individual cases depending on the facts of the case, and the experience and previous outcomes of the firm. As now, applicants will be able to seek a review of refusal of funding by the LSC for an appeal against rejection of their asylum claim, but any such review will be considered on the papers only.

  The LSC will proceed with a fixed fee of £150 plus VAT for applications for leave to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal.

  The LSC is presently finalising the details of the skills and competencies required for each of three levels of accreditation now being proposed. It will then invite the Law Society to recruit independent assessment organisations which will ensure that all advisers undergo objective tests of their competence and evaluation of a portfolio of work conducted. As set out in our original proposals, those on the most rigorous advanced level will be entitled to increased remuneration as a result of their skill and experience for work they personally conduct. This we propose to be at 5 per cent. above current rates.

  The Unique Client Number will be required to be used for all dealings between advisers and the LSC in a case once it has been issued, and will be submitted with all claims for payment once an initial decision has been made.

  In addition, the LSC will also consult over limiting choice of representative in locations where fast-track procedures are in operation to dedicated duty representatives authorised under contract. This is intended to prevent touting and poaching of clients at centres such as Oakington and Harmondsworth which currently leads to wasteful duplication of resources. The LSC will also consult over the use of experts in asylum cases, whether it is necessary to have a separate interpreter at substantive asylum interviews for the client, in those exceptional cases where funding is authorised for attendance by a representative at the substantive asylum interview and whether there should be a fixed fee for advocacy before the adjudicators in order to ensure value for money is obtained.
  37WS
  IMPLEMENTATION

  The introduction of prior authorisation by the LSC in every asylum and immigration case (with the exception of 5 hours for advice at the initial stage and any other earned autonomy granted by the LSC) will require a significant change in processes and procedure which will take some time to bed in efficiently. There will therefore be a transitional additional 2 hours at the initial stage for most firms before extensions are required from the LSC. The timetable will be as follows:
  Transitional 7 hour threshold for initial stage applies to suppliers in London on 1 March 2004.
  Transitional 7 hour threshold for initial stage applies to all other suppliers on 1 April 2004.
  5 hour threshold for initial stage applies to all suppliers in England and Wales on I May 2004.
  Authorisation from LSC required for appeals from 1 April 2004.
  The thresholds will apply to all work whether done on new or old cases started after introduction.

  Accreditation will be introduced from April 2004, and will become compulsory by April 2005. The Unique Client Number will be introduced from April 2004. The requirement to apply to the LSC for prior approval to appeal an initial Home Office decision will also apply from April 2004.

  SAVINGS

  These revised proposals are estimated to save around £30 million in 2004-05 against what we would be spending were we not to introduce prior authorisation.

  Taken together, these measures will bring asylum legal aid under effective control and cut out unnecessary expenditure. Costs will be limited, and targeted at the most deserving cases. Quality representation will be recognised and rewarded by the new accreditation scheme, and wasteful duplication of cases will be ended.

  Freedom of Information
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie)
  The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs has today laid before both Houses and published the Annual Report on bringing into force those provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 which are not yet fully in force. The Government is committed to bringing the Freedom of Information Act fully into force in January 2005. This report details what action has been taken as well as what arrangements are being made for the coming year. Copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie)
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates, the Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) covering the Department for Constitutional Affairs, Northern Ireland Court Service and The National Archive will be increased by £5,280,000 from £3,124,514,000 to £3,129,794,000 and the administration costs limit will 38WS
  be increased by £27,600.000 from £805,243,000 to £832,843,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the following table:

  All figures are £000s.

  Change

  Voted

  Non-voted

  New DEL

  Resource

  -23,167

  1.119,370

  1,955,276

  3,074,646

  Capital

  27,051,

  117,893

  11,016

  128,909

  The change in the Department for Constitutional Affairs resource DEL is the net effect of:

  RFR1

  Take-up of end-year flexibility of £2,293,000 administration costs; a transfer of £65,504,000 resources, of which £19,534,000 is administration costs from the Home Office in relation to the Criminal Justice System reserve; a virement of £103,722,000 resources, of which £1,069,000 is administration costs to reflect payments to the Department for Education and Skills in relation to Machinery of Government; a transfer of £502,000 administration costs from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; a transfer of £573,000 administration costs from HM Treasury in relation to the Invest to Save Budget; net transfers of £451,000 resources from the Home Office; a transfer of £24,000 administration costs to the Crown Prosecution Service.

  RFR2

  Provision of £18,528,278,000 (resource) and £100,000 (capital) transferred from the Scotland Office to the Department for Constitutional Affairs (RfR2), resulting in a transfer of £18,527,903,000 in respect of the net cash requirement. This is for administration costs of the Scotland Office and the Office of the Advocate General, provision for the Boundary Commission for Scotland and a grant to the Scottish Consolidated Fund, as part of the machinery of government changes announced by the Prime Minister on 12 June.

  There has also been a transfer of £425,000 administration costs to the Scottish Executive.

  RFR3

  Provision of £9,306,641,000 (resource) and £766,000 (capital) transferred from the Wales Office to the Department for Constitutional Affairs (RfR3), resulting in a transfer of £9.307,313,000 in respect of the net cash requirement. This is to enable the Secretary of State for Wales to assign the administration costs of the Wales Office and grant to the National Assembly for Wales, as part of the machinery of government changes announced by the Prime Minister on 12 June.

  As a result of all changes there is an increase in Total Net Cash Requirement of £1,084,485,000.

  The change in the Northern Ireland Court Service resource DEL is the net effect of:

  A transfer of £5,000,000 administration costs into resource.

  The change in The National Archive resource DEL arises from: the take up of £1,000,000 administration costs from end year flexibility.
  39WS
  The change in the Department for Constitutional Affairs capital DEL is the net effect of:

  RFR1

  Take-up of end-year flexibility of £14,510,000 capital costs; a transfer of £9,695,000 capital costs from the Home Office in relation to the CJS Reserve; and a transfer of £111,000 capital from HM Treasury in relation to the Invest to Save Budget.

  The change in The National Archive capital DEL is the net effect of: take up of end year flexibility of £1,869,000 resources.

  The increases will be offset by inter-departmental transfers, increases to Appropriations in Aid, take up of End Year Flexibility entitlements and a charge to the DEL Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  The Minister for Work (Mr. Desmond Browne)
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of any necessary Supplementary Estimate, the Department for Work and Pensions DEL will be increased by £351,387,000 from £7,877,303,000 to £8,228,690,000 and the administration costs limits will he increased by £273,071,000 from £5,778,936,000 to £6,052,007,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the following table:

  (£000)

  New DEL

  Change

  Voted

  Non-voted

  Total

  Resource

  348,526

  6,434,129

  1,883,292

  8,317,421

  Capital

  0

  27,066

  1,602

  28,668

  Depreciation*

  2,861

  -116,685

  -714

  -117,399

  Total

  351,387

  6,344,510

  1,884,180

  8,228,690

  * Depreciation, which forms part of resource DEL, is excluded from the total DEL since capital DEL includes capital spending and to include depreciation of those assets would lead to double counting.

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from:
  an increase in provision of £86,000,000 (administration costs) and £222,000,000 (other current) under the End Year Flexibility Scheme;
  an increase in provision of £70,000 (administration costs) as a result of a transfer from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister for local Public Services Agreements;
  a transfer of provision of £5,750,000 (other current) to the Department for Education and Skills for costs incurred by the Adult Learning Inspectorate on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions;
  an increase in provision of £ 18,294,000 (grants) as a result of a transfer from the Scottish Executive for expenditure on Administration Subsidy;
  an increase in provision of £2,000,000 (administration costs) as a result of a transfer from the Department for Transport for the costs of Cullen;
  an increase in provision of £ 11,500,000 (other current) as a result of a transfer from the Department for Education and Skills in respect of Basic Skills training courses and work carried out by Job Centre Plus;
  40WS
  an increase in provision of £1,000,000 (administration costs) due to a drawdown from the Capital Modernisation Fund for the Supported Employment Programme;
  a transfer of provision of £137,000 (administration costs) to Department for Education and Skills for Sure Start;
  a transfer of provision of £4,386,000 (administration costs) to the Department of Health for the administration costs of additional financial assessments;
  a transfer of provision of £399,000 (administration costs) to the Scottish Executive for the administration costs of additional financial assessments;
  a transfer of provision of £395,000 (administration costs) to the Welsh Assembly for the administration costs of additional financial assessments;
  a transfer of provision of £9,000 (administration costs) to the Ministry of Defence for the telecom costs of the Veteran's Agency Helpline;
  an increase in provision of £1,946,000 (non budget) following a transfer from the Department for Education and Skills;
  a transfer of provision of £690,000 (administration costs) to the Department for Education and Skills in respect of Caxton House, Rent and Premises Services:
  a transfer of provision of £170,000 (administration costs) to the Department for Education and Skills in respect of the costs of Detached National Experts;
  a transfer of provision of £30,000 (administration costs) from the Department for Education and Skills in respect of the Family and Children Survey;
  a transfer of provision of £13,000 (other current) to the Home Office in respect of the costs of withdrawal of benefits research;
  an increase in provision of £17,635,000 (administration costs) for the Makinson Bonus scheme.

  Jobcentre Plus
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond)
  On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI) follow-up inspection report on Jobcentre Plus' relationship with local authorities was published today and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  In September 2001, the BFI published its report on the then Benefits Agency's relationship with local authorities and made 49 recommendations to address weaknesses in benefits administration and counter-fraud activity, and improve closer working with local authorities. Since then the Benefits Agency has become part of Jobcentre Plus.

  Jobcentre Plus came into existence in April 2002 bringing together parts of the Benefits Agency and the whole of Employment Service. This resulted in significant changes to the organisational structure since the first BFI inspection.

  It is important that Jobcentre Plus works closely with local authorities to ensure that:
  the processing of benefit claims and their ongoing maintenance are made as simple and speedy as possible with the minimum of duplication. The fullest possible sharing of information helps ensure that customers receive the highest attainable levels of service;
  information that could lead to the identification of fraud and error is routinely shared so that joint action can be taken to eliminate overpayments;

  41WS
  the welfare of customers, and staff of local authorities and Jobcentre Plus, is protected by the sharing of good working practices and regular exchange of information.

  In 2003, BFI inspected Jobcentre Plus to determine the effectiveness of its working relationships with local authorities and see how the recommendations from the first report had been progressed by the new organisation.

  Particular improvements highlighted in the report include the recruitment of Regional Fraud and Programme Protection Managers to work closely with local authorities and the successful roll out of electronic transfer of data systems. Both local authorities and Jobcentre Plus reported this had a positive impact on the relationship.

  The BFI did find that many of the 49 recommendations from its earlier report had not been carried out. Specific areas identified for improvement
  42WS
  included training staff in liaison duties, ensuring that joint working with local authorities features sufficiently in business plans and securing better management information at a national level on joint working performance. However, the report found that there was variation in performance, with some Jobcentre Plus offices making greater effort than others in their relationships with local authorities.

  The report finds examples of good practice and some improvements since the first inspection. However, the report makes 45 recommendations to help Jobcentre Plus address the weaknesses and to further improve the working relationship with local authorities.

  Jobcentre Plus is announcing its Action Plan for dealing with the BFI's recommendations, and is to set up a Senior Steering Group, including local authority representation, to oversee the implementation of the BFI's recommendations and report progress to Ministers on a quarterly basis.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Manchester.

Public Audit (Wales) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to confer further functions on the Auditor General for Wales; to make provision about the audit of accounts of public bodies in Wales and related matters; to make provisions about economy, efficiency and effectiveness in relation to public bodies and registered social landlords in Wales; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.— (Lord Evans of Temple Guiting.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Energy Bill [H.L.]
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Whitty, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision for the decommissioning and cleaning up of installations and sites used for, or contaminated by, nuclear activities; to make provision relating to the civil nuclear industry; to make provision about radioactive waste; to make provision for the development, regulation and encouragement of the use of renewable energy sources; to make further provision in connection with the regulation of the gas and electricity industries; to make provision for the imposition of charges in connection with the carrying out of the Secretary of State's functions relating to energy matters; to make provision for giving effect to international agreements relating to pipelines and offshore installations; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.— (Lord Davies of Oldham.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Health Protection Agency Bill [H.L.]
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Warner, I beg to introduce a Bill to establish the health protection agency and make provision as to its functions. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
24
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.— (Lord Davies of Oldham.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Gender Recognition Bill [H.L.]
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision for, and in connection with, change of gender. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.— (Lord Davies of Oldham.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Fishery Limits (United Kingdom) Bill [H.L.]
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision for the United Kingdom to withdraw from the common fisheries policy of the European Union; to amend the Fishery Limits Act 1976; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.— (Lady Saltoun of Abernethy.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Committee of Selection
11.8 a.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That in accordance with Standing Order 64 a Committee of Selection be appointed to select and propose to the House the names of the Lords to form each Select Committee of the House (except the Committee of Selection itself and any committee otherwise provided for by statute or by order of the House) or any other body not being a Select Committee referred to it by the Chairman of Committees, and the panel of Deputy Chairmen of Committees; and that the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the committee—

B. Amos (Lord President),

L. Cope of Berkeley,

L. Craig of Radley,

L. Dubs,

L. Grocott,

L. Roper,

V. Slim,

L. Strathclyde,

L. Trefgarne,

B. Williams of Crosby.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On
Question, Motion agreed to.

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech.
11.9 a.m.
Debate resumed on the Motion moved yesterday by the Lord Ashley of Stoke—namely, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, in opening the debate, I would like to outline the DTI Bills for this Session and the pensions Bill. I will also describe the work that my department is undertaking to improve productivity in UK industry through stimulating innovation, and the wider aspects of industrial relations policy that we are currently considering.
The DTI's Energy Bill implements the Government's commitment to delivering a truly sustainable energy policy. The energy White Paper, published in February this year, set out a new strategy, based on the four pillars of environmental protection, energy reliability, competitive markets and affordable energy for all. We are now delivering that strategy, and the Energy Bill will contain legislation to deliver some of the key commitments relating to support for renewable energy, provision of secure and reliable energy supplies and more transparent market regulation. It will also fulfil our commitment to establish a single wholesale electricity market for Britain, bringing greater choice for Scottish consumers and the benefits of a GB-wide market to all generators, including renewables. The Bill will also create a nuclear decommissioning authority as a new public body to provide long-term strategic direction to the clean-up of Britain's nuclear legacy.
The Bill on company law will address those recommendations of the post-Enron reviews that require primary legislation. We are moving quickly to put those priority measures into law, ahead of the overall review of company law, which we shall bring forward as soon as it is ready. The Bill will support the measures already taken, such as action by the audit firms themselves to rotate audit partners, and the improvement and restructuring of the regulatory system for accounting and audit. It completes the UK's thorough and balanced response to the problems revealed by scandals such as Enron and will ensure that our financial reporting system remains among the best in the world.
26
The company law Bill also creates the community interest company, responding to a proposal from the Strategy Unit report on the voluntary sector—Private Action, Public Benefit. That proposal was widely supported. The community interest company will provide a simple, accessible and ready-made corporate form for many social enterprises. It will be more lightly regulated than charities and will offer a useful alternative to existing forms such as industrial and provident societies and ordinary companies. Community interest companies will be suitable for many areas of activity including regeneration and neighbourhood renewal, complementing core public services in areas such as leisure and community transport, and community self-help. They are a concrete example of the Government's willingness to encourage and facilitate social enterprise as a positive force in our economy and society.
We are committed to encouraging employers and employees to work together. The employment relations Bill will contribute to a stable economy and high performance workplaces through measures to encourage greater participation in the workplace. It provides for new powers to implement the CBI and TUC framework agreement on the EU Information and Consultation Directive, and improvements to the statutory procedure for recognition of trade unions by employers, where the majority of the workforce is in favour.
The Bill is founded on the principles of better regulation. It will meet our commitment to examine how the Employment Relations Act 1999 is operating in practice by implementing the findings of the full scale review of the Act which the DTI has undertaken. The review found that the Act has worked well and does not require substantial amendment. The Bill will therefore build on the success of the Employment Relations Act by introducing targeted measures to improve the law. For example, it strengthens protections for workers who wish to be represented by a trade union or make use of trade union services; improves protections for workers who wish to take official and lawfully organised strike action; and improves the operation of individual employment rights, including improvements to the national minimum wage enforcement regime.
Finally, the Government are committed to long-term reform to ensure that the people of this country enjoy a sustainable, fair and secure income in retirement. That is why we shall bring forward a pensions Bill, alongside the measures we have already announced radically to simplify the tax rules on pensions. We need to renew the pensions partnership that is the bedrock of how Britain has long provided for itself in old age. Employers, financial institutions, ordinary people and the state are all essential players in this partnership.
The measures we shall lay before this House will build on a sustainable system of state provision, ease financial and administrative burdens on employers, seal the pensions promise for ordinary people by strengthening the protection of members' benefits, and enable people to plan for their retirement and make informed choices about saving and how long they work. The pensions Bill will be a cornerstone of our reform programme.

27
These measures will be introduced at a time when we are experiencing the longest unbroken economic expansion on record. This is despite a period of global uncertainty and recession in almost all our major trade partners. Since 1997 output growth in the UK has been more stable than in any other G7 country.
Employment has increased by nearly 1.7 million since spring 1997. Nearly 28 million people are in work, close to record levels. Over the past year unemployment has been close to record lows on both the claimant count and the internationally accepted ILO measure. The claimant count remains below 1 million, something that has not been achieved since September 1975. ILO unemployment has remained close to its lowest levels since 1979.
At the same time inflation remains close to target and is forecast to continue to do so over the coming years. The UK is benefiting from the longest period of low, sustained inflation since the 1960s. Interest rates are close to the lowest levels seen since 1955.
Prospects for the world economy are also improving—seen in business confidence indicators, better financial conditions and rising stocks markets. The global recovery is still very dependent on developments in the US but there are encouraging signs that activity is gathering pace there. Within the euro area, Germany, France and Italy have all come out of the recession they experienced early this year. However, it is still difficult to assess the underlying strength of the global economy. While we remain confident in the potential for stronger growth, significant risks remain and we must stay vigilant.
Looking ahead, improvement in the global outlook and strong domestic economic fundamentals will allow the UK economy to continue to expand steadily. The Bank of England's latest inflation report recognised that the outlook is now improved since its previous report was published in August. The new central projection indicates that growth is expected to be at, or a little above, trend throughout the forecast period.
But we should not be complacent about the challenges ahead. Our productivity still lags behind the USA and many of our European partners.
We have identified the drivers of productivity and have put in place measures to improve the UK's performance. One of these drivers—alongside competition, enterprise, investment and skills—is innovation, the successful exploitation of new ideas. Innovation is becoming of increasing importance, both for businesses and for the economy as a whole. This is for two reasons.
The first is simply globalisation. Trade liberalisation and a rapid fall in communication and transport costs mean that the UK has increasingly to compete against countries with significantly lower labour costs and reasonably well educated labour forces. In 1850 it took nearly a year to sail—or send a message—around the world. Now, you can fly around the globe in a day or so and send an e-mail anywhere almost instantaneously. At the same time wages in China are less than 5 per cent of those in the UK. Hourly labour
28
costs in Korea are just over half UK levels, and the proportion of graduates in the working age population is almost identical to ours.
The second reason innovation is so important for companies and governments involves the major advances taking place in science and technology. Today technology and scientific understanding are changing our world faster than ever before and developments in ICT, new materials, biotechnology, new fuels and nanotechnology are unleashing new waves of innovation and creating many opportunities for entrepreneurial businesses to gain competitive advantages.
In the UK we have some sectors that lead the world in innovation: aerospace, Pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, financial services and many of the creative industries. Some firms in all sectors are global leaders. However, our overall performance is no better than average.
A good indicator of technological innovation is the level of business R&D. The latest data for 2001 show the UK well behind the US and only slightly ahead of the EU average. However, it is encouraging that after a steady period of decline from 1.5 per cent of GDP in 1981 to 1.18 per cent in 1997, the trend line is now moving upwards to 1.28 per cent in 2001.
The challenge for the UK is to understand why our innovation performance is not as good as it should be and how best government can contribute to improving our performance.
The innovation challenge has been a clear theme of the Government's policy making since 1997. In that time we have published three White Papers: Our Competitive Future—Building a Knowledge Driven Economy (1998); Excellence and Opportunity—A Science and Innovation Policy for 21st Century (2000), and Opportunity for All in a World of Change (2001).
We have put in place the key building blocks of an innovation-driven economy, in areas such as macro-economic policy, fiscal policy, competition policy, trade policy, and education and skills. We have also invested in the creation of new scientific knowledge. In 2002-03, the science budget stood at £2 billion, and that figure will increase by 10 per cent a year in real terms until 2005, when the science budget will be nearly £3 billion. That will mean that in the eight years since 1997 the science budget will have more than doubled.
But there is more that we need to do, and over the past year the Department of Trade and Industry has been co-ordinating a review of innovation policy in the UK, which will be published in the coming weeks. The analysis prepared for the review—it was published last week—highlighted areas of great strength for the UK, such as the continuing excellence of the science and engineering base and the size and sophistication of our financial markets. However, there is also room for improvement in a number of areas, which the forthcoming review will seek to address.
The Government have also commissioned Richard Lambert to review links between universities and business and how those can be improved. His report on emerging issues highlighted the many current

29
examples of good practice—how universities and businesses were working effectively together. We look forward to the final report and his recommendations on how good practice can be strengthened and shared more widely.
Another area of great importance where the Government have taken action is that of the skills and competencies that firms need to develop new products, services and processes. Although we compare well at the higher-education level, our percentage of the workforce qualified to intermediate skill levels, of apprenticeships and of skilled craftsmen and technicians, is low. It stands at 28 per cent in the UK, compared to 51 per cent in France and 65 per cent in Germany. The Government plan to increase education spending by 34 per cent to 5.6 per cent of GDP by 2005-06. We have also recently issued the skills strategy, which seeks to have a major impact on the skills deficiencies that we have, particularly at the intermediate level. We need to work closely with employers, trade unions and the education and training sector to deliver the strategy.
We have an enviable record of stability and growth in the past few years. But we live in a fiercely competitive global economy and we need to pursue vigorously our programme of micro-economic reform, so that we can improve our rate of innovation and compete effectively against the low-wage emerging economies.
11.23 a.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, there is universal agreement that the programme set out in the Queen's Speech is very heavy—23 Bills and seven draft Bills. That will inevitably put a major burden on your Lordships' House. Immediately after the end of the previous Session, the Leader of the House of Commons, Mr Peter Hain, made some critical remarks about how we had been dealing with legislation. Those were totally unjustified. We were carrying out our duty to act as a revising Chamber.
The fact is that we now carry an ever-increasing burden because programming and other devices in the House of Commons mean that it is simply not scrutinising legislation as used to be the case. That is a major problem. We are not simply dealing with what the Commons has expressed a view on; in many cases, we are dealing with huge chunks of Bills that are completely raw and have not been considered by the Commons in detail at all. The burden on us in this House will be very substantial, but we shall carry out that duty as an Opposition as best we can.
No doubt we will have a wide-ranging debate today, including a contribution from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford. I understand that, sadly, the debate will be his swan song. He has made major contributions to our debates, and we shall certainly miss them.
There is always an element of uncertainty about debates on the Queen's Speech. One is never quite certain what is going to happen next; for example, a
30
moment or two ago, I had not quite anticipated the speech just made by the noble Lord. In winding up a debate on a previous Queen's Speech, I was rather taken by surprise because the debate that I had expected to concentrate on pensions turned out to be almost entirely devoted to the euro. Perhaps I might say a word or two about that before I turn to work and pension measures.
On a day when the Financial Times carried the main headline on its front page:
"Sanctions deal leaves euro pact in tatters",
it seems quite extraordinary that the Government should include in the Queen's Speech the statement:
"A draft Bill will be published to enable a referendum to be held on the adoption of the single currency, subject to the Government's five economic tests being met"".—[Official Report, 26/11/03; col. 3.]
The first part of that statement was, of course, drafted by Mr Blair and the second part by Mr Brown. The reality is that there have been dramatic developments in Europe. Perhaps in addition to the five extremely vague tests, which are open to almost any interpretation, we should add one to say, "Providing that the Germans and French are going to stick to the rules". We thought all the rules were set in concrete, and that turns out not to be the case.
I shall make a personal suggestion. If we are to have a draft single currency Bill, one might combine it with a referendum Bill on the constitution. As an economist, I have always been in favour of economy of scale, so perhaps we could have the vote on the same day.
I turn to work and pensions, and refer immediately to the draft disability Bill so warmly supported yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke. We certainly believe that there is an overwhelming case for the Bill. There are serious loopholes in the Disability Discrimination Act. However, the worry expressed very clearly by disability rights bodies is about the delay. The Bill is to be a draft Bill, but the matter has been mulled over for years. My impression is that there is very largely consensus on it now, so we share the disappointment expressed by the Disability Rights Commission and others yesterday, immediately after the Queen's Speech, that it is not a substantive Bill. If it is to go for further consultation, it would probably be quicker to use a Joint Committee of both Houses rather than scrutiny by the departmental Select Committee in another place, which has so many substantive responsibilities.
The Minister referred briefly to pensions. As for the state provision of retirement pensions, almost all the industry bodies that responded to the Green Paper called for state pension reform. We on this side of the House have put forward substantive proposals with regard to the position of the basic state pension. Without a firm and adequate state pension, more pensioners will be means-tested and incentives to save will be reduced. Every group, from the IPPR and Age Concern on the Left, through to the National Association of Pension Funds, the Pensions Policy Institute and the engineering federation, call for reform of the state pension to be given priority.

31
The Minister referred to simplification. Certainly, we would welcome that. However, the Chancellor of the Exchequer's obsession with means-testing and tax credits has led to unbelievable complexity. It would take almost the whole of the time that I have available to list the number of different credits that have been introduced, abolished, reintroduced, and so on. Since October 1999, the Government will have introduced five new tax credits for families, scrapped four of them, and introduced three more.
The matter is unbelievably complex—so complex that even the Inland Revenue is now incapable of comprehending it. As reports have recently shown, it is not paying credits to those entitled to them, but is paying credits to those not entitled to them. There is no sense in it. The Government's own assumptions about take-up show that a huge percentage of those entitled to tax credits will not receive them, because they are too complicated. In addition, we have seen that something like £2 billion has been paid out by the Inland Revenue wrongly, as was reported the other day.
I turn briefly to a number of other specific issues. There are a considerable number of them. On baby bonds or the child trust fund, there have been widespread reports in the press that the Home Secretary is concerned about the risk of fraud and that he regards the proposals as inadequate. How will asylum seekers' children be affected? Will they receive the child trust fund payments? As the financial services industry will be underwriting the system, what remuneration is it expected to receive? I put that question to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. What payments is it envisaged will be made to providers of arrangements under the child trust fund? Will the figure be 1 per cent, as in the case of stakeholder pensions, which has resulted a much lower take-up than we had all hoped, or will it be a higher figure? Those engaged in bringing forward a product will need to know that.
The Minister referred briefly to company pensions and the pensions Bill. Before 1997, our company pensions system was the envy of the world. The amount invested in such funds in this country was more than was invested in all of the company schemes in the rest of Europe. That system has been undermined by the Chancellor's action on ACT, by falling annuity rates, by the stock market's collapse, the introduction of FRS17, and so on. The number of company pension schemes that have closed is tragic. According to an NAPF survey, only 19 per cent of companies now offer a final salary pension scheme to new employees and 41 percent of those that used to do so have closed them in the past year. That is a disastrous situation for many people. The vast majority of stakeholder schemes are simply empty boxes with no contributors in them.
The entire system of tax credits and minimum income guarantees is undermining the system that we have so long regarded as important. The pensions Bill, which is designed to deal with companies that become
32
insolvent—and welcome though its proposals may be when we examine them in detail—is a sticking plaster over an open wound. That is very worrying indeed.
Until last December, I was the chairman of a company pension fund. I went to visit the finance director of the company in question. Having managed to maintain a final salary scheme for so long—the decision not to change it to a defined contribution scheme had been a marginal one—I had to point out to him that the Government were now introducing their pensions Bill and that the company would have to pay a premium in case some other firm were to go bust. There is an element of moral hazard in all of that, but there is no doubt that the scheme will, on the whole, lead to more closures of final salary schemes. That is a matter of considerable concern.
I shall put another specific question to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. The estimates of costs from sources within the industry seem to vary from a £1 billion a year to three times that amount. What is the Government's estimate? In particular, as the CBI has asked, will the Government be the guarantor of last resort? I presume that the Bill is sufficiently advanced for the Minister to be able to provide a clear answer to that question when he addresses the matter this evening. The US experience in that regard is not reassuring. There is a huge deficit in its guarantor scheme. We must take that into account when we examine the proposals, which may well prove worth while as the details emerge.
I turn to a number of specific matters to which I shall speak more briefly than I would wish to do, but we can return to them later. As I understand it, the registration of civil partnerships is to be part of a substantive Bill rather than a draft Bill. My noble friend Lord Strathclyde referred to the issue yesterday. The system for taxing the inheritance of those couples should be comparatively simple. However, in other regards, it is certainly not; for example, what will be the position on the equivalent of widows' benefits? One of the curiosities of Beveridge's legacy is that individuals who are married receive a widow's pension to which they have contributed no more than would be the case if they were single. That is a situation that has developed over the years. What will the position be for same-sex couples? Will they receive a widow's pension, or will both of them have to contribute in the way that applies to individuals? That is but one example of a question that will be asked about the Bill. Huge complications will need to be addressed. It is a classic case of a draft Bill rather than a substantive Bill being required. Those issues are very complicated. I was to glad to hear my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition in another place say that there should be a free vote on the issue.
I turn to two further matters. The noble Lord referred to simplification. We would welcome simplification of the tax system for pension schemes. However, there is widespread concern that the £1.45 million cap on individual pensions will affect far more people than the Chancellor originally expected. The number of those people seems to have risen from 5,000 to 300,000 people, rising to almost 600,000 in the future. We must consider

33
that issue carefully when we discuss it. Noble Lords on these Benches have proposed that the limit should be completely removed (apart from there being a restriction on the amount that can be taken as a tax-free sum on retirement) provided that everyone in a company's workforce is given access to a pension scheme on the same terms.
I shall devote a few words to the tragic situation of Equitable Life. Nobody envisaged at the outset that the Penrose inquiry would go on as long as it has. As was pointed out from the Liberal Benches a few days ago, the length of the delay has meant that many Equitable pensioners have seen a massive reduction in their pension after they have retired. I received more letters from them a few days ago. The regulation of Equitable Life has been a lamentable failure. The task of the regulator is simply to protect policy holders; and policy holders have not been protected. That matter must be resolved without further delay. It is regrettable that the ombudsman has not taken over responsibility for the matter, but has chosen to wait until Penrose reports. The delay is a serious problem.
I turn to annuities for over-75s. I notice that the noble Lord is waving. I am not responsible for the fact that the Minister spoke for such a short time. I gather that the normal duration for such speeches is 20 minutes, but I shall not speak for much longer.
Your Lordships' House has voted twice to remove the age limit of 75 for taking out an annuity, but it has been overturned in another place. The issue remains a source of justifiable complaint. It is more so at the moment because government borrowing is going through the roof, which will inevitably lead to increased interest rates. If that happens, someone who is 75 next week will have to take an annuity at present rates, whereas, if he could hang on perhaps for another 18 months, he would get a higher rate which he would get for the remainder of his life. This is a long overdue reform, and we really must sort out this particular problem.
I have no time to discuss in broad terms the economic situation. We shall no doubt have what used to be called the "Autumn Statement"; it now seems more like a Christmas saga of the Pre-Budget Report. We can debate these matters then. However, many issues are causing grave concern. There is a massive increase in private debt, particularly on credit cards. There is a massive increase in government borrowing, which is likely to result in increased interest rates. The conjunction of those two things may create a very serious situation indeed in the housing market and elsewhere. All I do at this stage is simply to refer to today's report from the OECD which clearly states that there are serious worries about the Chancellor's prudence. I share that concern. However, we look forward to hearing the rest of the debate on this set of issues.
11.41 a.m.
Lord Newby: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, in saying how sorry we are that this will be the final speech in your Lordships' House made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford. The
34
right reverend Prelate was one of a number of your Lordships who made me feel very welcome in this House when I first joined. I am sure that we will all be very sorry that he will not be contributing to our deliberations in the future.
We have a very broad topic for discussion today. I, like the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, will attempt to gallop across a very broad field. I should like to start with the economy. I think that the state of the economy is like the curate's egg—undoubtedly some aspects are positive. Overall growth remains much more satisfactory in the UK than in a number of other competitor countries. However, if one looks at the components of growth and in particular the extent to which it has been fuelled by the massive increase in government expenditure this year, one will see that a number of questions can legitimately be asked about where the economy will be in the medium term. Inflation, which is low and looks sustainably low, is the other positive area. At a later stage, however, we will need to discuss a number of issues about how the Government will amend the inflation target when they introduce the harmonised index. But that can wait for another day.
There are also a number of serious question marks against the economy. As we heard earlier this week, investment in manufacturing is down to its lowest level for 20 years. Ironically, a major reason for that appears to be that businesses are using improved revenues to deal with their pensions problems. I will come to pensions later.
The Minister described the major problem in innovation. While I accept that he personally has worked very hard in this area, it remains an area of relative failure with deep-seated roots. For example, it is a major source of worry that, on the latest available figures, UK expenditure on higher education is 26th out of 33 OECD countries. However, noble Lords will not be surprised to know that we on these Benches do not believe that top-up fees are the answer to the problem.
An underlying problem, of course, is that the public finances are deteriorating. The public sector current deficit in this financial year is likely to be £8 billion greater than forecast at the beginning of the year. The National Institute for Economic and Social Research predicts that, far from decreasing in the next couple of years as the Government predicted, the deficit is likely to increase to £18 billion in 2004-05 and £22 billion in 2005-06.
That raises serious questions about the golden rule being met. Having spent six years telling us how central it was to his strategy, the Chancellor is now downplaying its importance while, behind the scenes, apparently frantically scrabbling to re-designate expenditure from current to capital to keep within the figures. That is hardly surprising given what is being said about the likelihood of the rule being met. The national institute thinks that at best there is a 50 per cent chance of it being met in the next couple of years. The OECD, in the report to which the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, referred, is now arguing that if the rule is to be met, and certainly if

35
Prudence is to retain her central place in the Government's finances, there is a strong likelihood that tax increases will be required in the next couple of years. Underlying that is a real question about the robustness of the Government's tax revenue expectations, which appear very much to have been based on the circumstances at the height of the stock market and dot.com boom. In terms of stamp duly and, more importantly, income tax revenues, those circumstances no longer obtain.
I think that that raises a serious question about the Government's own forecasts and the way in which they are presented. Currently, the Government and the Treasury produce a single forecast with no information attaching to it about the margins of uncertainty about key target variables. There is no equivalent for the economy of the Monetary Policy Committee's fan chart of expectations of future inflation. I think that there is a strong argument for adopting that kind of methodology for the economy as a whole. However, the Treasury simply will not do it.
In any event, I think that there are a number of questions about the increasing bullishness of the Treasury's forecasts compared with those of independent forecasters. I wonder whether the time has not come to introduce a British equivalent of the Congressional Budget Office in the US which produces forecasts for the benefit of the legislature rather than the executive. There are a number of ways in which we could do that in the UK; it has been suggested that the National Audit Office might take on the responsibility. However, given the centrality of forecasts in how we view the economy moving forward, I think that the idea should now be seriously examined.
Consumer debt presents another concern about the current state of the economy. I now move on to consideration of measures that were not in the Queen's Speech. We were promised an early White Paper on consumer credit when we debated the issue in this House last month. We were led to believe that there would be a consumer credit Bill in this Session. However, there is no mention of such a Bill. Perhaps the Minister can explain where that Bill has got to. We do not believe that current consumer debt levels are at a crisis point in terms of the economy as a whole. However, the growth in consumer debt linked to housing has been steadily and significantly above earnings growth, and that is clearly unsustainable in the medium to long term.
In the absence of a massive and sustained increased in mortgage interest rates, we do not see a likely collapse in house prices or a return to the high levels of negative equity of 10 to 15 years ago. However, it is extremely worrying that many individuals are running up high and unsustainable debt levels. Research published last week by J P Morgan pointed out that 3.3 million individuals are responsible for 44 per cent of the £178 billion unsecured debt in the UK, giving them an average unsecured borrowing of £24,000 each. The report concludes that the debt appears to be,
"one of over-borrowing on unsecured terms by relatively low-income consumers",
36
and to be disproportionately concentrated on non-homeowners.
For those individuals, that is a major issue. Consumer credit legislation needs to be updated to deal with loan sharks and with the whole question of the aggressive marketing and advertising of products which seem to give one something for nothing. One can build up a balance and then transfer it somewhere else for six months. One does not have to pay anything on it. That balance can then be transferred somewhere else. It is hardly surprising that those under financial pressure see that as something for nothing—a maxim which is unknown in economics and certainly in the financial services industry.
I move on to Bills that are in the Queen's Speech. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has already spoken at some length about pensions. The centrepiece of the pensions Bill is, of course, the pensions protection fund to spread the risk of collapse across all final salary pension schemes. It is ironic that this Chancellor is introducing this measure, given his raid on pension funds with ACT and the fact that he continues to undermine the pension fund industry with a huge hike in stamp duty on long-term leases. That will come into effect next week and will have a major impact on the commercial underpinning of that part of pension funds.
When it comes to the Bill itself and to detailed questions about the pension protection fund, we shall want to question the Government on three issues. First, will they stand behind the fund as a lender of last resort, as they do in relation to the pool for terrorism insurance? We believe that their current intentions are not to do so. However, it would be a cruel deception on pensioners if the Government introduced the fund and it then went bust because too many individual schemes fell into insolvency.
We shall also ask about the cost and complications of the pension protection fund and whether it might lead even more employers to close down their final salary pension schemes early. Certainly for large employers, we are talking about a fund which will cost many millions of pounds to subscribe to, and that will be an important consideration for them as they plan the future of such funds.
Finally, we shall want to consider the question of reputable companies which are trying very hard to honour their pension promises and pay extra money into their schemes and the extent to which they will be protected from imprudently managed companies washing their hands of their pension liability. The "moral hazard" question, which has arisen in this area in the United States to a significant extent, is a major issue but currently we are unconvinced that the Government have come to grips with it. More broadly in relation to pensions, we shall monitor very carefully the operation of the pensioner credit, about which we have major misgivings, some of which have been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins.
Moving on to other areas of legislation, we are to have a companies Bill. I do not know whether I am alone in being unsure what that Bill will now cover. I

37
am unclear whether it will deal with the whole raft of issues in the draft companies Bill which have been discussed over a number of years or whether it will concern a far narrower question relating to accounting. If it is the latter, again, as with the consumer credit Bill, the interesting question arises of why we shall not see rather more in the Bill. This matter has been on the stocks for a long time. Are the Government able to tell us anything at all about the limits of the Bill and the extent to which issues are not covered by it? Can they also tell us when they plan to bring forward legislation covering everything else that needs to be dealt with in terms of reforming companies legislation?
We are happy to give a very warm welcome to the community interest company Bill—an area in which we have been seeking legislation. The Bill will attempt to introduce a balance between flexibility and regulation for community interest companies. That is long overdue. At present, it is extremely difficult for many groups and individuals who try to set up such companies even to decide what corporate form they should adopt—far less to do it. Therefore, it is a long overdue change.
Baby bonds have all the hallmarks of a straightforward government gimmick. If £350 million per year is available to spend on benefiting children and given the whole raft of measures that could be taken, would one introduce baby bonds? We do not think so. The scheme contains a number of fundamental problems but one of its essential flaws and, in our view, one that presents a real problem is the extent to which it will help those who really need benefit as opposed to middle and upper-income earners, for whom this is just another ISA. We now have a baby ISA in addition to the individual ones. Given that we know that ISAs and stakeholder pensions have failed to attract savings from people at lower income levels because they do not have the money to save, the idea that this measure will effect a substantial change to the financial prospects of children from poor families is, frankly, a deceit.
We also have a draft Bill on the euro referendum. That simply provokes in me a hollow laugh. The Bill is being brought forward at a point when we know that there will be no euro referendum. If it had been brought forward last year or the year before, there might at least have been a suggestion that there was a purpose to it. But we know for certain that we shall not have a euro referendum in this Parliament. Therefore, the Bill is an extremely strange way in which to legislate. We shall support it and hope that it will be passed, but we should be even happier if we thought that it would then be brought into effect. Currently we see no such prospect.
The previous Session was a relatively quiet time for Treasury and DTI spokesmen in your Lordships' House. It seems that this Session will be extremely busy and we look forward to it with relish.
11.56 a.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Newby, I thought there was very little about the economy in the gracious Speech. Perhaps, as my noble friend Lord Sainsbury suggested, it was because the Chancellor continues to maintain sound public finances. I am ignorant of economics but, from what I have heard, it seems to me that the Chancellor approaches the subject with five prudent golden rules that keep endogenous growth alive and that those golden rules are more effective than growth and stability pacts, whatever they might be.
In the gracious Speech, and as stated by the Minister, it was said that the Government would encourage enterprise, and it is about enterprise that I want to speak. My question is: how will they do it? Enterprise is a very human and personal activity. It consists of things such as vision, management, productivity and innovation. Those skills are not easily taught or transferred. Indeed, many firms tell me that enterprise is at the mercy of impersonal forces, such as inflexible wages, exchange rates, industrialisation in developing economies, unlevel playing fields, pensions shortfall, new technology, poor access to capital and overbearing regulation, particularly from Brussels. Indeed, many see the decline of both enterprise and manufacturing as inevitable because of that. But are those the real reasons?
I say at once that there is no need to be unduly depressed by the steady decline of manufacturing and its share of gross domestic product. That is happening in all developed countries and, as the Minister said, it is how we react that is important. I agree that it is inevitable that products and industries will leave a developed economy such as ours, but enterprise ensures that they are replaced by other products and industries of yet greater technological sophistication and which deliver higher value and higher productivity.
Enterprise means that new firms come into markets with new processes and ideas. It is true that old firms will die, but that is part of the enterprise process. Indeed, we know that around 50 per cent of productivity growth in manufacturing over a decade is due to the entry of good firms and the exit of poor ones.
What do those successful firms do that is different? It seems to me that they grasp their destiny firmly in their own hands. They are not victims. They sweep away the barriers of their own assumptions and, in that way, they seem to create their own luck and their own good fortune. They encourage and reward ingenuity, creativity, resourcefulness and initiative, items not on the balance sheet but without which there would be no innovation, no new products, no new services and no new enterprise. Instead of complaining about regulation, these companies seem somehow to reflect and adapt to the values of their communities and staff and to build up a special kind of loyalty in that way.
Among many, that is still considered to be soft management, less effective than the hard management of mergers and acquisitions, downsizing and re-engineering, all of which appear in the accounts. But

39
business schools and researchers, stock markets and financial institutions have been collecting data for years which show that that is the way that leads to improved productivity, improved profits and improved stock market value. It has; always been a mystery to me why more firms do not follow that successful formula. A modern enterprising nation requires a people and business building culture rather than a financial engineering culture. Professor Porter strongly made that point in his recent paper for the DTI about UK competitiveness.
The first barrier to sweep away is the separation between manufacturing and service. The idea that manufacturing is just making things is wrong. It is part of a highly connected chain from research through production to delivering services and satisfaction to customers. If managers decide that part of the chain is manufacturing in a low labour cost country, so be it, but reducing production cost is only part of delivering higher value.
Sadly, outsourcing has become an end in itself. Accountants still convince many managers that they can improve their balance sheets simply by cutting manufacturing costs by outsourcing and writing up the value of their brands. Many forget that cost is not the only element in the value of a product. High quality and superior function are valued by customers, especially if such qualities are obvious to the consumer. But solving problems by innovation and imaginative good service are especially valued by customers.
Enterprising management in a modern developed economy such as ours has to be a subtle mix of disciplines. It requires the vision to devise new sets of values—perhaps not yet recognised by financial markets—while building strengths in technology and design, devising new services and ways of customer support here in Britain while at the same time learning how to manage production both in low-wage countries and in Britain. Some of our leading companies, such as Rolls-Royce Aero-Engines, do that brilliantly. Some have failed and gone out of business but others have appeared to replace them.
Such entry and exit should be welcomed and not hindered. It is not a sign of failure but the way an enterprising economy improves and progresses. It is one way in which competition works. Clothing companies, which originally outsourced their products to Asia to cut costs, are now in turn being forced out of business by firms such as Zara, which turn their stocks over every two weeks. To achieve that, they need to have their clothing made locally, perhaps in Britain, Spain or Italy. They have to incorporate that rapid production turnover into their sophisticated management system.
Indeed, research shows that sectors with high rates of entry and exit achieve higher rates of productivity. However, that applies to manufacturing. We do not have enough information about the process in services. Therefore, I welcome the work done by the Advanced Institute for Management sponsored by the ESRC on these matters. One interesting initial finding is that almost no UK productivity growth in retailing comes
40
from entry and exit in the UK while almost all retailing productivity in the US comes from that avenue. Perhaps the Government might consider whether such factors as planning or land use restrictions are holding back enterprise in the UK retailing sector and so holding back productivity growth.
That more generous view of manufacturing as a chain from conception to customer satisfaction opens up many more opportunities for innovation and enterprise. Innovation is not just new science and new technology but identifying relationships between previously unrelated and diverse matters. That ability to reinvent oneself by using new technologies and discovering new markets is an important part of enterprise. You have to be on the spot to do that. You cannot do it if you are too spread out or have lost control of your core activities. Surely, it is now no longer supportable to differentiate between someone who services a piece of equipment and someone who assembles it. Arguably, the person who services it needs more skill than the assembler and adds more value. Certainly, high volume employment has been lost in manufacturing but the picture is entirely different if we look at the value added by industry through enterprise.
It seems to me that government must stop considering manufacturing and services separately and start looking at a whole value chain. There is a story going around about a company with an excellent reputation for productivity and service which built a new factory staffed only by a man and a dog. The dog was there to bark for the service engineer when things went wrong and the man was there to look after the dog.
It is the task of business managers to create wealth. It is their task to imagine the future and to prepare for it or to go out of business. These are very special personal and human activities. They cannot be performed by government but can be encouraged by them. As my noble friend the Minister explained, the Government are giving encouragement by creating stable and healthy economic conditions, careful tax concessions, new technologies from a sound science base and facilitating skills training. However, in the end it is down to the enterprise of business managers to create wealth.
I should like the Government to change the way that they look at industry and to look at it in the more generous and broader way that I have described. Perhaps then they too will discover more enterprising ways to encourage it.
12.7 p.m.
Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market: My Lords, Brendan Barber, the general secretary of the TUC, said the other day:
"The precarious state of pensions is one of the most pressing issues facing us all".
I intend, therefore, to concentrate on pensions and in so doing declare an interest as trustee of a pension fund and a director of Friends Provident, one of our major providers.

41
That is a pretty devastating comment by Brendan Barber, given, as my noble friend Lord Higgins said, that in 1997 we were proud to be able to say that we had one of the best provisions for pensions in this country compared with nearly every other European country. There has been a dramatic decline in our position since then. So I am glad that there is a Bill on pensions in this Session. However, the real question is whether it will meet the need and the challenge.
Why did Brendan Barber make that comment? First, there has been a huge decline in the provision made through occupational pension schemes. Only two or three years ago a trickle of companies were closing their final salary schemes to new entrants. Today there is a flood. Seventy per cent of all the FTSE 100 companies have now closed their final salary defined benefit schemes to new entrants. Less than one-fifth of all employers now offer a final salary scheme to new employees. Over 40 per cent offering a final salary scheme closed it to new members last year.
Moreover, employers are now having to meet a substantial gap in the funding of most occupational pension schemes—the black hole. They are having to meet the £5 billion gap in cash flow created for them by the Chancellor in his dividend tax credit removal by contributing much more themselves. According to Mercer Human Resources, in the first few months of 2003 companies invested 7.8 per cent of their profits in pension schemes as against 5.1 per cent last year. That will have to increase substantially. We now know of black holes not only in many occupational pension schemes in companies but also among local authorities. One estimate I have seen is of a £15 billion gap for local authorities and many other areas. So there is a very real challenge and threat to occupational pension schemes.
In the current year—the latest year for which figures are available—average employer contributions into final salary schemes were 13.1 per cent of the total salary bill compared with 11.5 per cent in the previous year. They are expected to rise to 15.1 per cent, as are employee contributions. We are now seeing the demise of final salary schemes, compared with what was a golden age for those who benefited from them and are now in retirement. Defined contribution schemes are not replacing them in the way that one would wish.
It is significant that for defined contribution schemes the average last year of employers' contributions was 5.2 per cent compared with 13.1 per cent for final salary schemes. Employees contribute much less to defined contribution schemes than they did to final salary schemes. The result is that defined contribution schemes, which actually properly mirror our lifestyles and employment styles these days with people changing jobs so often, are not closing the gap because of those lower contributions. That is my first point.
My second point is on the poor take-up of stakeholder pensions, which are well below the Government's targets. Indeed, in companies where the employer does not make a contribution, there has been a take-up of only 13 percent. Moreover, if a substantial
42
proportion of those for whom the Government originally targeted the schemes were to take them up, it would be the biggest mis-selling scandal of all time, dwarfing all previous cases. It would be a government mis-selling scandal, from a Government who are quick to blame others. That is because of the impact of the minimum income guarantee and other pension tax credits. Therefore, it would be mis-selling to suggest to so many of those who were originally targeted that they should take up a stakeholder pension.
Thirdly, the British public are simply not saving on the scale needed. In the six years to 1997, the savings ratio was never lower than 9.1 per cent and in the six years since it has never been higher than 5.7 per cent.
Finally, there is the state provision. The Chancellor told this year's Labour Party conference:
"I want the next Labour Government to achieve what, in 50 years of the welfare state, has never been achieved. The end of means-tests for our elderly people".
In fact, already 60 per cent of pensioners are on means tests. On present trends and plans that will rise to 73 per cent by 2025. Whatever the Government's good intentions, we have certainly gone seriously and heavily backwards in the past few years.
What has caused this? We had a debate in this House on 5th March in which many noble Lords referred to some of the factors, so I can deal with the matter very briefly. There is increasing longevity, which has substantially changed the balance between the number of years one spends in work and the years one would expect to retire on pensions gained in work.
The abolition of the dividend tax credit must be a major factor because already it has meant that £30 billion of cash, which would have been in occupational pension schemes, is not there. I remember well the debates we had in the other place in 1997 when this was introduced by the Chancellor. The Chancellor claimed that it did not matter because increases in the capital of pension funds as a result of the rising equities of the 1990s made it unnecessary to concentrate so much on dividends. That is a very false argument now—as many of us warned would be the case—because of the volatility of equity prices.
The decline in equity markets is a factor. Another is accountancy changes. My noble friend Lord Higgins referred to FRS 17. There are the contribution holidays that companies took in the 1990s when their pension funds looked in a good state—although many of those contribution holidays arose from Inland Revenue rules because they were over-providing earlier. There is the cultural environment—the emphasis now on mis-selling and the question whether pensions provide a good deal.
A huge factor is complexity—regulation and its costs. On regulation, if the Government continue with the 1 per cent cap on the costs for selling stakeholder pensions there will simply not be enough people in the market place selling stakeholder pensions. In order for a take up to occur, one needs people to sell them. If the incentive is not there; it simply will not happen.

43
There was also the Statement of 11th June, in which the Government announced their proposal that companies closing pension schemes would have to meet the full liabilities or climb ahead. That was well intentioned indeed, but probably a further disincentive to companies to continue with defined benefit schemes. Indeed, one pension specialist, David Ritchie, has said:
"Government has just decided that the defined benefit is a guarantee payment for the member's entire lifetime as a pensioner".
Finally, there is the "live for today" mentality. These are the problems we face. How does the Bill referred to in the Queen's Speech measure up? I shall deal very briefly with the pension protection fund because it was covered by my noble friend Lord Higgins and the noble Lord, Lord Newby. Again, that provision is well intentioned but we will need closely to examine the details. In particular—this is called the "moral hazard"—will prudent and well managed schemes be paying for others that may not be, and should there be a government guarantee?
I was on holiday in the United States:in October and happened to come across this extract in USA Today on October 15th. It stated:
"The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp.,"—
that is a reference to the United States' scheme—
"which insures U.S. pensions, faces a record $8.8 billion deficit and eventually might need a government bailout, its director told a Senate committee".
That is what has happened there. We need to pay attention to that warning.
The other reference in the Queen's Speech to the pensions Bill is the need to encourage employers and individuals to take out pensions. There is a fundamental point which we must embrace before we look at whether the proposed measures really add up. We have to say that in the current climate—and with many of the problems I referred to earlier—people must get used to working longer, getting their pensions later and paying more for them in their working years at the expense of some more immediate things.
Let me turn briefly to a few of the proposals that I think may be required, then we can see whether the Bill measures up to the need. The first matter is getting the balance right between legislation and regulation on the one hand and incentives and the need for personal choice and responsibility, including the principle of caveat emptor. I am sure that we do not have that balance right at the moment.
Turning to complexity, I must say that I think that the Inland Revenue document is a huge improvement on our present situation. It cuts down eight different pension schemes with a huge raft of regulations into one. But there is a problem on the £1.4 million cap. We will certainly have to examine that closely in the Bill. I have a suspicion that, because of the problems of moving in and out of that £1.4 million limit, this will greatly add to the complexity for many people making pension provision for themselves.
44
I have thought all the way through that the right answer to this issue is to remove that £1.4 million cap but to be much less generous than the Government propose on annual contributions. One could halve the £200,000 limit and still enable people to make very good provisions for themselves. That would be a much simpler solution. I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Higgins that the pension tax credit and the working tax credit—even the baby bonds now—so add to the complexity that it is inevitable that the take up will be small. Micromanagement, which the Chancellor continually emphasises, simply does not work.
So far as concerns regulation, there is a real problem about cost, not just the cost of dealing with mis-selling and making compensation but regulation as a whole. That cost is met by policy holders and ultimately a reduction in capital for pension schemes. I am alarmed at the recent suggestion in the press that the Financial Services Authority might be suggesting that the simplified stakeholder pensions that the Government are now advocating may run up against the problem of mis-selling. If so, then we can say good-bye to stakeholder pensions. There is a very real threat that the regulations will inhibit entirely the need for more people to take up pensions.
I shall be very interested to see what the Bill says on incentives. There is no doubt, given the background that I have described, that there is a need to give more incentives both to employers and individuals—that means tax incentives—to take up pensions. There is a whole raft of proposals around; we are awash with different variations of schemes. But certainly there must be something—for example, a pension lax credit to replace the £5 billion that the Chancellor takes away every year from pension funds and which would not require going back to the old ACT scheme. A pension tax credit would be one way of doing that.
The trouble is that the Chancellor has already introduced and spent the stealth tax. That means that there must be further reduction in tax revenue to meet that requirement, but that will certainly be necessary if we are to have the pension take-up that we need. Another possibility is some variation on or something similar to the American 401k schemes. As I said, there is a raft of proposals. What is clear is that the present incentives are insufficient. If the Bill is to achieve its objective, we require something on those lines.
I would also remove the disincentive for people to take out annuities—and therefore to take out personal pensions that lead to annuities—of the age 75 barrier, which is becoming increasingly familiar to most people and causing them to wonder whether it is worth taking out a substantial personal pension. Removing that would be a simple measure.
Also—here I touch on another point mentioned by my noble friend Lord Higgins—we may have to contemplate more generational transfer of funds. That could mean amending the basic state pension—in stages—so that increases are attached to earnings rather than prices. The Conservative Party is now considering an ingenious proposal that would also require the abolition of the

45
cost-ineffective welfare to work schemes to make it reasonably revenue-neutral. But that could be done in stages, starting with older pensioners. We must certainly consider that possibility, because of the problem that people are now living much longer.
More radically, have the Government done enough to raise expectations about when the retirement age should occur? It will have to be raised, both for state pensions and, further than the Government have provided, for occupational pensions and government employees—people in the public sector. There are various ways to provide extra compulsion or to move to pension provision subject to opting out, rather than simply encouraging people to opt in to occupational pension schemes. I suspect that the pensions commission will be the precursor to some such additional compulsion.
I do not pretend that any of that will be easy, but I suspect that the Bill, like everything else that the Government have done so far on pensions, will not match up to the challenge. If so, it will be an opportunity missed.
12.22 p.m.
Lord Paul: My Lords, first, I offer my apologies, especially to my noble friend Lord Sainsbury and the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, for not being here for the opening speeches. The congestion charge has solved many problems, but it did not stop the Horse Guards coming out on parade.
It gives me great pleasure to take part in this important debate. The contributions so far have been impressive and interesting, clearly showing the knowledge of economic and industrial matters that exists in this House. Noble Lords will know of my passion for the manufacturing sector—a sector in which I have been involved all my life. I declare an interest as chairman of Caparo, a manufacturing group, and as a vice president of the Engineering Employers' Federation.
Before I turn to the main contents of my speech, I shall say a few words about the relationship between industry and government. To achieve sensible and practical legislation, it is important that industry and government work as closely together as possible. Although differences of opinion sometimes arise, it is of paramount importance that the two sides continue to work together for the benefit of UK p1c. I am encouraged that the Government have placed so much emphasis on that working relationship and congratulate my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
I take this opportunity to list three areas where Government can do more to involve the business community. The first is on European Union directives. They tend to involve very technical issues. Timely input from the business community would help the Government to identify areas of concern.
The second is on regulations. The Government should discover more ways to involve the business community in that important area to provide better
46
regulation—and, indeed, deregulation. The third is in ensuring that the Department of Trade and Industry and its regional bodies have sufficient funds to carry out their tasks and be a strong voice for business at home and abroad.
Despite the economic problems of the past few years, partly due to the slowdown in economic activity in the USA, the EU and Japan—all major export markets for British manufacturers—UK manufacturing remains strong and vibrant. It accounts for 18 per cent of GDP, 80 per cent of research and development spending and 60 per cent of UK exports. It employs 3.5 million skilled people, with up to 1 million other jobs in the rest of the economy directly linked to manufacturing.
While the rest of the EU has been struggling economically for the past few years, the UK economy—under the impressive stewardship of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—remains strong, with low inflation, interest rates and unemployment. That has not come about by luck or chance, it is the product of sensible and well thought out policies advanced by the Chancellor and the Government.
The Government should also be congratulated on their determination to increase productivity levels. Manufacturing generates faster productivity growth than any other UK sector, averaging increases in output per head more than twice as fast as the rest of the economy during the past two decades. It is presently 25 per cent higher than that in the rest of the economy. The introduction of the research and development tax credit, the Roberts review on the supply of engineers and scientists, the extra funding for science and the forthcoming DTI innovation review and the Treasury Lambert review will help the UK's performance in innovation and, ultimately, in productivity.
However, the Government can and should do more about investment. Decades of under-investment are a key cause of the productivity gap. With so much of UK investment linked to internal finance, we are in a vicious circle from which it is hard to break free when margins are so low. I remain slightly concerned that the Government have yet to grasp the extent of the decline that we have experienced.
Investment incentives must increase. I know that creating new jobs is important, but retaining manufacturing jobs should be considered even more important. Investment is a complicated policy area, but I draw noble Lords' attention to the analysis conducted by the EEF in its pre-Budget submission and its call for an investment tax credit.
There are two other areas in which I should like the Government to take urgent action. The first is pensions, about which we have already heard; the second is employers' liability insurance.
On pensions, I congratulate the Government on the publication of their Bill, which I am sure will be scrutinised thoroughly in this House. I am delighted by the announcement of the setting up of a pension protection fund.

47
A growing number of manufacturing companies with defined benefit occupational pension schemes now face increased costs in providing them. Although the Government have no influence over some reasons for that, such as demographics and a weak stock market, they can provide assistance in other areas and must avoid imposing additional costs or burdens on hard-pressed occupational pension schemes.
I urge the Government to publish at the earliest opportunity a clear timetable for the replacement of the minimum funding requirement, to respond quickly and positively to the Pickering report simplification principles, and, separately, to adopt a bold approach to the long-awaited review of Inland Revenue rules.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He says that he favours a pensions Bill but is against the imposition of any increased cost on business. Will not the pensions Bill increase costs on those with final salary schemes?
Lord Paul: My Lords, we will have to scrutinise the pensions Bill before we decide that. The Bill is a step in the right direction, but it must be scrutinised. Businesses cannot afford further costs.
The issue of employers' liability insurance has been raised in this House on numerous occasions. A range of cyclical and longer-term factors has pushed up the cost of the different forms of insurance taken out by manufacturers, by 50 to 60 per cent. Some manufacturers face premiums hikes of more than 100 per cent, while others experience significant problems in obtaining employers' liability insurance. The Department for Work and Pensions is carrying out a review of that, but I urge the Government to publish their conclusions at the earliest opportunity.
Industry acknowledges that the main responsibility for its success rests with itself. No one in industry expects to be treated as a special case; however, as developing countries become more prosperous, there will be further significant opportunities for manufacturers to sell goods, earn revenues from related services and recruit new skilled people. However, only companies that raise their game in the key areas of productivity, skills and innovation will be positioned to exploit fresh opportunities. In Britain, there are some great companies capable of doing that.
12.32 p.m.
Lord Freeman: My Lords, I shall not detain noble Lords too long, as I wish to concentrate on other issues. I listened with great interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, said about the science base. I pay tribute, not only to the noble Lord, but to his department, for their work to encourage more state and private investment. There are three issues that the noble Lord did not cover—perhaps he might cover them in writing or in his winding-up speech.
No reference was made to the timing of the White Paper on innovation, which was promised by late summer or early autumn. I assume that its publication
48
will now be synchronised with the report of Mr Lambert on the relationship between industry and universities. However, it would help noble Lords to know the timing.
My next point relates to the intriguing consultation paper issued by the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry on the creation of funds based upon the American Small Business Investment Corporation (SBIC) model to encourage the flow of more money into the development, in particular, of high-technology growth funds. Is there any prospect of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the Statement that he may make on 10th December in another place, reporting further progress on that consultation paper?
When the Audit Commission recently reviewed the relationship between the noble Lord's department and the regional development agencies, there was justified criticism of the amount of regulation, control and reporting that RDAs must make to the Department of Trade and Industry. We must make that relationship more efficient.
I welcome the text on pensions in the gracious Speech. The text, which no doubt was carefully crafted, states:
"Legislation will be introduced to encourage both employers to provide good-quality pensions and individuals to save more effectively for their retirement".—[Official Report, 26/11/03; col. 2.]
I agree with my noble friends Lord Higgins and Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market that it is doubtful whether those noble and welcome aspirations will be met.
I declare an interest as a trustee of an industrial pension scheme; however, the views that I shall express are my own. I do not wish to repeat the excellent remarks of my noble friend Lord MacGregor. One advantage of speaking after the noble Lord is that he puts his points with such clarity and force that it inevitably saves time, as one does not have to repeat them. There is great irony in the noble Lord's position, as he served with great distinction as chairman of the House of Commons pension fund. As it is a public sector final salary scheme, it is in no danger of being wound up. There is a dichotomy between the conditions of public sector final salary schemes, funded by the taxpayer, and the final salary defined benefit schemes in industry. The noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, speaks with great authority given his present position in the City.
Before my detailed points, I wish to make one general point that has not been covered: we must now face the need for everyone to work longer. In a decade, the conventional retirement age in the Civil Service of 60, and in industry of 65, will be a thing of the past. We shall have to work longer. Not only are we healthier and living longer, but we will have to work, not only to pay our own pensions, but to continue contributions for those who follow us. After all, by 2020, half the adult population will be over 50. We are an ageing population and must take practical steps to deal with the actuarial implications of that.
The noble Lord, Lord Paul, in a very clear speech, referred to the minimum funding requirement rule. He was right to do so, because in Conservative

49
administrations in previous Parliaments, the MFR was introduced, inevitably, following pension fund problems. The problem with MFR is that it is a theoretical calculation and is inflexible. The Government have said that they wish to move to scheme-specific minimum funding requirements. I find that baffling; I do not know how they will be calculated scheme by scheme. Who has responsibility: trustees or employers? We should say good-bye to the minimum funding requirement. The Government intend to introduce other measures, including the company pension protection fund, which may obviate the need to maintain the MFR.
The draft winding-up regulations—an interim measure to ensure an equitable distribution of money in the event of an employer's insolvency—were published in October. They are very sensible and to be welcomed. However, in my experience, the regulations are proving impractical, as they require access to detailed records about a person's employment history and contributions to schemes, in some cases dating back 50 years. Those details are simply not available, and we might have to revisit how the regulations work by 2004, if they are to come into effect then.
I now turn briefly to the company pension protection fund, which should be welcomed. However, as several of your Lordships have already said—the noble Lord, Lord Newby, in particular, the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, and my noble friend Lord Higgins—there are more stakeholders involved in this fund than simply the employer and therefore the contributor to or guarantor of the defined benefit scheme. For example, the stakeholders should all contribute to the cost. Otherwise we will end up putting the noble Lord, Lord Paul, in a very difficult position. If his companies end up having to pay an extra 1 per cent of their payroll, he will not be happy and I suspect that his shareholders will not be happy either.
The other stakeholders surely include the taxpayer, as has been mentioned. After all, what the Government seek to do, which is laudable, is to protect those who fall on hard times or have fallen on hard times in the past whose pensions disappear and who have to rely on the state. The employer and employees in public sector schemes should also contribute, although they will not necessarily be beneficiaries for obvious reasons. They have a responsibility, as indeed do employees past and present in individual defined benefit schemes.
I make one request to the Minister—may we please have the draft regulations, which will be very important for this Bill, at Second Reading? Too often, we have received the draft regulations in the latter stages of the Bill. In this particular case, the regulations will be as important as the principal of the Bill. I agree with my noble friend Lord MacGregor that, in a decade's time, hardly any new employees coming into work in the private sector will be able to join a final salary defined benefit scheme. It will be a thing of the past. Those employees will then have to move to defined contribution schemes, which brings me to my penultimate point.
50
A defined contribution scheme is one in which the risk is passed from the employer to the employee. In other words, the employer will match the contribution, perhaps at a much lower rate and lower share of the total cost—as my noble friend Lord MacGregor said—than in defined benefit schemes. The employee will have the responsibility of deciding how his and his employer's money should be invested.
An investment in equities is more risky, as we have seen over the past two or three years. Therefore, it is very important that the advice, which can sometimes be expensive, is available to those employees. I am glad that the Financial Services Authority is reviewing the degree of regulation that will be needed for the new Sandier products—the new savings products that will be available for those on average or lower incomes. I strongly believe that the 1 per cent cap should be replaced with a much more flexible approach; perhaps a lower cap for straightforward schemes investing in gilts or cash, but a higher rate of cap for the more risky schemes, especially equity-based schemes.
I conclude by looking forward with great anticipation to what the Labour Party plans to publish tomorrow, which, I gather, will be called Prospectus. The Prime Minister is reported as having said that one of the issues in this document for discussion within the Labour Party and, indeed, within the country, is that of compulsory pension contributions by employees. I welcome that debate, because I do not share the view of some of my colleagues on these Benches that compulsion should never be contemplated. We are rapidly approaching the point at which—leaving aside the second state pension—a certain proportion of one's income, whether high or low, must be set aside for one's future pension. In the mean time, employers should be encouraged—and legislation should permit them—to assume that all their employees will remain in the company pension scheme but have the right to opt out. At the moment, it is very much the reverse— employers try to attract membership of their schemes. We should go a bit further and allow employers to assume that everyone will be part of their pension schemes.
I conclude by making a plea to the Treasury. When considering whether to codify the recommendations of the Myners report on the operation of pensions funds and the responsibility of trustees, the Treasury should cool it and go for a code rather than enshrine in statute law the responsibilities of trustees for training and for the consideration of the alternative investments that they might wish to put in their pension scheme. A lot has been achieved so far and we do not need to go down a statutory route. I look forward to the pensions Bill and participating in those debates.
12.45 p.m.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, at the outset, I make it clear that I am fully in support of the main economic thrust of the Queen's Speech. The first sentence is:
"My Government will maintain their key commitment to economic stability and growth".—[Official Report, 26/11/03; col: 1.]

51
It is hard not to be in favour of that. It rather reminded me of the sort of things that I used to promise Father Christmas—how good I had been and how I therefore deserved all the presents that I was going to get. The sentence is clear and noble as an objective and I was looking forward to hearing a little bit more detail in the Queen's Speech about what we would do in pursuit of that goal. I listened to the end without hearing a great deal about either that or industrial policy.
I speak as someone who is supportive of the goal. However, it is important for supporters of the Government to express in a supportively questioning rather than stridently critical way some of their concerns about the possible obstacles that may lie in the path towards the promised land of continuing economic stability and growth. Of course, as my noble friend said—and anybody who is at all objective about these matters would immediately want to pay tribute to this—there are continuing good omens. Continuing low unemployment, low inflation, low interest rates and, alongside them, welcome signs of the upturn in economic growth, are all good omens, not only in the United Kingdom. They are now beginning to appear in the eurozone and, importantly, the United States of America.
Against that background, however, we should also express our concerns. Concerns are beginning to worry not only Members opposite, but some noble Lords on all sides of the House. The continuing growth in the borrowing requirement competes for money and produces an upward pressure on interest rates, which will have a knock-on effect on consumer confidence, investment and business costs. It will create an underlying need to raise more money from taxation, either from the dynamics of growth or, if that growth is not fully adequate, from new forms of taxation. The continuing demand for borrowing must be a continuing worry.
My worries, which are not necessarily shared by all Members of your Lordships' House, are compounded by the reaction of the finance Ministers of the EU countries in driving a coach and horses through the stability and growth pact. That pact uses the same two words as the key economic commitment of the Government—stability and economic growth. Yet, at one fell swoop, in a decision that was ill-argued and unjustified, they have broken something that was given the authority of European law by driving that coach and horses through it. To give President Chirac and Chancellor Schröder a polite slap on the wrist is not an adequate response to a threat that is not purely a domestic threat in France and Germany, but one that has a knock-on effect on economic performance throughout the whole of Europe.
The failure at Cancun is another factor that does not augur well for the necessary developments in liberalised world trade. That link between the liberalisation of world trade and our own economic growth is an unbreakable link: they are interdependent facts.
In his interesting opening speech, my noble friend Lord Sainsbury referred to another economic worry; namely, the poor record of this country in relation to
52
productivity. As someone who usually has a boring reading list, I was reading the minutes of the last meeting of the Monetary Policy Committee, in which there is a very worrying statement. Paragraph 9 states:
"With low population growth, output and demand growth might average only 2% per annum, or possibly less, if productivity growth in recent years represented the underlying trend".
That is a very polite way of expressing a worry that is there for us all.
Everyone talks every year about the productivity crisis. I cannot find a decade since the end of the Second World War when productivity has not been the fundamental issue that had to be addressed. We talked about it while the British shipbuilding industry disappeared; we talked about it through the collapse of our steel industry; and we talked about it with regard to the motor cycle and the motor vehicle industries. Then we start to pretend to ourselves that perhaps the manufacturing industry is not as important as, historically, we have pretended it to be. In that respect, I am not sure that I fully agree with my noble friend.
I agree with much of what my noble friend Lord Haskel said, but the strength of his language in relation to manufacturing industry is not one that I share. As my noble friend Lord Paul said, the manufacturing industry is an important part of our economy and it must continue. The need for a national effort involving all stakeholders being able to identify first, the obstacles to productivity improvement, and, secondly, the means to overcome those obstacles, is as imperative to this country now as it was when we created the National Productivity Council. I think that everyone can remember its existence but can find little to signify the hallmarks of its achievements, but those achievements now must become a reality. In doing that, we must cease our obsession with pay and its restraints and replace it with a commitment to a high reward for a reduced unit cost of labour in the manufacturing sector.
In this debate, I do not intend to stray far into the issue of education, except to say that I am not obsessed either for or against the target of 50 per cent of young people going on to higher education. My concern is what we train them to do. What are the skills in which we offer the training? They must relate to our industrial needs so that we have a continuing supply of labour trained in the relevant skills necessary to our economic performance.
This country does not benefit from large numbers of unemployed media studies graduates looking for jobs for which they have been given high expectations, but who subsequently find that such jobs do not exist. Nor does this country benefit greatly from an increased supply of marketing graduates who suddenly find that they have nothing to market because of our poor productivity. I am not obsessed with increasing numbers of students going into higher education through the front door. But, increasingly, in some faculties of some universities, as many as 40 per cent are leaving through the back door without graduating. That is not a necessary and useful contribution to our industrial productivity.

53
I now turn briefly to the euro. The 7th Report of the Euro Preparations Committee indicates that preparations are going extremely well. At the start of the document, I read with great interest the Chancellor's commitment, in principle, subject to the five economic tests, to our joining the euro. Those good and serious reports need to be disseminated a little further than wise people talking among themselves. There can be as many caveats as are thought to be necessary. But if, in principle, we are committed to joining the euro, it is incumbent on the Government to spell out more regularly, more frequently and more consistently the perceived economic benefits that lead them to the conclusion that joining the euro is good, in principle.
I do not want any caveats—I shall not introduce any myself—that question the five economic tests. Let them stay; let them be there. It is on the basis only of their being achieved that the Government propose to bring the matter to Parliament and, subject to the agreement of Parliament, to take it to the country. Therefore, I welcome the paving Bill. In the meanwhile, between the promise and the performance, we should inform people of the benefits. In no way does that interfere with or limit the commitment of the Government to the five economic tests. The Government should therefore be less shy of spelling out the benefits.
The Government's economic record as a whole is good. The country needs its future economic performance to match its past economic performance. As my noble friend Lord Sainsbury said, to do so we must have guaranteed energy supplies. I did not intend to refer to the matter, but, as he opened his speech with a reference to energy supplies, I merely emphasise again—as I and other Members of your Lordships' House have in the recent past—that, while I welcome the commitment to renewable energies, such renewables must be in place producing sustainably as an essential precondition of phasing out any power stations, however fuelled, whether they be nuclear, coal or gas-fired. The security of our energy supplies is the sine qua non of our economic stability and growth.
I wish the Government well in their goals of economic stability and growth. At present, I remain concerned, rather than critical, about the possible pitfalls in the path ahead. I hope that next year we shall see an increased and improved performance on the essential issues of keeping our borrowing within manageable control, without threatening interest rates or investment, and being able to achieve economic growth without threatening employment, interest rates or tax, while, at the same time, being able to put in step some permanent measures to help improve our national productivity.
12.58 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, there were several points of interest to industry in the gracious Speech. In his brilliant speech, the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, quoted the opening phrase from the gracious Speech, which stated:
"My Government will maintain their key commitment to economic stability and growth".—[Official Report, 26/11/03; col. 1.]
54
That is very welcome. It is a fact that industry and the economy are utterly reliant on each other, but it would have been good to see some acknowledgement of this reliance for economic stability and strong growth. As the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, and others have said, industry—particularly manufacturing industry—needs all the encouragement that it can get and reassurance that it is not an "also ran" in the Government's great scheme of things. We should never forget that without the wealth creation of industry, the social and other policies of the Government would be in a parlous financial—and, indeed, every other—condition.
I was heartened, albeit momentarily, when I heard the phrase,
"My Government will also introduce legislation on energy matters".
But my feeling of well-being dissipated rapidly when
the sentence continued,
"to establish a Nuclear Decommissioning Authority".
The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, in his opening speech told us that the new authority will deal with waste. No reference was made by the Minister to the need to establish a body or to engage in a study to consider building new nuclear power stations. To be fair, the quotation from the gracious Speech continues with the words,
"and to promote secure, sustainable supplies and a safer environment".—[Official Report, 26/11/03; col. 3.]
But, again, no specific mention is made of nuclear generation. I support absolutely the closing remarks of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, that nothing should be done without a secure plan in place.
In simple terms, the two serious requirements concerning the long-term future of energy supplies in this country are: first, the need to fulfil international commitments to increase the percentage of electricity generated from renewable sources; and, secondly, the need to safeguard the long-term security of supply. Perhaps we should not read too much into the juxtaposition of words in the Queen's Speech. Perhaps I am suffering from having heard too many non-answers to Questions put in this House about the long-term security of energy supplies, but to be promised an energy Bill that is to concentrate on decommissioning waste, with no further reference to existing nuclear plants, does not make me confident about the long-term security of energy supplies.
We cannot allow ourselves to drift into a situation where, some 10 years down the line, we find that there is an unacceptable reliance on gas imports from parts of the world where long-term political stability could be seen to be somewhat hazardous. In addition, the practical problems associated with being at the end of the long trans-European pipeline, which could be vulnerable to political or terrorist action, cannot be ignored.
Putting the two requirements I have already mentioned into the context of this debate on the gracious Speech, there is one sector of industry on which the economy relies more than any other; that is, energy. For far too long, short-termism has predominated in our attitude to energy. For two centuries, we have been

55
extremely fortunate to have had coal as the foundation of our industrial progress, but that is no longer the case as environmental considerations, quite rightly, have become so important.
We have been fortunate in some development of hydro, but not any longer as it is not acceptable to site large man-made lakes and hydro-electric power stations close to centres of population. Not only are we a densely populated island but also, unlike the Norwegians, the Canadians and the Swiss, we have no mountains covered with snow producing cascades of water capable of rushing through turbines to generate electricity. Indeed, water is such a scarce commodity in parts of the United Kingdom—as noble Lords would have heard me remark during our deliberations on the Water Bill—that we have to conserve it for use other than in electricity generation.
The current concentration on renewables is a positive reaction to the almost universal awareness that the world has to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, commonly known as "greenhouse gases". It is imperative that the emphasis in electricity generation is focused on all low and non-carbon energy sources.
An article in the "Business" section of The Times for 30th October highlighted the fact that some 13 so-called "dirty coal power stations" are "facing the axe", which will result in the United Kingdom facing widespread blackouts within the next four years. Those 13 dirty coal power stations currently account for 31.5 per cent of supply, while "clean coal" power stations account for only 10.8 per cent. In the same article, the chief executive of Scottish Power forecast that electricity shortages of the kind that hit California in 2000 could become a regular occurrence. Even more recently, we are mindful of the power cuts closer to home in London and Birmingham, in Italy in continental Europe, and in Denmark in Scandinavia.
Faced with those facts, no one can ignore the necessity to focus firmly and quickly on the development of renewables. The term "renewables" is defined in the energy White Paper as,
"generated from wind power, wave, tidal, solar photovoltaics (PV), hydro generation, geothermal and biomass (energy from forestry or crops)".
The list is justified on the basis that,
"they all produce no carbon at all or, in the case of biomass, produce only the carbon they have already absorbed from the atmosphere when growing".
We need to look behind those statements. But, in doing so, we find that all is not exactly as it may seem. Continuity of supply cannot be guaranteed by wind because it is probably only 35 per cent efficient. It may seem hard to believe, but we do not have a great deal of wind in this country. The manufacture of photovoltaics involves the use of certain very noxious chemicals, so they are not exactly squeaky-clean. Justifying biomass does not remove the fact that noxious gases will be released.
The category of renewables does not include nuclear energy, although it does not emit any noxious gases and is the second cleanest energy source following wind. For some reason, nuclear energy is placed in the category of
56
fossil fuels and is thus penalised by being made unfairly subject to the climate change levy. I suggest that there should be a redefinition of "renewables" to include nuclear energy. I do not seek to be wildly original in making that suggestion, because I am conscious of the example of the Government of Ontario in Canada.
The Government of Ontario have recently extended the tax concessions available to renewables to nuclear power in recognition of the point I have just made—its very low environmental effects. That tax concession was brought in only last year to encourage more power generation from clean sources, in particular wind and hydro, but now the Government of Ontario recognise that nuclear power needs to be included. They are thinking of the long term. They do not want to face a complete blackout in 2020. Will the Minister acknowledge this fact and say whether, in the interests, first, of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and, secondly, of encouraging nuclear development for continuity of supply, the Government would consider matching the action taken in Ontario?
So far, the Government have steadfastly refused to make any commitment to nuclear energy supply. The only commitment appears to be to the establishment of a nuclear decommissioning authority, the very title of which will probably lead people to think that it will be tasked with removing all nuclear activity in the United Kingdom. What we need is a "nuclear commissioning authority".
If that is a step too far, bearing in mind that the time-scale for the commissioning and building of new nuclear power stations is at least four or five times the life of a normal Parliament—I have to say that politicians are notorious for looking only to the next election—the energy industry will become increasingly reliant on imported gas. Both existing nuclear power stations and retired coal-fired stations will come to the end of their lives within the time-scale of those four or five Parliaments. Both sources will have to be replaced by imported gas. Recent estimates suggest that, by 2020, some 68 to 75 percent of all electricity generating capacity will be supplied by gas, with between 70 and 90 per cent of that gas being imported. Do we have any right to subject this country to that? The answer, I am sure, is no.
Above all, we need to keep the nuclear option open and undertake an in-depth study of what part nuclear could and should play in our future. Keeping that option open requires the recognition of nuclear's carbon-free qualities in the market through an emissions trading scheme. It also requires an urgent resolution of the waste issue. However, technical solutions are available and are being implemented by other countries such as Finland. Is the Minister prepared to advocate political impetus behind those solutions?
The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, did make a commitment to assisting in the retention of an indigenous nuclear skills base. Some two weeks ago he told the House that £5 million has been set aside for that purpose. However, as I recall, that is £5 million spread over four years. Is that anything other than a sop?

57
New and cheaper nuclear power stations with passively safe features and lower waste production are available. New nuclear power stations are under construction in nine other countries. Other countries are backing the low carbon energy economy model with nuclear and renewable sources contributing together as part of a balanced energy mix. Why do we think that those countries are wrong? If we do not think that they are wrong, why are we not considering a similar move? Is this simply a proposal filed in the "all too difficult" basket or, even worse, is it in the file labelled "probably not within our term of government—leave to others"?
The economy and industry will not be thankful for the results of such inaction, and neither will anyone coping with a future marked by increasingly frequent power cuts like those occasionally experienced in the third world. As has been pointed out, we have one of the strongest economies and one of the better industrial bases in the world. We have to be sure that we do not, by inaction or ostrich-like behaviour, put all that at risk.
1.10 p.m.
Lord Sheldon: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, referred to the weakness of development in manufacturing industry. I agree with her entirely, as, indeed, I do with my noble friends Lord Paul and Lord Tomlinson. Despite all the Government's actions, the competitive position of manufacturing industry is not increasing in the way that it should.
I want mainly to speak about one aspect of economic policy which nowadays does not form so prominent a part of the parliamentary debate—that is, the balance of payments. When I entered Parliament in 1964, this was the most important of economic issues. No Minister was allowed even to mention the word "devaluation". George Brown, a devaluationist, used to pass me in the Lobby with his fingers shaped in the form of a "D" and he would put his fingers to his lips and say "Sh". He was arguing for it to no avail. Devaluation was indeed then the only way to seek relief from the constriction of our balance of payments position at that time.
Throughout the 1950s and the 1960s until the floating of the pound, the balance of payments was a dominant economic issue. Certainly the floating of the pound removed the balance of payments as such a dominant economic issue, although, of course, its importance continued. What has happened since then is that our trade balance has become negative as manufacturing exports have declined substantially and imports have increased. Our long tradition—right from Elizabethan times and even before then—as a country with a consistent trading balance, which had endured for five centuries, came to an end a few years ago.
So, although the floating of sterling allowed us a relaxed view of the balance of payments, the discipline of fixed exchange rates has now gone. Gone also is the
58
determination to bring our accounts into balance. New found is our convenience and our ease. This is not to mourn or even regret the new market conditions, but some recognition must be taken of the consequences.
Let us examine what has happened in the past four years for which we have the figures. The United Kingdom trade balance for 1998 was minus £8 billion; for 2002, it was minus £31 billion. This is not a temporary blip—even if it were, it would be an enormous one—and the indications are that it is likely to continue and possibly even get worse.
The problem for our country is that developing countries are becoming more and more sophisticated in their manufacturing techniques—an issue to which the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, referred. They are aided, quite rightly, by western industries. With their lower wages and overheads, they are able to produce articles, some of which are nearly as good as, some are equal to and some are better than those produced by the traditional industries of our country. We need only to look at the motor-cars from South Korea and Malaysia, the new electronic products from the Far East and the vast range of products now coming from China, which has accumulated an enormous balance of payments surplus, particularly with the United States.
The industrial revolution which we created more than 200 years ago has run its course. We led the way and other countries have taken over much of what we thought was inalienably ours. I remember the comments of an earlier generation who thought that the industrial skills and manufacturing techniques we had invented could never be taken over by other countries because the skills we had would always give us the advantage. Coming from Manchester, our textile spinning and weaving, bleaching and dyeing was thought to be superior to anything that was or could be produced in the world and our skills were such that they could not be imitated. But there are now large ranges of textiles which are not produced at all in Lancashire. This process, from which my own area was the first to suffer, has spread through many industries and parts of the country. We would be very optimistic if we thought that this process was coming to an end.
On Tuesday, the Office for National Statistics indicated that business investment fell 1.6 per cent in the third quarter of this year and manufacturing investment fell by 5.8 per cent. So there is little sign of a balance of payments turn-round coming from investment. In fact, with the pressure for declining tariffs, which even now still operate against friendly, even Commonwealth, countries, such tariffs must decline further at the same time as the spread of skills continues. If the position is largely as I have set out, we must consider what we should do to retain our prominence among the economies of the world.
Throughout my parliamentary life I have argued for a competitive pound. This would be of some assistance in limiting the adverse nature of the trade balance. But, by itself, it was never enough. Its role was to provide a

59
breathing space within which longer term issues could not only be addressed but implemented. Chief among these were education, training, industrial training and investment. These are long-term aims, but slowing the decline through a more competitive pound could have allowed these long-term aims to be implemented and their consequences to take effect.
Forty years ago there was plenty of time to achieve these aims if they had been determinedly and vigorously pursued. The great tragedy is that they were not. So even our peculiarly successful and traditionally British company—Rolls-Royce—is now a German company. The decline in British manufacturing was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, and others.
German exports are now greater than those of the United States. The United States—the industrial giant of the world—is now second in its overseas trade to Germany. Astonishing as that may seem now, 10, 20 or 30 years ago it would have been considered quite inconceivable. At the same time, and not by coincidence, the United States balance of payments has continued to deteriorate, with its overseas debt now at 3 trillion US dollars.
"Trillion" is a word with which we are having to become acquainted. More than 40 years ago the Economist decided that the word "billion", which used to be a million million since at least the 17th century, would in future be defined as a thousand million. Single-handedly the Economist changed the numerical language of our country. The thought occurs that if the "trillion" was thought to be becoming part of our numerical currency, the argument for change then would have been rather less. Perhaps in another 40 years we may see the next step—the use of the word "quadrillion".
We may be under-estimating the amount of work required to get the external deficits of Britain and the United States into balance. It may need much more effort than previously considered. While Britain had a world reserve currency there was always the opportunity, despite foreign exchange restrictions, to move capital from Britain to the United States. That was always a possibility. It was the seesawing of deficits that made Britain so susceptible to currency crises. Today there is only one primary reserve currency. As a result, the United States economy has incurred prodigious world debts. Sooner or later there must be some attempt to rectify that position. Its increasing debt position will not go on for ever.
To do that may be much more difficult than many people assume. The industrial and economic changes required, even with a depreciation of the dollar, may be much harder and take longer than people imagine, for this is the first time in the economic history of the world that one country has been entrusted with so much money from so many countries and organisations. In the light of this, the eventual exit will be hard to predict. What one must surely press for is restraint in allowing further progress in this direction. The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, avoided deflation, which occurred with so many countries, and we respect
60
that. Clearly, currency levels do not reflect the present underlying competitiveness of the economies. That is a question which at some early date will need to be addressed with even more urgency than shown so far.
I shall mention one further matter. There is to be a change at the Treasury in that the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise are to be located in the same part of the building. That is a very interesting development. They come from quite different traditions and there is going to be immense difficulty in merging them. One dates back to 1275 and the other to the 17th century or even earlier. To bring these two traditions together is going to be immensely difficult. They are being brought together in the same building. They will at least be able to talk to each other and perhaps produce some kind of result which may be favourable to the economy as a whole.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may say to him that he should not be so depressed about the textile industry in and around Manchester because the industry there has reinvented itself. It has a whole range of new products which have medical and construction uses. It is one of the centres of Europe. The industry there has reinvented itself through enterprise.
Lord Sheldon: My Lords, that may be as regards certain products. I have a very close involvement in the textile industry and, generally speaking, not many people will confirm what my noble friend has said.
1.23 p.m.
Lord Patten: My Lords, I believe that merging the Inland Revenue with HM Customs and Excise to which the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, referred may be just as difficult and challenging a job as merging new Labour and old Labour. Having said that, I say in an entirely bipartisan way that I sit at the feet of the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, as regards matters such as the balance of payments. I always greatly enjoy what he has to say. I only wish that I had also had the experience of knowing George Brown. It is one of my great personal regrets in life that I never met him in the Bishops' Bar.
I wish to concentrate my remarks on two themes related to two of the Bills in the gracious Speech, company law and energy. They are areas in which I have both experience and various personal interests to declare, as your Lordships may know.
Turning first to the measures that we may see as regards company law and auditing practice matters, I support the tenor of the proposals in the Queen's Speech, subject to what the Bill says. If these measures help to stop some of the bad practices that exist, that is a good in itself. There have been, and are, some striking examples of executives taking large sums of money without proper authority from their publicly owned companies, especially in the United States of America where, thanks to the joint efforts of both regulatory authorities like the SEC, auditors and shareholders, clear examples of corporate theft have been revealed. Whether or not criminal charges are

61
brought in every case; whether or not they are successful in every case in the USA or in the United Kingdom, where happily, examples are mercifully fewer, these are abhorrent acts which are ethically reprehensible. Investors, whether they are individuals or institutions investing in their turn on the part of pensioners, do need the protection that the Government seem to be providing. I welcome what we may see.
Having said that, there is a qualification. I believe that new legislation and new regulation should recognise, and not unduly fetter, the benefits of free enterprise, free trade and capitalism in this country. I do not wish to preach sermons on this matter: there are Bishops aplenty here to do that. But I believe that capitalism, when morally and ethically conducted as it usually is in the United Kingdom, is a great force for good. It is morally enhancing and it is also likely to lead just as much to spiritual as to material improvement. Perhaps I might seek the guidance of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford in his valedictory remarks to your Lordships' House after lunch. I have always listened with great care to what he had to say. Indeed, outside the Chamber he once offered to hear my confession, which I did not take up for fear of shocking the right reverend Prelate. I look forward to hearing his views.
Ultimately, whether people thieve from their companies depends on individual choice. No regulation or legislation is going to stop that completely. I am sure that the right reverend Prelate and his colleagues will recognise that theft and malfeasance exist in other areas of public life. It exists in the Church, in the social services and education. Wherever it happens it is lamentable. But while regulation and legislation are critically important, so also are ethical training and standards, as much in corporate life as in the life of the House of Bishops or elsewhere.
I now turn to energy. I am going to be less welcoming. The DTI's Bill seeks, for example, to include special administration regimes for power companies facing insolvency. It misses the big issues and the big picture completely. I say with respect that it is a classic example of the DTI yet again being not just asleep on the job but positively hibernating.
I do not know quite what the seven Ministers in the DTI and all their civil servants do all day. It is rather like the child who pointed at Lord Randolph Churchill when he was campaigning and said, "Dearest Mama, pray tell me what is that man for?". I am not quite sure what the DTI is for.
A few years ago we had a Department of Energy and a Secretary of State to look after energy supplies, which were points referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, with whom I agreed, and by my noble friend Lady O'Cathain, with whom I also agreed. There are seven DTI Ministers labouring away, and within that department energy responsibility is handled by not even an energy Minister, but by one part-timer, Mr Timms.
I believe that this indolence is reflected in the promised Bill. It flies in the face of the fact that energy is going to be a make or break issue in the next five
62
years as my noble friend said earlier in her most striking speech. It is because in the three years 2005 to 2008 I judge that there will be serious and quantifiable risks of energy failures in cold spells in this country. We are at risk of the Californian experience in the United Kingdom.
I carefully steer clear of the use of the word "crisis", and I do that for charitable reasons. It is a word often misused by lobbyists and the media alike. The crisis word, when used, gets automatic and mindless coverage on those morning broadcasts. Some wretched junior Minister is called to account before dawn to reply to the crisis allegation and is then subjected to one of those interviewers suffering from what I regard as a new and developing health scare, a repetitive questioning syndrome, barracking the poor Minister before he or she has even had a chance to begin to answer in the style of yob broadcasting which the BBC in particular is making its very own.
So I shall not use the word "crisis", but the word "risk". The risk is that there will be serious pressure on gas supplies in particular between 2005 and 2008. Our use of gas is growing at 4 per cent a year yet our UK production will begin to decline from 2005. There is a yawning gap afterwards. Unfortunately, it will not be before 2007 or 2008 that we shall have new, liquified natural gas terminals or, more importantly, the vital new pipeline coming from Norway to which my noble friend referred earlier in her speech. The Government are obfuscating on the matter.
There is a lot of talk about other sources, particularly Algeria and Russia. Algerian gas is largely spoken for in the Mediterranean region. Russia's pipelines come through many countries. We are at the end of the supply chain and, in a hard winter, it will stop off in France or Germany before it gets here. In Russia, I am advised by those who know the territory, market confidence among suppliers has been severely dented by the imprisonment without charges, let alone trial, of Mikhail Khodorkovsky—do not worry, Hansard, you will have my spelling later—by Mr Blair's friend, Mr Putin. That has knocked producer confidence substantially in Russia.
What is the DTI doing? Too little. Its recent White Paper barely touched the critical gas issue. Worthy ends such as more energy efficiency, which I wholly support, are not going to keep the lights on in 2006 or 2007. We desperately need, as soon as possible, gas from the Norwegian Ormen Lange field by the new pipeline, yet the DTI is allowing the treaty negotiations that would make that happen to drag on and on. Negotiations could be completed within the month, by Christmas, but I am advised that they will not be completed, because the DTI is totally becalmed on the issue and is not driving the necessary treaty. We can add to that the perverse disincentive that the Chancellor, who specialises in such things, has placed on gas producers with an extra 10 per cent tax rise. That diminishes the opportunity for profitable production. It is no surprise that more and more of our gas assets in the North Sea are being left idle.

63
The DTI, with its part-time junior energy Minister, is—and I choose my words carefully—sleepwalking the United Kingdom into a potential power supply black hole in the period between our own production beginning to fail in 2005 and when we get the first Norwegian gas—which will probably, thanks to the DTI, be no earlier than 2008.
In conclusion, what can ride to the rescue—nuclear or renewables? Unusually, like my noble friend Lady O'Cathain, I support both of those. They are both extremely valuable in any balanced energy policy. Nuclear is running down, however. The Government have abrogated their responsibilities—a point made by their own supporter, the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson. We need a positive nuclear policy, not the failure to deal with the issue that we now see.
It is the same with renewables. As your Lordships are aware, I have had detailed knowledge and interests in that industry since 1997. I applaud the warm sentiments of the Government towards the promotion of renewables—wind or biomass. However, it is a complete fallacy for the Government to suggest that they will achieve their target of 10 per cent for renewables by 2010. We are getting about 2 per cent from renewables now; it will be no better than 5 per cent by 2010, which hardly helps to light the black hole that may come down the pipeline between 2005 and 2008.
If the Government wish to improve the slow take-up of renewables, there need to be transparent, stable and predictable policies. They are not there at the moment. At present, there is a huge political and regulatory risk in the way in which government incentives for renewables are constructed—risks that cannot be hedged by companies. Developers balk at the risk involved in beginning expensive long-term capital-intensive projects. Perhaps that is why Mr Timms, our part-time energy Minister, whom I caught being persecuted— innocent fellow—on one of those early morning programmes, on Tuesday 25th November, said of the target of 10 per cent from renewables by 2010 that it is,
"not yet in the bag".
You can say that again, Minister. It is some way from being in the bag.
The Prime Minister, the Government and the DTI in particular have, in this Speech, omitted to take the steps forward to deal with their responsibilities over the looming energy problems that we are at considerable risk of facing in the period 2005-08.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, this would be an appropriate moment to adjourn further debate on the Motion for an humble Address. I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Silting was suspended from 1.35 until 3 p.m.]
Debate on the Address resumed.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, we had a very good debate this morning and I am not sure how much need there is to add, but I shall do my best.
64
I, too, should like to stress the reference in the gracious Speech to the key commitment to economic stability and growth but I want to put it in a historical context. I hope that everyone realises that the present relatively sound condition of the British economy is largely due to the remarkable heritage from the Conservative government of 1979-97. That was the first government since the war to challenge the socialist consensus of public ownership, trade union power, heavy taxation and resultant inflation. In my view, that consensus was a major failure on the part of previous Conservative governments.
I am prepared to admit that the Chancellor, Mr Gordon Brown, has, perhaps at the insistence of the Prime Minister—I suppose that we shall have to wait 30 years before we know the details of that—kept faith with economic Thatcherism. I trust that in return the Government will be generous enough to pay tribute to the economic revolution of my noble friend Lady Thatcher and also her Chancellors. I refer particularly to my noble friend Lord Lawson of Blaby.
Recently I read the Budget speeches of Sir Stafford Cripps and found it fascinating to peer back into that ancient world. At one point Chancellor Cripps lamented the fact that the British people had reached the limit of capacity for redistribution of their wealth by taxation! Let us never forget that those rates of penal taxation continued until 1979. This country owes a particular debt to former Chancellor, Nigel Lawson, for introducing in 1988 a top rate of tax of 40 per cent, which has continued for 15 years, although the Liberal Democrats are anxious to raise it to 50 per cent, which, presumably, is only a start.
Let us look closely at the European example. Whereas Britain has progressed over the decades, some other economies have either stood still, for example, France, or regressed, for example, Germany. Germany was once the economic miracle of Europe.
Sub-Committee A, of which I have the honour to be a member, has just published a report on the performance of the European Central Bank. We gave it a pretty good chit. I must say at once that when we visited the ECB in Frankfurt I learnt a lot. Perhaps the most important lesson is that the ECB sees its role as providing sufficient liquidity for cyclical problems but not to help structural reform. It must have learnt the lesson from all those interventions by successive British governments that cash made available for companies or governments to "put their house in order" is usually used for a breathing space not to do so.
My greatest fear for our economy and, indeed, the world economy is a new tide of protectionism. There are ominous signs of that. First, the Doha WTO round, which was due to be completed by the end of 2004, ran into the sands at Cancun. That was partly due to the gathering force of American protectionism, as shown by steel, cotton and even by the humble avocado pear! Is it not astonishing that in a single market, NAFTA, the Americans are forbidding—on health grounds, of course—the import of avocado pears from Mexico to assist the avocado pear growers

65
of California? You cannot be much more protectionist than that. Already this month there are signs of a new trade war. On 19th November the US announced new limits on apparel imports from China. Five days later China retaliated with tariffs on paint chemicals from the US. Two days ago the US announced 46 per cent duties on imports of TV sets from China. That is a disastrous route, as we learnt before the last war. If we are not to undo all the potential for the world economy and for our own economy, we must give free trade a real push and a fair wind. We must resist these tendencies to protectionism both at home and abroad.
Yet the US economy has revived astonishingly well. From a GDP growth of 2.5 per cent in 2002, growth in the third quarter reached 8.2 per cent—the fastest since 1984. American corporations have restructured with vigour. They have continued to outsource their products from countries where labour costs are lower. Indeed, they have embraced globalisation to an extent that is beginning to make it resemble the 19th century colonialism that so enriched Europe and especially Britain. American companies do not, however, necessarily believe that they can preserve manufacturing jobs inside the USA, in spite of their Government's rather ill-judged attempts to help them do so.
However, the US has a massive deficit which I believe is the main reason for the rapid weakening of the US dollar. If ever there were a competitive devaluation, this may be it. This is, of course, causing real problems for Europe. The rise in the value of the euro against the dollar by some 20 per cent in the past year alone, and some 40 per cent from its low, must be hurting and hard. The pound has fluctuated much less. Thank goodness we are not at present part of the euro.
Like others, I cannot understand the rationale of the Government including a draft Bill in this Queen's Speech for a referendum on joining the euro when it is a racing certainty that there will be no such referendum this side of the election. However, to judge Britain's economic strength we must look closely at Europe. In 2002—the bad year for the world economy—the UK economy grew by 1.9 per cent compared with only 0.9 per cent for the euro-zone. This year our growth should be about 2 per cent whereas that of the euro-zone will be only 0.3 per cent. I refer to the rate in the euro-zone in the third quarter of this year.
However, Britain has undergone a profound industrial restructuring which has given us full employment. I consulted the excellent figures produced by the House of Commons Library that show unemployment by constituency on a month-by-month basis. The latest figures that have just been produced show that only three constituencies in the whole of the UK have unemployment of over 10 per cent and only 14 have unemployment of over 8 per cent, whereas the 25 constituencies with the lowest rate of unemployment in the UK all have rates of unemployment of 1 per cent or less.
However, major restructurings of our economy are needed. I wish to underline three of them, all of which were referred to this morning, and on which I consider that the Government are not being sufficiently active.
66
First, I refer to the demographic and health changes that make it necessary to raise the retirement age, probably to 70. Why the Government have not even made a start in raising the retirement age of their own employees—at any rate those now joining from scratch—from 60 to 65, at least, if not to 70, I do not understand. We have heard much about pensions and the problems that people will face with pensions in the private sector. However, we know that people in the public sector will not face such problems because there is a money printing press and a commitment to pay index-linked pensions in the public sector—and there has been since the early 1970s. The Government should recognise that many of us believe that in the future the taxpayer will not be able to afford that generosity.
The second point is education, on which I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson. It is not simply a matter of producing more people with higher skills, but of relevant skills, which often mean artisan skills. I shall tell noble Lords a story that happened recently near where I live in Suffolk. An entrepreneur whom I know—he has a machinery business—went to a local school and said that he would like to offer four apprenticeships in welding, which is quite a highly skilled craft and very important. The careers person at the school said, "You don't understand. We are not into that sort of thing. We are in the business of producing managers".
The chap was so concerned he rather exploded, and actually had to be escorted off the premises by the security staff. However, the story shows a terrible lack of appreciation of what education is really for. The Government say, "Education, education, education", but let us get some detail of the relevance of education—of the role that education has to meet the real needs of the country.
My third point—energy policy—has already been mentioned by many. In this, France is well ahead of us, with 80 per cent of its energy from nuclear sources, against about only 20 per cent for the UK. In theory, of course, renewables are splendid and desirable. In practice, the Government have over-hyped them, especially wind power, to the extent that one can dismiss a lot of what they say on the subject as demagogic tokenism. I have been told that the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury—I am sorry that he is not in his place—has a personal hang-up against nuclear power. If that is incorrect and if he were here, I would be pleased if he leapt to his feet and said that I was wrong.
We also have to be very careful that we do not over-regulate industry. An example that has come to my notice only very recently is that there have been many complaints from companies, and even from Age Concern, about the effect of the new money-laundering regulations. Those are apparently so burdensome that the FSA's conditions are causing huge additional costs. It is the job of the Government to ensure that there is not over-regulation. It is no good Ministers delegating that to those whose instinct is to fulfil every possible regulation. That has been a

67
problem for every government and, if governments do not keep a close eye on new regulation, it will cause major cost problems for the economy.
I would finally like to refer—it is still very relevant— to the great discussions going on about the future of Europe. There is no doubt that the desire of old Europe is to have a level playing field in social, employment and tax policies, but the question is, "Whose level?". I know from my talks with the French that they complain about our tax policies. They say that the French come to live in England to pay our taxes, that that is not acceptable and that we need a level playing field. Again, I say, "Whose level?".
I believe that the Government are fighting for their red lines in the negotiations on the new European constitution, and I am quite encouraged that, in the past week or so, there have been some stories in the press suggesting that the Foreign Secretary is saying that it is quite possible that it will not be necessary to get a full new constitution in the very short timetable ahead. What may be necessary is to do it in two bites— to get the changes required for enlargement, and then to come back later for the wider sense of a constitution. I would welcome that, but we want to view being in Europe as a source for growth to the UK, not as something that will drag us down. That, combined with protectionism, could change the good economic outlook that this country potentially has into one that is much more gloomy.
3.14 p.m.
Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I shall start by apologising to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, for missing the first 30 seconds of his remarks. I am afraid that I did not gallop down the corridor fast enough.
It is always a great privilege and somewhat humbling to speak in your Lordships' House in a debate following the gracious Speech, and to listen to the wisdom and experience brought to bear from all parts of the House on the issues at hand. I listened with interest to the expert gallop that the Minister took through the issues that we will discuss in the forthcoming year, and I am grateful for the brief but positive remarks that he made about the Government's intention to introduce a Bill to create a new company, the community interest company. It is to that issue that I shall address the rest of my remarks.
I need to declare several interests in the matter. First, I am a Labour and Co-operative Member, and a consultant to the Co-operative Group. Secondly, I am the unpaid chair of the Social Enterprise Coalition, which is the national voice for social enterprises. Finally, I am the chair of the All-Party Group on Social Enterprise.
I preface my remarks by congratulating the Government on bringing forward the Bill. The proposal for such legislation was first mentioned in a Cabinet Office paper called Private Action, Public Benefit, which was discussed in this House almost two years ago. In March this year, a consultation on what the Bill might contain was launched. It was launched not by one Cabinet Minister, but by four. We thought that that augured well for its future prospects. Since
68
then, there has been serious and comprehensive consultation. On behalf of co-operative organisations, I want to say how much that has been appreciated, and that there is widespread and considerable support for the Bill in co-operative, mutual and social enterprise sectors.
It might be worth taking a moment to talk about social enterprise in general. It is a term that increasing numbers of people have heard but know precious little about. Does it mean charity with an entrepreneurial edge? Possibly, but not really. Does it mean business being socially responsible? Again, yes, but that is by no means the whole picture. In fact, businesses all over Britain are trading and making profits, and doing so for a social purpose. They are businesses distinguished by their social aims, their ownership and management structures, and how they use surpluses for the benefits of employees, consumers and the local community. In Europe as a whole, it is estimated that 3.5 million jobs are provided by social enterprises.
Crucially, social enterprises compete in the marketplace like any other business, but they use their business skills to achieve social aims. They are part of the broader social economy, but whereas many voluntary organisations and community groups may be involved in some kind of trading activity for goods and services, social enterprises see trading as a significant and defining part of their business. Although some commentators like to use the term "not for profit" when referring to social enterprises, that is misleading. Social enterprises aim to sustain their business and make profit but, as the Government's own definition of social enterprise makes clear, any surpluses are reinvested to serve their social aims. It is those aims that drive the business rather than the need to deliver profit to shareholders and owners. That was the definition in the social enterprise strategy launched by Patricia Hewitt in July 2002.
There are three characteristics that social enterprises share. First, they are enterprise-oriented, directly involved in producing goods or providing services to a market. Secondly, they have explicit social aims, such as job creation, training or the provision of local services. They have ethical values, including a commitment to building skills in local communities. They are accountable to their members and the wider community for their social, environmental and economic impact. Thirdly, they are autonomous organisations with governance and ownership structures based on participation by stakeholder groups, be they users, clients and local community groups, or by trustees. Profits can be distributed as profit-sharing to stakeholders or used for the benefit of the community.
That is not new. Social enterprises have been around in all but name for many years, stretching as far back and as long ago as 1844 when, suffering at the hands of exploitative factory owners and shopkeepers who charged extortionate prices, 28 working men in Rochdale scraped together £28 to open their own shop, thus heralding the beginning of the Co-operative movement.

69
Social enterprises can, however, take many forms. They can be a social firm one minute and a co-op the next. They can be a development trust, an industrial and provident society, a community interest company or the trading arm of a charity. However, a social enterprise is not defined by its legal status or its name. What it does is social. What is important is the basis on which the social mission is embedded into the business in a form of ownership and governance, and the way in which it uses the profits that it has generated through its trading activities. They come in many shapes and sizes. A phrase that one will hear in a conversation about a social enterprise is "double or triple bottom line". That describes the enterprise's dual or sometimes triple aim to meet its financial, social and often environmental goals.
Why do people set up those organisations? What is the motivation behind social enterprises and social entrepreneurs? That question is often a stumbling block for people who try to understand the sector. It is sometimes difficult to take at face value the claim that an individual or an organisation is driven by the wish to do good or to change things, especially if that individual or organisation is a business entrepreneur or a company competing to win business in a market against other organisations, be they from the private, voluntary or social enterprise sectors.
Perhaps it is more helpful to look at the issue from a different angle and to consider how and why particular social enterprises come into being. If noble Lords were to visit the Social Enterprise Coalition's website, and I recommend that they do so, they will see strong themes emerging on that subject. Some enterprises such as the Heskett Newmarket village brewery or Loch Fyne Oysters are a result of a private buy-out, either by staff or the local community. They are groups of people bonded together by a shared community interest who have sought to translate that bond into a new social enterprise structure.
Other examples are spin-offs from existing businesses; for instance, the housing association that has decided to build a construction company or the furniture recycler who has gone into partnership with its local authority to collect people's old sofas and wardrobes. For some, the aim is to deliver better public services, such as the delivery of nursery services by the Oxford, Swindon and Gloucestershire Co-operative Society. The leisure trust in Wycombe is another example. That is one of more than 100 locally owned leisure trusts which is run to provide local leisure services at local level.
In many cases, social enterprises have flowed from the imagination and drive of a single entrepreneur. Nearly all of them are there because someone spotted a gap in the market and found a market in that gap. Often, that gap has been the result of public service or private market failure. Some development trusts and co-ops, such as the charity Trojans, which runs after-hours activities for primary schools, have appeared when people in the community have felt let down or in
70
need of something that they were not going to receive from the private or public sectors and decided to do something about it themselves.
The new Bill will seek to establish a new company and a regulatory framework for it. Those of us who will be supporting and working on the Bill during its passage through Parliament will pay particular attention to certain aspects of the Bill; for example, the robust nature of the regulatory regime as it applies to the community interest company.
The CIC will have to pass a test of how it benefits the community and therefore how it is distinct from an ordinary company. How will that be achieved? What will the test look like? If it is "light touch", will it be so light as to allow anyone through the net, thereby devaluing the CIC brand? However, if it is too onerous and bureaucratic, the take-up for CICs will be low, thus fuelling detractors and sceptics. Striking the right balance will be very important.
Will the sector that has been so involved in bringing the Bill forward also be involved in the appointment of the regulator? We will have to examine how the proposed asset lock will work. What information must be included in the CICs annual report? Where will the cap for the dividend payable on "investor" shares be set?
The secondary legislation that will follow from the Bill will be very important. I would like an assurance that the serious and thorough consultation that has characterised the process so far will indeed continue.
At all stages of the consultation process, we have stressed the importance of reform of the industrial and provident societies legislation that should go in tandem with the creation of the CIC. I am sure that I will not be alone in making that point as the Bill progresses. It is unacceptable that there will a nice, new, cheap, easy-to-use vehicle in the shape of the CIC when the legislative and regulatory framework governing co-operatives and others is a somewhat creaky Ford Anglia at best. Despite the heroic work of my honourable friends Mr Gareth Thomas, Mr Mark Lazarowicz and Mr Mark Todd in another place in succeeding with three Private Member's Bills in the past two years that have made huge improvements to the industrial and provident societies legislation, a great deal still remains to be done.
In the way that government works, the DTI is sponsoring the CIC, while the Treasury and the Financial Services Authority are responsible for the legislation that governs the industrial and provident societies. However, I am pleased to report that many of the industrial and provident societies, which range from huge co-operative movements to women's institutes, are succeeding in their discussions with the different parts of government that are involved in the matter. We need to focus on the issue and ensure that the momentum is maintained.
Our job in Parliament is to test and improve the new CIC in its passage through Parliament, and when the Bill becomes an Act, to add it to the family of different ways to set up co-operatives and social enterprises.

71
The Government will then have to promote that new form of company and promote it across government departments and industry. I would like some assurance that resources will be made available to do that. If the new law is not promoted across government, it will fail. For example, the ODPM and the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund have not so far engaged with social enterprises in the way that one would wish and I hope that as the Bill is promoted, those problems will be remedied. It is a good proposal and I look forward to working on its development.
3.26 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, I am somewhat surprised to find myself speaking in this debate on the gracious Speech on this particular day. However, I do recall that on one occasion, I put my name down to speak in a budget debate about some minor ecclesiastical matter and found myself promoted to number four in the speaking order, which was an alarmingly exposed position. I am therefore glad that I have been able to claim the last slot in this short list of speakers on the economy, industry and pensions. Those are not my main area of expertise, as your Lordships will know, and I would much more naturally be speaking in a week's time on rural affairs and agriculture, but by then, it will be too late because I shall resign my see and no longer be a Member of your Lordships' House.
I hope that I may trespass on your Lordships' time for a moment to express my thanks for the privilege and pleasure of playing a very small part in the business of this House during the past seven years or so and to express my gratitude for the warm welcome, the courtesy, the friendship and the good advice that I have received from all Members on all sides of this House. I am grateful also for the wonderful help of the staff, who serve us in this House with such courtesy, efficiency and skill.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: The noble Lord, Lord Patten, is in his place. He invited me to respond to some of his remarks in his excellent speech. I thought that he had gone off to make a confession to someone better qualified to hear it than me. Let me assure him that I thoroughly disapprove of theft and boardroom malpractice, but that, as far as capitalism is concerned, my opinion is that, if properly regulated, like hunting, it is morally all right.
I greatly appreciated the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, and the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. Although I had rather hoped to hear more from some of our great captains of industry, it was good to be led into the area of social enterprise by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and to be reminded of the possibilities of breweries and oysters.
My main point is relevant to the topic of today's debate, though some may doubt it. I shall digress just for a moment to express a warm welcome to the announcement in the gracious Speech of the pension
72
protection fund and to the promise of legislation for civil partnerships, particularly in its helpfulness in terms of inheritance and pension issues.
I turn to my main point. Some of your Lordships may recall a short story by H G Wells, which gripped my imagination at the age of 12 or so. I should like, if I may, to read a short quotation from it. It will at least make a change from OECD statistics and the growth and stability pact. It is as follows:
"The master mathematician sat in his private room and pushed the papers from him, exhausted after four days and nights of feverish calculation.
"But he appeared calm and unruffled before his students at their morning lecture ... 'Circumstances have arisen—circumstances beyond my control', he said, 'which will debar me from completing the course I had designed. It would seem, gentlemen'"—
forgive the non-inclusive language of 100 years ago—
'"if I may put the thing clearly and briefly, that—Man has lived in vain'".
The "circumstances" referred to are that his calculations have revealed that a star is on course to approach very close to the Earth, or possibly even collide with it—a huge cataclysmic astronomical event. In the end there is no collision—it is only a short story, after all. The star passes the Earth and goes on its way into space. But its near passage has catastrophic consequences for the planet. There are immense floods, great surges of the sea, huge earthquakes, violent and continuing storms, vast mudslides, uncontrollable fires and a colossal rise in temperature to unbearable levels. Most of the human race perishes. A few survivors find that the former polar regions have become fertile while the rest of the Earth is uninhabitable because of the great heat. The event, my Lords, is not good for the economy or for industry and certainly not for pensions.
That is fiction, but the catastrophic effects described so vividly by H G Wells are not wholly unlike what is actually likely to happen as a result of climate change and will certainly grow rapidly worse if we continue with business as usual. The master mathematicians of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have made their calculations, and they are very scary indeed. The evidence is already all round us: unprecedentedly high temperatures, drought, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and ice caps, more frequent hurricanes and extreme weather events. Heroic efforts to reduce hunger in the world are frustrated by worsening climatic conditions. The United Nations report published two days ago indicated that 842 million people are going hungry, and that number is now increasing by about 5 million a year in contrast to the improving statistics of the 1990s. The few developing nations which have bucked this melancholy trend have not been the authors of their own good fortunes; they have simply been lucky—lucky to escape the high levels of drought and the natural disasters which have increasingly afflicted the third world in the past decade.
For us the dire effects of climate change may still seem in the future. But as the science fiction writer William Gibson put it:
"The future is already here: it's just that it's unevenly distributed".

73
And it is nearer than we care to acknowledge: thousands of deaths from extreme heat in France this past summer; and seriously reduced crop yields in central and even northern Europe because of this year's exceptional drought. But was it exceptional?
It is not surprising or novel. We have seen it coming for a good many years, and wise scientists have pointed the way to a solution—a solution which would enable our economy to survive, our industry to flourish in a truly sustainable way, and even our pension schemes to be put on a secure footing. As it is, all three are in very grave danger.
Three years ago, in the executive summary to its magisterial report, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution said:
"The most promising, and just, basis for securing long-term agreement is to allocate emission rights on a per capita basis— enshrining the idea that every human being is entitled to release into the atmosphere the same quantity of greenhouse gases. Because of the very wide differences between per capita emission levels round the world, and because current global emissions are already above safe levels, there will have to be an adjustment period covering several decades in which nations' quotas converge towards the same per capita level. This is the principle of contraction and convergence, which we support".
The commission might have added that contraction and convergence is comprehensive, scientifically based and equitable, unlike the Kyoto Protocol, and that contraction and convergence meets every single objection raised by the United States to Kyoto.
That was three years ago. Two years ago, the Amsterdam Declaration, the report of the Global Change Open Science Conference, said:
"In terms of some key environmental parameters the Earth System has moved well outside the range of natural variability exhibited over the past half million years at least. The nature of changes now occurring simultaneously in the Earth System, their magnitudes and their rates of change are unprecedented. The Earth is currently operating in a non-analogue state".
Just one year ago, I was engaged with the Minister who opened this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, in correspondence following a Starred Question. The Minister wrote to me:
"The Government is aware of the policy of Contraction and Convergence"—
be thankful for small mercies. He continued:
"As you will be aware, the policy requires industrialised countries to make enormous reductions in carbon emissions (up to 80 per cent). Contraction and Convergence have some appealing qualities, but discussions on future commitments to this policy are at an early stage, and there are likely to be other models which will need consideration. Contraction and Convergence was not in fact raised at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg".
Indeed not, and shame on our Government for not raising it. Leaving aside the confusion in the Minister's letter over whether contraction and convergence should be regarded as singular or plural—although the muddle within one paragraph does not inspire confidence in the grammatical competence of the department's staff—this seemed to me a mealy-mouthed and very inadequate response to the most serious problem threatening the human race and the survival of the planet.
74
There was yet hope that the energy White Paper earlier this year might grasp the nettle and set out a ringing endorsement of contraction and convergence, or at the very least announce an urgent debate on the matter. Alas, those words did not appear, despite the fact that the Prime Minister's foreword to the White Paper acknowledged:
"Climate change threatens major consequences in the United Kingdom and worldwide, most seriously for the poorest countries who are least able to cope".
Amen to that, and the hunger statistics bear out the truth of that melancholy message.
Interestingly, and very much apropos of the theme of this debate, the Prime Minister went on to say:
"As we move to a low carbon economy, there are major opportunities for our businesses to become world leaders in the technologies we will need for the future".
How very true, and how sad that the United Kingdom has at the moment 4 per cent of the market in environmental technology compared with Germany's 15 per cent.
Prophetic witness and vigorous political action are needed to change the culture of government and of industry, but—rightly used—technology can serve the purposes of environmental concerns and begin to clear up the polluted legacy of two centuries of unbridled and environmentally irresponsible industrialism. The potential for selling green technology to the developing world in terms of clean energy generation, integrated crop management in agriculture, husbanding finite water resources, desalination, not to mention the obvious areas of pharmaceutical and medical resources to cope with the colossal AIDS epidemic all offer the prospect of a very creative partnership between the technologically advanced countries and the poorer nations of the world in a way which positively benefits the environment rather than adding to its degradation. If we were to embrace contraction and convergence, with the enormous and comprehensive emissions trading system which is envisaged, the poorer nations would have the means, which at present they do not have, to buy the green technology from us. That would be very greatly to our economic and industrial advantage.
However, that requires the change of culture of which I spoke. At present, the position is getting rapidly worse. There is enormous and accelerating economic growth in India, China and South East Asia. China's oil consumption this year will be 10 per cent higher than it was last year. The Kyoto Protocol—if and when it is implemented—will reduce CO2 emissions from the annex 1 countries by 2 per cent, but global emissions are projected to rise by 30 per cent by 2012. It has been calculated that if storm damage continues to rise by the present 12 per cent a year—it will probably be worse than that—by 2065, annual damage caused by climatic destruction could equal the entire GNP of the world. That is a very black hole into which every known or imaginable pension plan would certainly fall.
Unless we find a way now to deal with the greenhouse gas problem internationally, growth will slow or stop anyway at very great human cost. By the middle of the century, there will be hundreds of

75
millions of ecological refugees, starving and desperate, who will make our present asylum-seeker problem look very insignificant.
My normal mode of address to your Lordships' House is, I hope, cool and rational. The mantle of the prophet is not one that sits very readily on my shoulders. I recall that the fate of most Old Testament prophets was to be mocked, ignored and driven out of town. I am quite prepared for that but, like Luther, I can say only, "Here I stand, I can do no other", because I know that the threat to our economy and industry and to civilised life is very great indeed.
"Climate change" were the last words in the substantive part of the gracious Speech. I am glad that they were there but I wish they had been at the beginning—in the preamble to the list of legislative proposals—indicating that the Government recognise the urgency and seriousness of the issue and see all other proposals in the context of tackling climate change with an energy and a single-mindedness which have yet to be seen.
The need is for leadership in breaking the straitjacket of short-term electoral cycle and in striving for all-party agreement so that there is no competition or disagreement about the urgency of this matter. There is also a need for leadership in setting up a community for global climate protection, which any and all who will participate are welcome to join. If some dirty dinosaurs such as the United States will not come in now, that is too bad. Someone must give a lead and we cannot afford to wait. There may just be time to act before a terrifying chain reaction of unstoppable, runaway climate change begins.
Klaus Toepfer, the highly respected head of the United Nations Environment Programme, said:
"The scientific consensus presented in the comprehensive [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report... should sound alarm bells in every national capital and every local community".
My fear is that by the time our Government hear those bells and act on them it may be too late.
3.43 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I have no difficulty in following the right reverend Prelate either chronologically or in spirit. I am under strong orders from colleagues in all parts of the House to register our thanks for his contribution on rural affairs. However, I believe that if that was his valedictory address, it contained messages which will be taken to heart in all parts of the House.
I should say to the right reverend Prelate that, in times gone by, the dividing line between high Church office and active politics was very much narrower and that it is not too difficult to make the cross-over. Therefore if, in the weeks and months ahead, he wants to contemplate the future, I can tell him that the Liberal Democrats have an excellent candidate training programme. The only downside that he should consider is that, looking back in history, the Prelates who have made the transfer from the Church to politics have usually ended up either in the Tower or on the block. Therefore, it is a dangerous move.
76
I welcome many parts of the gracious Speech. Perhaps I may immediately follow the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, on the subject of the social enterprise proposals. They are very welcome and she can rely on support from these Benches when we come to the legislation. Indeed, as I believe I have suggested on previous occasions, perhaps radio enterprises and sports enterprises could be included to save successful enterprise in this area from being usurped or asset-stripped by commercial interests.
I also welcome the fact that there will be a review of the 1999 employment legislation. Perhaps the Government will consider a gap which still exists in the legislation in relation to a type of secondary picketing not covered in the 1980s. By that, I refer to the use of public harm as leverage in an industrial dispute. We have seen far too much of that and I hope that the review will take it into consideration.
Ministers will have heard so many expert warnings about the pension industry from noble Lords such as the noble Lords, Lord MacGregor, Lord Freeman and Lord Higgins, that they will, I hope, take them very much to heart. The other day, I mentioned the feeling among Equitable Life pensioners that justice delayed is justice denied. There is a general dissatisfaction that, when such problems occur in financial services, the process of rectifying the fault is all too slow. I shall say to Ministers only that we have been warned about an ageing population. The ageing population is a voting population and therefore they should beware its retribution if they do not deal with this matter.
I share the general scepticism about the draft euro referendum Bill. I believe it should be renamed the "Lord Pearson of Rannoch Dyspepsia Bill'' and be done with it because I do not believe that anyone really believes that it is anything other than a piece of window-dressing.
The noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, may have noticed that there is no Civil Service Bill in the gracious Speech. When one considers that the previous Cabinet Secretary, who is now in this House—the noble Lord, Lord Wilson—all but drafted a Bill for the Government, it really is taking them a long time to bring it forward. Again, there have been repetitive warnings of a hole in energy policy. The Government need to take seriously the warnings on energy, but my noble friend Lord Ezra will deal with that issue when the Bill comes before the House on 11th December.
Missing from the Benches on my left is the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, who was recently promoted under the new Conservative system. He is part of the Conservatives' new strategy of time travel, with Michael Howard as an unlikely Doctor Who. The noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, has been drafted in to bring them bang up to 1979, and therefore one can see how far that is moving.
On the Government Benches is the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, immovable like a rock, although he is now a fully fledged departmental Minister in his own right with responsibility for broadcasting. He is there when we have sums on the agenda. I believe that he must be the only one that can do the calculations for

77
the Government, although I have often thought that the noble Lord, Lord Desai, could do the job equally as well but without being so well controlled.
My noble friend Lord Newby opened for these Benches and warned that he considered the economy to be a curate's egg. Usually that could be dismissed by Ministers as a little piece of rhetoric. However, it so happens that my noble friend Lord Newby is married to a curate. Therefore, his opinion and expertise on curates' eggs are to be taken considerably more seriously than those of others. I hear from behind, "She's not a curate; she's a vicar", but why spoil a good joke for a fact?
As the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, indicated, the Conservatives bequeathed to the Government a strengthening economy, and they can take credit for that. It was the Liberal Democrats, not new Labour, who had in their 1997 manifesto the giving of independence to the Bank of England, so we can take credit for that. Mr Brown and his long-term partner, prudence, helped to sustain that progress but, as the noble Lords, Lord Sheldon and Lord Newby, reminded us, we are not quite sure whether prudence still occupies the same place in the Chancellor's affections. We on these Benches supported increases in public expenditure, such as NHS funding, and believe that it should be funded from extra taxation. We do not have the same hang-ups as the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. That is the honest way to run Government.
However, in this emphasis on growth—certainly, the nine years referred to is a triumph—we are also entitled to ask for philosophy behind the drive. I listened to the declaration of faith by the noble Lord, Lord Patten, in the mystical powers of capitalisation and the response and riposte by the right reverend Prelate. From the Government Front Bench I wonder whether we are now committed to the invisible hand of the market and the unstoppable will of consumer-dictated policy.
I recently attended the CBI conference which was addressed by both the Chancellor and Mr John Snow, the US Treasury Secretary. It was difficult to work out which was the Labour Chancellor and which was the right-wing Republican. Certainly, the Chancellor's emphasis on the enterprise economy, which was advocated by a number of speakers—the noble Lords, Lord Tomlinson and Lord Paul, the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, and the noble Lord, Lord Haskel— did not seem to match the kind of body language or rhetoric that was applied at the Labour Party conference.
Over the past 20 years there have been changes in all parties in the attitude to the economy. The old Butskellite consensus broke down in the 1970s. However, we have all learned lessons. "Greed is good"; "There's no such thing as society", the free market and Reagonomics produced problems in our society as well as creating wealth.
The problem we face today is whether the dash for growth, if not accompanied by serious social action to deal with the underclass and those left out from the
78
success of growth, will cause resentment and social unrest, which will damage the benefits of growth. I was recently struck by a pronouncement by two learned bodies, the Royal Society of Arts and the Institution of Civil Engineers. The Royal Society of Arts published a manifesto calling for the encouragement of enterprise but also for a zero waste society, the fostering of resilient communities, the developing of capable communities and the advancement of global citizenship.
The Institution of Civil Engineers had a whole raft of policies on housing, and stated that there needs to be an increase in the proportion of affordable housing. I was rather shocked the other day to discover that this Labour Government have built 3,000 council houses in six years. That leaves a real problem of affordable housing, which has to be addressed. On transport the institution stated that it cannot be right that the delivery of our nation's transport policy depends on banks deciding whether they can make a profit. On energy it called for building into the infrastructure to allow renewables to be transported to the point of need. On waste, it stated that a properly-funded authority is needed to invest in waste management. On water, it points out that of 300,000 kilometres of sewers, only 265 kilometres were properly rehabilitated in 2001-03 because water companies are currently being bought and sold for cash.
Neither of those two bodies are in what one would call the "woolly liberal" category. However, they both emphasised the need for social and environmental dimensions to economic policy. I recently attended a conference addressed by the head of research at Goldman Sachs who lifted the spectre in terms of the world economy of the rise of the "BRICs": Brazil, Russia, India and China. He pointed out that in the next 40 years or so those countries would take the jobs and adopt many of the patterns of world trade which the old areas have assumed their own. Therefore, the need to upskill our own economy becomes very important and needs to be matched with parallel social policies.
I now live in the eastern region of England, one of the most successful parts of the British economy but one that still has 28 per cent of children and 30 per cent of pensioners living in poverty and 10 per cent of people unemployed. We have to manage our economy in a way that does not leave an underclass. We must also realise that from the area of my origins and that of the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, the old motto of "Where there's muck there's brass" no longer applies because there is not the inward investment of footloose industries into areas where the environment is polluted, the education is poor, the health service is inadequate, housing facilities are bad and leisure facilities are not good. I deal quite a lot with encouraging inward investment in country towns and regions. When one sees how they sell themselves on the new global market, one realises how policies have to be inter-related, particularly those on economic growth.
Six years ago Labour supporters were able to sing with real enthusiasm, "Things Can Only Get Better". To a certain extent now they are singing that with a little desperation in their voices. There was a kind of

79
sleepy complacency about the gracious Speech, a middle-aged spread which is bad for the Government and which we shall try to expose in the months and years ahead.
Just to show that all is not lost on the Government Benches, I discovered a document produced by the strategic audit office of the Cabinet Office which stated,
"Statistical research shows that high trust is linked to:
being perceived as honest
working in the public interest, or for moral causes, rather than for vested or private interests
working locally, or via frequent interaction with the public.
"For government and public services there are important lessons to be learned from other sectors, for example about the importance of keeping promises; learning from mistakes; being interested in people's views, and when things go wrong trust is rebuilt more by showing how the same mistake will not be repeated rather than [denying them]".
That is wonderful stuff. The only problem is that it states at the top:
"This…document does not represent Government policy".
I think it is time that it did.
4 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, it is just 10 years since I had the privilege of becoming a Member of this House. It is also exactly 10 years since I made my maiden speech in the debate on the gracious Speech, in which I talked about being held up at the hairdressers by six armed gunmen. The making of my maiden speech was slightly less terrifying than the episode in the hairdresser. It is equally terrifying to attempt to make a wind-up speech on the excellent speeches that we have heard today.
Noble Lords may not realise that this is the first time that I have made a wind-up speech. My husband is always very kind and gives me a crystal ball view of what he thinks will happen—well, not exactly a crystal ball: he tells me. I have no such thing on my desk to make the task much easier.
As is the custom, I begin by commenting on the notable omissions from the gracious Speech. I was surprised at the beginning of the debate when the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, mentioned a Bill to be introduced that did not appear in the gracious Speech. While talking on that subject, perhaps I may welcome back the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, to his rightful place on the Front Bench. Other noble Lords and I were very concerned that perhaps something dreadful had kept him away from here. We very much hoped that it was not the thought of having to listen to me.
I shall refer later in these remarks to the absence of an adequate companies Bill. I am surprised that the Government have not seen fit to produce a new consumer credit Bill, a point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, in his most excellent speech. The last such legislation was in 1974 and the DTI announced a review of it in July 2001. At the moment, the legislation regulates only credit and hire purchase agreements up to £25,000, which of course was a substantial amount some 29 years ago. But now, as the
80
noble Lord, Lord Newby, said, we see adverts on the television telling people how easy it is to get money. I have seen one advert saying that one can get £300,000 and that one could buy a new car with it, which only encourages people to get more in debt.
The Bank of England is reported as being worried about the long-term effects of the mountain of all forms of debt being piled up. On a similar subject, there is still no Bill to regulate the banking industry. The final report of the banking review was published in March 2000. Do we now have to assume that the banking review has been effectively kicked into touch? Perhaps the Minister will comment on that matter if he knows, or write to us.
I would like briefly to mention the excellent contributions of my noble friends and speeches of other noble Lords in the debate today. My noble friends Lord MacGregor and Lord Freeman concentrated on pensions. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Freeman agreed with so many points made by our noble friend Lord MacGregor that he said there was no point in repeating them; I shall not do so either. My noble friends welcomed the statement in the gracious Speech that there was to be legislation to encourage employers and employees to participate more in pensions and wondered whether there would be any incentives to make that happen.
My noble friend Lord MacGregor was concerned at the requirement to take out annuities at the age of 75. My noble friends both mentioned the worry that in order to have adequate pension provision in future people must start working earlier and work for much longer. My noble friend Lord Marlesford also mentioned that in his comprehensive speech.
My noble friend Lady O'Cathain in her very good speech gave an account of all kinds of energy. She gave many facts and figures, the future prospects for energy sources and what will happen when they run out. She made a very interesting suggestion that consideration should be given to redefining nuclear energy as a renewable source instead of counting it as a fossil fuel and so attract the climate change level. The right reverend Prelate talked about his concern about the climate change levy. My noble friend admitted that this was not her novel idea—she could not claim that— but that it was now being done by the state government in Ontario, Canada, who have now extended tax concessions for renewables to nuclear power.
My noble friend Lord Patten also spoke comprehensively on energy, in which he has great experience and knowledge. He highlighted many problems for companies. The noble Lord commented that whatever regulations and legislation are brought in to stop a dishonest director from behaving in a way that he should not—such as stealing from the company—no amount of regulation will actually stop the man if indeed he had made up his mind to steal. My noble friend suggested that he needed to talk to the right reverend Prelate to see how we could bring in an ethical dimension, which the right reverend Prelate has always done from those Benches. On a lighter note, we all enjoyed his description of some of the interviewers

81
on the BBC who have now developed a new behaviour called "repetitive questioning syndrome". We should all be aware of that if we ever have to face them on the television or the radio.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, spoke of the need for more enterprise in management's thinking and particularly in manufacturing. One noble Lord asked what had happened to the Government's pledge to bring forward a Bill on this matter. I regret that I cannot remember which noble Lord it was. I suspect that it might have been the noble Lord, Lord Paul, but I am not sure. On that point, I just say what a pity it is that he was the only captain of industry to speak today. I hope other captains of industry, who might possibly—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey): My Lords, I refer to the noble Lord, Lord Haskel.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I apologise. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, as we were on the same list, will not forgive me for not including his name. I hope that other captains of industry on reading the debate tomorrow or at some stage might take note and come and help us in these debates by sharing their experiences with this House.
The noble Lords, Lord Grenfell and Lord Sheldon, made very interesting and excellent contributions to the debate, as always. The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, highlighted the problems of economic regimes on the very poor position of the textile industry in Lancashire. I feel much sympathy for him on that; not because I know the textile industry in Lancashire, but because I have often had to speak about the manufacturing problems in this House.
The noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, used a phrase that rang a bell with us. He said that the,
"EU was driving a coach and horses through the stability pact".
We all agree with that. Economic stability is absolutely essential to make sure that we have the economic growth we want. He also made a most interesting intervention when speaking about energy—with which we would probably all agree—that until the renewables are in place and sustainable energy is being delivered, all other systems including nuclear, should not be phased out in advance.
My noble friend Lord Marlesford paid great tribute to my noble friend Lord Lawson who, when Chancellor, lowered the top tax rate to 40 per cent. Despite some noise I heard from my colleagues to my right, I hope that no Chancellor will actually do that.
As the Opposition spokesman for trade and industry, I sometimes—my noble friend Lord Patten mentioned this—ask myself what the DTI is for. It used to preside over great industries, all of which I think are now privatised. What the department has presided over since 1997—perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, will forgive me—is really the obliteration of a great deal of our manufacturing
82
industry. We are also seeing the start of the decline of our service industries by the export of work to data and call-processing centres as far away as the Indian subcontinent and the Philippines.
What did the Secretary of State say about that loss of jobs? She said that it was really worthwhile because of the benefit afforded to countries such as Pakistan. Tell that to the workers here. That is not the kind of message they particularly want. Her department has just announced that it is to shed 500 staff. That is no wonder with that attitude at its head. They will hardly be missed because there will still be 922 more people working in the Department of Trade and Industry than in 1997. In June 2003, there were 200,000 more jobs in the public sector than in the previous year, while during that same period 133,000 jobs were lost in manufacturing alone.
In Written Answers to me on 22nd September, I was informed that 44,651 extra clerical, administrative and managerial jobs had been created in the National Health Service alone since 1997. Furthermore, no information was held centrally to account for the extra £19 billion that public sector jobs were estimated to cost by 2006, over the 1997 figure.
The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, gave many interesting facts. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, talked generally about those facts being a curate's egg. The noble Lord will understand why the figures I mention are slightly different; they involve matters that he did not discuss. In 2002, there were 16,305 insolvencies, which was the highest number since 1994. In the same year, the profitability of British companies fell to its lowest level for a decade and the balance of trade deficit, running at a staggering £394 billion a year, was the highest since any records available—since the year 1697; 300 years ago. I checked that twice because I could not believe it.
That is despite the golden economy that the present Government inherited in 1997. There have been 19,332 new regulations; 15 for every working day. Taxes have risen from £270.7 billion in 1997 to £402.9 billion this year. Of that, £54 billion has been the increased cost to industry and commerce. All noble Lords are concerned about that. No wonder that the CBI complained:
"British Businesses are under mounting pressure to move their operations overseas, and nearly one in three of those surveyed has already taken steps to relocate abroad".
Among many others, it gives the main reasons as red tape and tax.
None of the legislation announced in the gracious Speech offers to do much to stem the tide, but we are to expect another employment relations Bill. We have not yet seen the Bill, so we do not know what is in it, but various kites have been flown. One is that unions will be able to expel members whose behaviour and attitudes are incompatible with the union's rulebook. I am sure that that is an excellent thing to do, because it would enable the expulsion of racists, but it will have to be carefully worded to ensure that it does not enable union bosses to expel people who are nothing more than trouble makers to them, who should be left where they are.

83
It is also suggested that the Government will attempt to repeal Section 17(4) of the 1999 Act, which gave employees the right to contract as individuals for better personal terms than available in any collective bargaining agreement. I pick that out because that is the only amendment that we won in both Houses. I am proud to say that I won it; it was called the Miller amendment. The following Trades Union Conference said that it had to get rid of it. So the Minister will understand when I say that that will be a hard job; I shall fight for it.
We are promised a limited new companies Bill to add to the patchwork of company legislation already on the statute book. In 1998—more than five years ago—the DTI launched a review of core company law. In 2002, the Government published their response to the review in a White Paper and claimed that the changes could save small private companies £168 a year.
That should have been an inducement to the Secretary of State, Patricia Hewitt, to get on with the job. But no, a full year later, the Minister for Industry and the Regions told the other place that legislation could not be introduced this year because, despite all the extra staff in the department, further work was needed on the legislation. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, introducing this debate, said simply that it is not ready. The delay in producing a new substantive companies Bill has been criticised by the CBI, the Institute of Directors and the Federation of Small Businesses, as well as others. We seem to be about to receive a sort of sticking plaster Bill that the Institute of Directors has described as "sexy legislation" to deal with accountancy practices following the Enron and WorldCom failures.
On the subject of companies, we certainly welcome the community interest companies—I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, declared three interests and showed in her speech that she knows much about the matter, so she will no doubt be involved with the Bill. We will want to scrutinise the Bill carefully to ensure that those companies provide a real benefit to the voluntary sector.
The gracious Speech announced an energy Bill, which will begin its progress in your Lordships' House. As it will be a House of Lords Bill, the Government will be unable to propose the necessary Money Resolution here. The two main parts of the Bill are to deal with the nuclear decommissioning agency and to set up a single wholesale market in electricity trading and transmission throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. Clearly, many costs will be involved. I must assume that that will be one of the first provisions made in the House of Commons when the Bill reaches it.
I have been rushing against the clock, but it is all right, because the Minister said that we have 20 minutes in which to wind up; I want to say more things but I do not want to overrun my time. Many of the facts about energy
84
to which I would have referred have already been cited by my noble friends Lady O'Cathain and Lord Patten. However, I should like to mention a couple of things. Early in November, at a meeting in Brussels, British officials failed to water down a clause in the draft constitution that would give Brussels power over gas and oil reserves, which could go the same way as our fish stocks. When he replies, will the Minister unequivocally confirm that in no way and in no circumstances would that point be conceded?
While I am discussing interference by Brussels in our fuel and power industry, our entire coal industry could be wiped out because of a new EU directive to limit sulphur emissions. That would cost 15,000 jobs. The Government are not doing anything by way of grants and subsidies to encourage electricity, steel and other heavy industries to fit sulphur-reducing equipment in individual plants, instead of importing low-sulphur coal from abroad. I hope that they will.
The retiring chairman of BNFL has expressed disappointment at the Government's failure to provide for the construction of new nuclear power stations in the energy White Paper published earlier this year. In view of that, do the Government agree that it is an inopportune moment to force BNFL to sell its United States business, which BNFL considers to be a central part of its strategy of building an integrated nuclear business?
On 17th November, my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked when the Government will explain,
"What they mean by 'keeping the nuclear option open"'.— [Official Report, 17/11/03; col. 1769.]
We did not receive a satisfactory answer. I ask the question again: will it be this year; next year; or in five years' time? For how long will it be kept open? Nuclear energy is a business with massive lead times. Decisions must be taken now that will be effective in 10 years' time. Decisions not taken now could leave fatal gaps if the Government decide that they want to keep that option open. Perhaps the Minister will answer that.
Following that Question, I asked the Minister whether he accepted the estimate in The Engineer that within the next six years the safety cushion of excess capacity will drop to a trivial 3 per cent. All that he could say in reply was that the Government,
"welcome all informed sources to the general debate on our future energy needs".—[Official Report, 17/11/03; col. 1773.]
That is not an answer to such a serious question. I hope that the Minister can tell us something about that.
While on energy, I am disappointed to find out that the Government's own research has shown that they will fail to meet the UK targets to cut carbon emissions by no less than 1.3 million tonnes. From the legislative programme scheduled for the department that I shadow, I see that I and my colleagues—my noble friends Lord Hodgson and Lord Attlee—are in for a busy Session. However, I hope that the content of the Bills will not be as controversial as some of the others foreshadowed in the Speech.
In the mean time, I close by adding the thanks of everyone on our Benches—in fact, I think, of the whole House—for the wonderful contribution that the right

85
reverend Prelate has made to our debates over the years and in his valedictory debate. How appropriate it was that he was the last speaker before the winding-up speeches.
4.19 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I join all noble Lords who paid tribute to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, who made a fine, passionate speech. He was ingenious in getting it into this debate rather than the environment debate next week. We shall miss him—in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will miss him—in any future debates on hunting.
I shall start by addressing the hound of the Baskervilles issue—the dog that did not bark in the night. In the range of subjects covered, there was hardly any substantive debate on macroeconomic policy, which I thought would be at the centre of our debate. In the context of the sharpest deceleration of world growth, including world trade growth, for around 30 years, the United Kingdom has performed incredibly well.
The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, asked me to pay tribute to the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, and her government, from 1979 to 1997. He knows—because I have done so often—that I acknowledge that economic recovery began in the few years before 1997. But, if he thinks that I shall pay tribute to the whole 18 years of Conservative government, he has another think coming. Let me make the contrast: under the Conservatives, the United Kingdom was always first in and last out of any recession. Now we have the fastest growth in the G7, double the growth in the euro area and the longest unbroken economic expansion on record. From 1979 to 1996, we had the most unstable economy in the G7; since 1997, we have had the most stable economy in the G7.
There has been an increase of 1.7 million jobs since 1997. Unemployment is close to the lowest levels in a generation. In ILO terms, we have the lowest unemployment in the G7.I see no reason to apologise for that or the contrast between that and the performance of the previous Conservative government.
Since 1997, inflation has been on average 2.4 per cent, which is almost exactly the target that we set ourselves.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, since the noble Lord mentions inflation, perhaps he should remind us that under the previous Labour government inflation reached 25 per cent in a year. One of the major achievements of the Conservative government was to set us on a course of low inflation, with which, I am glad to say, this Government have continued.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I accepted the challenge set by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, to contrast the performance of this Government with
86
that of the Conservative government. If he thinks that I have finished making that contrast, he has another think coming.
On public finances, based on the most cautious assumption, we are on track to meet the fiscal rules that we have set ourselves over the cycle. Public sector net debt is expected to stabilise at 34 per cent of GDP. We have increased investment in industry and business. Inward investment in this country is 639 billion dollars, the second highest after the United States.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall not get very far at this rate.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord will, actually. I thank him for giving way; however, he is being a little unfair. I ended my speech by saying that we had one of the strongest economies, and one of the better industrial bases, in the world. We acknowledge all that. There has been huge acknowledgement by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, of the achievements. In this debate, all I want is to ensure that it continues.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is very noble. I am glad that party politics in this superior Chamber are dead.
I shall recite the facts, as it is necessary to do so. Between 1979 and 1996, business investment in this country grew by 3.3 per cent; by contrast, between 1997 and 2002, it has grown by nearly 6 per cent. In 2002, business investment in this country was 27 per cent higher than in 1997.
I am being discouraged from repeating the triumphs of this Government. I shall accept that discouragement and move to the specific criticisms expressed in the debate.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I wish to discourage the Minister from reading the speech that he wrote for a debate that did not take place, and ask him to answer the debate that took place.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that debate ought to have taken place. I shall respond to the cursory criticisms expressed. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, mentioned our forecasting record. References were made to the OECD report published today. The report states:
"The UK economy continues to exhibit greater resilience than most other OECD countries".
It further states:
"GDP rebounded in the second and third quarters of 2003. implying growth over the year to the third quarter of 2%, while output in the other major European economies has either fallen or stagnated".
That is not a critical report from the OECD; nor does it lead anyone to believe that we have abandoned prudence, or that our prudent policies have been unsuccessful.

87
As regards the quality of our forecasting, since 1997 Treasury growth forecasts have, on average, equalled or outperformed independent consensus forecasts for both current and year-ahead forecasts. Our forecasts have also outperformed those from prestigious organisations such as the OECD, the IMF, the European Commission and the National Institute of Economic and Social Research.
Noble Lords on all sides of the House asked about the problem of government borrowing. I wish to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, in particular, who claimed that particularly high government borrowing would affect interest rates. Due to our participation in global capital markets, the relationship between government borrowing and short-term interest rates, at any rate, which used to be very close, is much weaker than it was. The proper comparison is to be made with long-term interest rates. The Japanese economy supports that argument.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Does that mean that the Government propose to finance their deficit by borrowing abroad?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if I were to express any view on future government economic policy before the Pre-Budget Report, which will take place in the next two weeks, I would not be standing at this Dispatch Box for very long.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt my noble friend, but, as he specifically referred to what I said, and qzuoted the good parts of the OECD report, will he not acknowledge that the report expressed concern about the level of UK borrowing?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords, it did; however, I quoted the summing-up of the OECD report on the UK economy. Nobody would claim that every sentence and paragraph of the OECD report was favourable.
Several noble Lords expressed the genuine and widespread concern, which is legitimate, about household borrowing. However, to some extent, the concern is based on a misunderstanding. The important point about the sustainability of household debt is not the amount of the debt itself but its relationship to net wealth and the cost of servicing that debt. On both counts, when net household wealth has gone up by 40 per cent since 1997 and the servicing of household debt is substantially less important than for many years, I would argue against some noble Lords who have taken part in the debate today. Although the level of household debt can be a tragedy for individual families and we must do everything that we can to avoid that tragedy, in macroeconomic terms it is not the problem that some suggest it to be.
Of course, there is concern about productivity levels and the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, and others expressed that. It is indeed the case, as my noble friend Lord Sainsbury said clearly and fairly in his opening speech, that our productivity levels need to be raised.
88
However, he also said, in a fair answer to the debate that subsequently took place, that we have been taking action to deal with that problem—in the Enterprise Act 2002, to promote competition, in providing research and development tax credits, in creating enterprise areas in deprived parts of the country and in many other respects that I do not have time to mention. It is a serious problem that we are addressing seriously.
The noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, was concerned about the balance of payments. He said that he had been putting the argument for a competitive pound for many years. Of course, deficits do rise, but so does world trade. The true measure of the deficit is not in so many million pounds per year, but the percentage of gross domestic product. In 1989, the trade deficit as a percentage of gross domestic product was 4.8 per cent. In 2002, it was 4.4 per cent—going in the other direction. The current account deficit was 5 per cent in 1989. It is now 1.8 per cent. I hope that that gives some comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, on that issue.
It is my duty to say something about the Bills that were not covered in my noble friend's opening speech. First, the Child Trust Funds Bill, which he did not introduce, has been the subject of debate to which I intend to respond. The Bill establishes child trust fund accounts for all children born since 1st September 2002. Our aim is to strengthen the real saving habit in future generations and ensure that all children have a stake in the wealth of the nation. It will give all 18 year-olds a financial asset and extend the opportunities available to them. The Government will give every child £250, with £500 for the poorest third of children. There will be an additional payment at age seven, again with more for the poorest children.
The comments on the Bill were interesting, but, understandably, were made in the absence of a full explanation of the Bill, which I have certainly not given now. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, thought that there would be a burden on parents because of the way in which the trust fund was administered, but it will be processed automatically when parents claim child benefit. There will be no claim to make or any paperwork required. The £250 extra will be available when a family's child tax credit claim is finalised, with no additional means test.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I apologise for intervening a second time, but that was not at all the point that I made. My point was that charges will obviously be levied by those looking after the trust fund. Will such charges be limited to 1 per cent, as in the failed stakeholder case, or some higher figure0 If the proposal is to progress sensibly, the industry needs to know the figure involved.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was coming to that point. I did not say that the first point was the only one made by the noble Lord. However, he did make it and it needed to be answered. He also asked whether the child trust fund would be available

89
for the children of asylum seekers. No, it will not. It is based on claimed child benefit, which is not available to asylum seekers. He then asked, as he rightly said, about the charges that financial institutions will be able to levy for child trust funds. We aim to announce a decision on the charge cap as soon as possible, but we must do that in conjunction with work being done by the Financial Services Authority on the sales regime for stakeholder products, of which this is one. A report will soon be published on that matter.
The second Bill to which I wish to refer is the National Insurance Contributions and Statutory Payments Bill, which makes some useful improvements to the administration of national insurance contributions. It does not change the structure or rates of NICs or disturb the contributory principle. Since there was no comment on that point, I will not burden your Lordships with a full explanation.
The third Bill that falls under the DCMS category is the Olympic lottery and horseracing betting Bill. Again, it is not in the Queen's Speech and I did not expect anybody to comment on it because the statement is being made today. However, it will enable the Government to deliver on a 2001 manifesto commitment.
Lord Newby: My Lords, will the Minister explain the principle under which Bills are announced in the Queen's Speech one day and a whole raft of other Bills are announced in the House the next day? It seems absolutely barmy.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it has always been the case that the Queen's Speech has included the phrase, "Other measures will be laid before you".
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but the purpose of that phrase, which is conventional and usually adhered to, is for Bills that come up during the course of the year that have not been anticipated. I believe that it is unprecedented for a Bill not to be included in the Queen's Speech and to be introduced the following day.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Bill has not been introduced the following day. I am giving the House an announcement about it. Let us be serious. Everybody knows that the Queen's Speech has always been a summary of the legislative programme and that not everything in the legislative programme is included in the Queen's Speech. I have no apology to make on that matter.
Finally, there was a reference in the Queen's Speech to a Bill that will not be published yet—the gambling Bill which is, as your Lordships know, before a joint committee of both Houses. When that work is complete, it will move from a draft Bill to a full Bill, and I hope it will receive the full approval of this House.
90
I now move to other issues raised on Bills in the Queen's Speech in the course of today's debate. I refer particularly to those relating to pensions and energy because they have attracted the most attention. However, I wish to mention the employment relations Bill, the company Bill and requests for a consumer credit Bill. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, questioned whether the employment relations Bill would examine legislation on secondary picketing. In 1997, the Government pledged to retain the essential features of employment law, including the employing of secondary picketing, which we have done. Current legislation is not concerned with secondary picketing but relates to changes strengthening the right of those who wish to be represented by a trade union and to strengthening protections for employees in lawfully organised official strike action.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, mentioned the company Bill. As the noble Lord knows, this is not the full Company Bill. It was published in draft in two enormous volumes last year and the inevitably elaborate consultation is still taking place. I am grateful for what the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said about the community interest companies element of the Bill and rather than debating that matter now we will do so as the Bill goes forward.
I was asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the noble Lord, Lord Newby, about consumer credit and whether there would be a consumer credit Bill. The answer is "no". As I said earlier, we are working to address the issue of over-indebtedness. We will publish a consumer credit White Paper shortly that will lay out our policy on tackling over-indebtedness and updating legislation to ensure that it is relevant to today's market and will provide effective protection for all consumers. There is no threat or promise of immediate legislation on that matter.
I now turn to the profoundly important issue of pensions. I acknowledge the expertise and skill with which views have been expressed in the debate. We want to achieve a shift in attitudes and behaviour among people of working age: they should actively and regularly plan for retirement. I agree with those who said—particularly those on opposite Benches—that this cannot be achieved by government alone. People must put more money into their retirement and some people will have to work longer.
At the same time, we must recognise that some people, particularly poorer people, cannot do that. Therefore, the state has a role in the provision of pensions. Our informed choice programme is designed to reach all people of working age. The highest priority must be to reach those who are most at risk of under-saving and who risk a drop in living standards in retirement. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, that does not mean we are committed to raising the pension age, although this was also the subject of debate in the public services. The Government have proposed to raise the pension age—mostly from 60 to 65 years old. If that meets approval on Benches opposite, I do not mind.

91
As regards reform of the state pensions system, we are committed to developing policies that enable pensioners to share in the country's rising prosperity. It is simply that we do not believe that an earnings link is the right way to do it. Since 1997, our strategy has been to target support on the poorest pensioners, thus providing a balance between a solid foundation of support for all while targeting help on those who need it most.
I do not need to say much about the so-called black hole, to which the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, referred. Of course, investment returns fluctuate. Of course, it is unfortunate that FRS17 requires companies to reflect those fluctuations—which have been in both directions in the past couple of years—in their balance sheet. Sometimes that leads to companies taking a pensions holiday; sometimes that leads to companies making extra provision. That is one of the problems caused by the accountancy profession.
I was asked whether the Government would act as a guarantor. As an analogy, I simply ask one question. If we want to get rid of asbestos in industrial buildings, housing or anywhere else, is the way to achieve it for the Government to guarantee that if people do not do it themselves, the Government will pay for it? Surely that is not the case. Surely, it would be right for those who have benefited from the ups of pension finance, but are now sometimes risking paying the downs, collectively to pay for it. We shall seek to ensure that our fund will be conducted with the utmost sensitivity to the needs of industry. But for the Government to be the ultimate guarantor would be to move exactly in the wrong direction.
I was asked about raising the age limit of 75 for buying annuities. Again, I shall just ask a question. We have a deal. People put money into their pension funds tax-free. Is it not right that people who did that should provide for their retirement and should not be a burden on the public purse? If we look at the number of people with a significant pension fund who, instead of buying an annuity at 75, could use the fund in another way, there would be more people costing the taxpayers money. That simply does not seem to be right.
The final questions were about stakeholder pensions. I acknowledge that there are a high proportion of pension schemes which have no members. Again, I suggest that one look at the facts. Take-up depends largely on whether an employer contributes to a stakeholder pension scheme. If the employer contributes, there is a 70 per cent chance or more that the stakeholder pension will be taken up by employees; if the employer does not contribute there is only a 13 per cent chance that employees will take it up. Clearly, it is in the interests of employers to encourage stakeholder pensions. They can do that by contributing themselves.
I believe that the final point raised was about the 1 per cent cap. The charge cap has been a great step forward for consumers. It has meant a clear charging structure. It has driven down costs across other products. There is no evidence that an increase in the
92
cap will automatically result in an increase in take-up. What we need is a greater increase in awareness and understanding, not how much people are charged. Indeed, that is what we are addressing.
Finally, I turn to energy. The debate turned largely on the nuclear option. We are not abandoning the option of new nuclear plant. If we were doing so, we would not encourage research to continue and we would not continue to train people through the sector skills councils. However, it is an option and it is not something that we have decided to do.
I think that all noble Lords have welcomed the commitment to renewable energy sources. The renewables obligation will be backed up by direct government funding of almost £350 million in support of R&D and capital grants for emerging technologies. The energy Bill will make provision for further support by encouraging the building of renewables projects beyond our territorial waters. That may enable us to exploit the potential not only of future offshore wind farms, but also of wave and tidal power schemes.
The noble Lords, Lord Patten and Lord Marlesford, and the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, raised the issue of security of energy supplies. We think that diverse sources of supply are the right way to deal with this. Renewable sources will help us to avoid an over-dependence on imports. The energy Bill includes a clause to enable international agreements to be brought into effect. I cite, for example, the agreement with Norway referred to in the debate.
The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, asked. why nuclear power was not included in the definition of renewables. Nuclear fuel is not renewable and it is not for us unilaterally to change the definition of what is a renewable source of energy. This is set out in the EU renewables directive and quite rightly we have to comply with it in order to ensure that our objectives for renewables are subject to international comparisons.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. All I wanted to say is that I hope the noble Lord will read carefully what I said in my speech. I suggested that the term "renewables" now refers to those fuels which do not emit noxious gases. Nuclear power does not do so and that is why I asked for it to be considered. Since I do not want to take up the time of the House, I would be grateful if the noble Lord could write to me.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not believe that that is the case, but if it is I shall certainly write to the noble Baroness.
I turn to the final point on energy made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. She raised the question of expenditure. Of course there is expenditure; that is why we have privilege amendments on legislation introduced in this House.

93
I have overtaxed the forbearance of the House in responding to the debate, but I hope that I have been able to respond to as many as possible of the significant points that were raised.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, while I warmly thank the Minister for his kind words to me, perhaps I may press the point. Do the Government realise how serious is the threat of climate change, that it is getting worse, and that there is no strategy in place to deal with it?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think that our record in that area, in particular on pursuing our
94
international obligations, complying with them and encouraging other nations to do so—not always successfully—is second to none. Of course we understand the importance of what the right reverend Prelate has said. We are devoted to the same ends. On that note, I shall sit down.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned until Monday next.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly until Monday next.
House adjourned at ten minutes before five o'clock.

  Security and Intelligence Agencies: Supplementary Estimate
  Security and Intelligence Agencies: Supplementary Estimate
  Immigration and Asylum Cases: Government Proposals for Publicly Funded Work
  Immigration and Asylum Cases: Government Proposals for Publicly Funded Work
  Freedom of Information Act 2000: Annual Report on Implementation
  Freedom of Information Act 2000: Annual Report on Implementation
  Iraq: UK Forces
  Iraq: UK Forces
  Defence Communications and Services Agency: Key Targets 2003–04
  Defence Communications and Services Agency: Key Targets 2003–04
  Ministry of Defence: Supplementary Estimate
  Ministry of Defence: Supplementary Estimate
  Army Technical Foundation College
  Army Technical Foundation College
  Defence Science and Technology Laboratory Sites
  Defence Science and Technology Laboratory Sites
  Cabinet Office: Supplementary Estimate
  Cabinet Office: Supplementary Estimate
  Tote
  Tote
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970: Annual Report 2002
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970: Annual Report 2002
  Department of Health and Food Standards Agency: Supplementary Estimates
  Department of Health and Food Standards Agency: Supplementary Estimates
  Large Combustion Plants Directive
  Large Combustion Plants Directive