Sitting of 9 September 2003

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

  MERSEY TUNNELS BILL (By Order)
  Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
  To be further considered on Tuesday 16 September.

Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND
  The Secretary of State was asked—

  Small Business
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: When he next expects to meet representatives of the small firms sector to discuss the application of the Industrial Development Acts to Scotland. [128444]
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alistair Darling): I will continue to engage with all those involved in the Scottish economy. I will be very happy to meet representatives of small businesses to discuss industrial development.
  Mr. Bellingham: The Secretary of State will know that there has been a huge increase in the amount of funds that are available under the Act. Obviously small firms are vital for the Scottish economy. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what percentage of his grants will go to the small firms sector? Will he also tell us what mechanisms for accountability will be put in place to oversee the expenditure of the money, both in this Parliament and in the Scottish Assembly?
  Mr. Darling: First, I should perhaps point out that it is the Scottish Parliament. As the House will know, I am very aware of these things.
  Secondly, as for legislation, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the fact that the Government have increased the amount of money available for industrial assistance. He will be aware that under the Scotland Act 1998 responsibility for disbursing these funds is exercisable by the Scottish Executive, who have chosen to do so largely through Scottish Enterprise. It will be a matter for Scottish Enterprise as to how and what proportion goes to small businesses. I am pleased
  150
  to note that in the first quarter of this year nearly 5.000 new firms were set up in Scotland, which I hope the whole House will welcome.
  John Thurso: When the Secretary of State meets representatives of small firms, what will he say to them about the massive hikes that they have suffered in employers liability insurance? Is he aware of the recent Federation of Small Businesses survey, which reported that 20 per cent. of firms have had a doubling of their premium; 25 per cent. have difficulty in getting cover at all; and 60 per cent. report a drop in profitability? What can the Government do to assist this vital sector?
  Mr. Darling: I am aware of the problem. I expect that most Members will have been approached by constituents in the small business sector, who have faced quite substantial increases in premiums. That is partly because for a long time the industry was quoting low premiums. It has now had to increase them because of claims. There is also concern about a contraction in the insurance market, especially in certain sectors. It is something that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Treasury and in other Government Departments are considering. It is clearly for the market to provide solutions in relation to insurance, but it is something about which the Government are concerned. Public liability insurance is becoming an increasing burden on business, and is something on which we want to keep a very close eye.
  Mr. lain Luke: May I congratulate the Secretary of State on his recent visit to Dundee and on his visit to small businesses in my constituency? They welcomed his commitment that the Government will do all that they can on issues such as insurance liability indemnity. Will he therefore continue to ensure that there is a strong Scottish voice in the different Departments in the United Kingdom to ensure that Scottish small businesses get their fair share and that their voices are heard at all levels of government in the UK?
  Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend knows that I spent an extremely interesting day in Dundee, where I saw some examples of extremely good innovation in the biotech sector in which companies have been set up as a result of research that has been carried out in Dundee as well as in other parts of Scotland, and in which new businesses are being set up that have been extremely successful. My hon. Friend is right that there are matters about which small businesses are concerned, particularly public liability insurance, which as I said a few moments ago is something on which we need to keep a close eye. It is encouraging that with the stable economic background that we have, with the lowest interest rates since 1955, we have the sort of environment that is likely to encourage business growth and in turn generate jobs. That is something that we should all support.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: I am delighted that the Assembly has become a Parliament in the Secretary of State's second Question Time. [Interruption.] Well, it only took a while.

  151
  The Secretary of State will be aware that the Federation of Small Businesses listed access to broadband as its No. 1 priority in its recently published manifesto. Despite the fact that there are comprehensive targets in place for Northern Ireland and for Wales, there is no such comprehensive target for Scotland, which means that many areas of rural Scotland, including 25 of the 27 telephone exchanges in my constituency, do not have even a medium-term prospect of getting access to broadband. Will the Secretary of State tell us what the problem is with access to broadband in Scotland? Is it state aid rules or is it just lack of ambition on the part of the Government?
  Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman is right that it is important that small business has access to broadband. Next week, Scottish Enterprise is running a programme to promote e-business to make people more aware of the opportunities available to them. Despite what the hon. Gentleman said, a recent report produced by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development shows that Scotland is in the upper quartile of businesses that have access to broadband and e-trading. However, the hon. Gentleman is quite right—broadband ought to be promoted, and he will know that that is one of the jobs of Scottish Enterprise which, of course, is the responsibility of the Scottish Executive. It is important that we develop that so that we can make sure that Scotland's small business sector thrives.

  UK Supreme Court
  Annabelle Ewing: What representations he has received concerning the proposals for a UK supreme court. [128445]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Anne McGuire): The proposals for a supreme court are currently the subject of consultation by my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. The consultation includes a wide range of Scottish interests. Although no responses have yet been received, the consultation does not close until 7 November.
  Annabelle Ewing: I thank the Minister for her answer, but is it not the case that the role of the Secretary of State for Scotland in protecting the integrity of Scots law must be viewed as compromised from the outset, as his boss at the Department for Constitutional Affairs will have the final say. Would today not be a good opportunity to support calls to end the anomaly whereby in post-devolution Scotland final appellate jurisdiction over Scots civil law lies south of the border?
  Mrs. McGuire: I like to take the hon. Lady seriously, but sometimes it is very difficult, because every contribution she makes in the House is predicated on the fact that she wants to rip Scotland out of the partnership of the United Kingdom. I would advise her, if she wishes to make comments such as those she has made today about civil jurisdiction, that she has ample opportunity to do so during the consultation period. I would remind her that the consultation has been welcomed in Scotland by the Lord Advocate and senior members of the
  152
  judiciary. I am sure that any contribution that they make to the consultation will be taken seriously by the UK Government before a decision is made.
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: May I begin by welcoming today's statement on Scotland Office staffing, even though it is a shame that it will be six weeks before we can ask questions about it? On the subject of the supreme court, the hon. Lady will be aware that a number of Scottish cases go to the House of Lords each year. Can she tell us what thought has been given to arrangements for the handover of those cases to the supreme court when it comes into being? For instance, will they continue to their end in the Lords, will they be taken over by the supreme court while they are still in process, or will applicants have to return to "go"?
  Mrs. McGuire: First, I would have been delighted to take questions on the staffing of the Scotland Office if the hon. Lady had managed to find a creative way of linking them into her question. I would like to put it on the record that this is a rational approach to the way in which the Scotland Office is now working. As for the transfer of cases, that will be managed properly—there are very few cases currently being considered by the House of Lords. Those cases that have to be dealt with by the House of Lords will, I understand, be concluded there. However, there will be transitional arrangements, and if I need to give the hon. Lady clarification of the detail of that major radical and important constitutional change in our judiciary, I shall certainly do so in writing.
  Mrs. Lait: I am grateful for that offer and for the hon. Lady's putting on record the plan for handling the issue. On another angle of this matter, as the proposed creation of the supreme court shows that the devolution settlement is not settled, which parts of the House of Lords Committee, chaired by Lord Norton, is she considering for implementation?
  Mrs. McGuire: The hon. Lady's question is so obtuse that even I do not understand it in this very robust debate. When we had an opportunity to discuss issues relating to the new Department for Constitutional Affairs and the Scotland Office, she did not raise the matter, but perhaps I could meet her after Scottish questions and we could discuss it in detail. Finally, we are dealing with a transitional arrangement for a radical approach to our judiciary in the United Kingdom. I should have thought that the hon. Lady would have welcomed that.

  Parliamentary Boundaries
  Mr. Michael Connarty: When he will approve the detailed timetable for legislation on new boundaries for UK parliamentary seats in Scotland. [128446]
  The Secretary of State for Scotland(Mr. Alistair Darling): The House will know that it is up to the boundary commission to decide when it reports to me on its current review of the parliamentary constituencies. However, as I have made clear in the

  153
  past, as soon as I receive the report I shall lay it before Parliament, together with an order to give effect to its recommendations.
  Mr. Connarty: I am grateful for that reply. I just wonder whether there may be a problem in deciding whether to put Dungavel prison into an English constituency, or whether my right hon. Friend will intervene to solve by some other, more positive, method the problem at Dungavel of children being locked up in a former prison.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is out of order. The Minister will not reply.
  Malcolm Bruce: Does the Secretary of State accept that, given the radical proposals on reducing the number of MPs in Scotland, which my party supports and recognises as a consequence of devolution, it is important to ensure that the matter is resolved clearly and not dragged out to add to the confusion? In the process, will he consider bringing together the review of Westminster and Scottish boundaries to avoid a long period of confusion about different boundaries in different Parliaments, and perhaps also take the opportunity to introduce the single transferable vote for the Scottish Parliament at the same time?
  Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman's question had three parts. It was very clear that once the Scotland Act 1998 was passed, the number of Members of Parliament that Scotland sent to Westminster would be reduced. I have made that clear, as has the Prime Minister, and that is what is going to happen. Indeed, I say that with some feeling, as I am quite directly affected by some of the recommendations made by the boundary commission.
  When the boundary commission reports is a matter for it, as it is independent of government, but it has said that it will probably have finished its review of the Westminster constituencies at the beginning of next year. The House will also be aware that, at the moment, its terms of reference mean that it will go on to look at the consequential effects for the Scottish Parliament. As we are going to legislate to maintain 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament, that work will not be necessary, but I hope that that will not hold up the reorganisation of Westminster parliamentary constituencies.
  Voting systems will be a matter of discussion, especially among the parties in Scotland. I know that there are concerns not only about individual systems but about the fact that four different systems will be in operation in Scotland. I am sure that all of us, no matter what political party we belong to, will have thoughts about that, but it is something that needs to be discussed in Scotland. For the avoidance of doubt, I can tell the House that the only legislation that we are contemplating at the moment will maintain the 129 Members. We are not contemplating any other legislation at the moment, but that is not to say that debate about these matters will not take place over the next few months and years.
  David Taylor: Following the implementation of the boundary review, which will reduce the number of Scottish MPs—it is currently a tad
  154
  unfair to those of us south of the border—does the Secretary of State believe that there will be a parallel reduction for similar reasons in the over-generous Barnett formula?
  Mr. Darling: Public spending and its distribution are, of course, something that the Chancellor keeps under review. If I were my hon. Friend, I would take satisfaction—if that is what it is from his point of view—from the fact that there will be something of a parity between English and Scottish constituencies, which I think most of us believe is absolutely necessary following the introduction of the Scotland Act 1998.
  Mr. Peter Duncan: Notwithstanding the answer that the Secretary of State gave to the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), will he deny speculation that he plans to remove from the remit of the boundary commission the requirement to allocate Scottish constituencies to regions in Scotland? If he cannot do so, is it because he plans to gerrymander that process himself, or has he decided to move already to another form of proportional representation that is perhaps more suited to his party's interests?
  Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary is not alone in feeling confused today, as I am feeling completely confused about what on earth the hon. Gentleman is saying. For the avoidance of doubt, I have said that we intend to introduce legislation only to maintain the 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament. I also said that the boundary commission's work in relation to the reduction of numbers in the Westminster Parliament will go ahead.
  On what electoral systems might prevail in Scotland in future, I wish to make two observations. First, I think that the issue needs to be discussed by political parties in Scotland. Secondly, no one party has a monopoly of wisdom here and some thought must be given to what systems are appropriate. This is the sort of debate that will no doubt continue for months and years, and I am totally relaxed about that.

  Overseas Ministerial Visits
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: If he will list the overseas visits he has (a) undertaken since 12 June and (b) planned for the future.[128447]
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alistair Darling): I have made no overseas visits since 12 June in my capacity as Secretary of State for Scotland, and I have no plans to do so.
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: The reason I ask the question is that Scotland faces severe problems of economic growth and huge job losses in manufacturing industry. Industry is plagued by a very high business rate, which, in my view, needs cutting. What is the right hon. Gentleman doing to encourage further inward investment in Scottish manufacturing, which is so important if we are to provide jobs for the Scottish

  155
  people? As an English MP, I am as concerned about manufacturing in Scotland as in England or in my own constituency.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should have put down a question on manufacturing in Scotland. He has been given an answer, and I do not intend to call a supplementary.
  Angus Robertson: The Secretary of State says that he has not conducted a single trip to another country. May I strongly urge him to do so, for one reason? He might be able to broaden his experience and to learn how few countries lock up in prison the children of asylum seekers. Can he name one European country—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Once again, the hon. Gentleman is out of order. The supplementary should relate to the question that was tabled. [Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not challenging my ruling. He seems to be in an awful state. [Interruption.] Did he say that he is challenging my ruling?
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: As a member of the Chairmen's Panel, I should not do so.
  Mr. Speaker: That is fine, then.

  UK Elections
  Mr. George Foulkes: What plans he has to ensure that those eligible to vote in UK elections are registered on the voters' register. [128448]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Anne McGuire): It is the responsibility of local electoral registration officers to take reasonable steps to obtain the information required to prepare and publish registers of local government and parliamentary electors.
  Mr. Foulkes: I have to say that I find the Under-Secretary's reply rather complacent. [Interruption.] Yes, I am off the Christmas card list. Has she seen the parliamentary answers indicating that more than 100,000 people in Scotland who ought to be on the register are not on it? As this is one area for which the Scotland Office does have ministerial responsibility, will she urge electoral registration officers to intensify their activities to ensure that people who are eligible are on the register? Will she also draw the matter to the attention of the boundaries commission? If 100,000 Scots voters are not on the register, that will have a significant impact on its work.
  Mrs. McGuire: I share my right hon. Friend's concern that some people, for a variety of reasons, do not take up their opportunity to register. The Electoral Commission is considering ways in which we can encourage people to do so. As my right hon. Friend knows from his previous existence as a Minister in the Scotland Office, a great deal of work is done with electoral registration officers to ensure that their methods for getting people on to the register are robust
  156
  and thorough. Changes have been made to the way in which we register. For example, rolling registration allows electors to provide updated details at any time We need to consider how accurate registers were under the previous conditions and how accurately they reflect the current situation. I take my right hon. Friend's comments on board, and I am sure that they will have been heard by electoral registration officers, who no doubt listen to Scottish questions.
  Sir Archy Kirkwood: Some of us deeply regret the passing of the personal canvass that used to be part of the operation, because it guaranteed that if people were at their addresses they would be found. I know that she is as jealous of civil liberties as I am, but would she consider giving electoral registration officers access to other publicly held information for matching purposes? They have access to council tax data, but those data only identify one householder. Household benefit lists give the names of everyone living at an address. Will the hon. Lady consider whether the regulations could give extra powers to EROs to check and match the gaps in the current postal arrangements?
  Mrs. McGuire: The hon. Gentleman will know that in May 2000, the Electoral Commission published its report on electoral registration processes and concerns about under-registration. Insufficient data-sharing between the various authorities was identified as one of the issues that may need reconsideration. That is the subject of a further research project by the commission, which will examine the extent and nature of non-registration throughout the United Kingdom as well as in Scotland.
  Many of us are in a position to emphasise to our local electors that people should register to ensure that they do not lose the right to vote.

  ADVOCATE-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  The Advocate-General was asked—
  ADVOCATE-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

    Devolution
    Annabelle Ewing: What devolution issues have been raised with her since 24 June. [128458]
    The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): Since 24 June, 93 devolution issues have been intimated to me. All but three related to criminal matters involving human rights claims, and the majority concerned delay in bringing criminal proceedings to trial. Other issues included challenges to the fixing of punishment part sentences for life prisoners under the Convention Rights (Compliance) (Scotland) Act 2001, confiscation of assets, and a challenge to a prison governor's refusal to provide a word processor to an inmate for the preparation of an appeal.
    Annabelle Ewing: I imagine that one of the devolution issues winging its way towards the hon. and learned Lady is the growing outcry in Scotland about the shameful Westminster practice of locking up the

    157
    children of asylum seekers in Dungavel. Has the Advocate-General had recent contact with the Scottish Executive about the extent of their devolution powers, on the basis that health, education and social welfare issues are devolved? What is the statutory authority in Scotland for the exclusion of those children from mainstream education?
    The Advocate-General: First, the Government introduced the European convention on human rights into our law. That provides a basis for domestic challenge.
    On things winging their way towards me, I shall wait with bated breath until they land on my desk. If and when that happens, I shall consider any devolution issue in detail, as I always do. The constitutional settlement is clear: asylum is a reserved matter and education is generally devolved.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: Generally?
    The Advocate-General: Generally. If I receive a relevant devolution matter of the sort that the hon. Lady suggested, I will scrutinise it carefully and bear her comments in mind.

    Standards in Scotland's Schools etc. Act 2000
    Mr. Michael Connarty: What human rights assessment she has made of the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000. [128460]
    The Advocate-General: I assess the legislative competence of each Bill introduced in the Scottish Parliament as part of the process of considering whether to exercise my power under section 33 of the Scotland Act 1998 to refer a Bill to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. That assessment includes a consideration of compliance with convention rights. When a Bill becomes law, my role on devolution issues continues.
    Mr. Connarty: I am informed that sections 1 and 14 of the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc. Act 2000 state that any child with a need for special educational provision should be provided with it in mainstream schools. Gordon Jeyes, director of children's services and secretary of the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, said that he believes that the UK Government are in breach of the Act because we do not implement it in relation to asylum seekers' children who are held in Dungavel.
    The Advocate-General: Let me quote section 1 of the Act to my hon. Friend. It states:
    "It shall be the right of every child of school age to be provided with school education by, or by virtue of arrangements made, or entered into, by an education authority."
    Anyone who believes that there is a difficulty in relation to a devolution issue is perfectly within their rights to raise that, as I have explained.

    Devolution
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What devolution issues she has considered since June 2003. [128461]
    The Advocate-General: Since the end of June 2003 there have been 88 devolution issues intimated to me. As to their subject matter, I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave a few moments ago to the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing).
    Miss McIntosh: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Lady for that answer. Will she cast her mind back to the answer that she gave me before the summer recess on partnership law in relation to the reforms to Scottish land law being passed by the Scottish Parliament, and the devastating effect that they are having on Scottish landowners? What representations has she received from those landowners, and will she revise her advice in view of those representations?
    The Advocate-General: I am casting my mind back drastically. I remember the hon. Lady's general question, but not the details. So far as I am aware, I have not received any representations since then, but I will certainly check with my office to see whether any have been made. If I think that I need to make changes to any of my views, I shall do so.

  CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State was asked—
  CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

    Judicial Appointments
    Mr. Paul Goodman: What responses he has had to his consultation on the appointment of judges. [128464]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): At this early stage of the consultation on the issue of creating a more independent judicial appointments process, a wide range of responses has already been received, including from members of the judiciary, magistrates, solicitors, barristers, academics and members of the public. Consultation closes on 7 November.
    Mr. Goodman: Given that radical left-wing modernisation and the separation of powers are surely one and the same, will the Minister confirm that there will be no political veto over the appointment of judges—and if not, why not?
    Mr. Leslie: The present arrangement has a Cabinet Minister intimately involved in the selection process of the judiciary. That system has produced a judiciary of very high standing and probity, but we feel that it is now an unsustainable anachronism and that we should have more open, transparently independent appointments processes. That is why we want an independent judicial

    159
    appointments commission, and a number of options have been posited in the consultation paper, which I commend to the hon. Gentleman.
    David Taylor: The Minister talks about a more open and transparent system. Is it not the case that, last year, although the Lord Chancellor's Department received 3,600 applications, carried out 1,800 interviews and made more than 750 appointments, a clear audit trail for that process is lacking? Would not such an audit trail help to produce a system that would lead to a more diverse and representative Bench in a rather shorter time than the 10 to 15 years that some commentators believe it will take at the moment?
    Mr. Leslie: It is, of course, desirable to have a more diverse judiciary reflecting the broad nature of the population, but we have to have appointment on merit, and this is the best way to proceed. One of the proposals in the consultation document is for a judicial ombudsman to oversee the work of the independent judicial appointments commission, but we believe that the current Commissioner for Judicial Appointments already does a good job of auditing and ensuring that our appointments process is of a high standard.
    Mr. David Heath: The noble and learned Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice, said recently:
    "If the Executive can influence who is on the appointments commission and who the commission appoints that is interfering with the judiciary."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 September 2003; Vol. 652, c. 113.]
    To ensure that that does not happen, will the Minister ensure that the committee that appoints the commission will not be chaired by the permanent secretary to his Department? If the Secretary of State is to have any role in judicial appointments, should it not be confined to accepting a single name proffered by the commission or, if rejecting it, giving reasons for so doing?
    Mr. Leslie: There is an important issue involved in ensuring that advice on appointments from the Crown is given by Ministers, so that Ministers can be held accountable to Parliament. The hon. Gentleman asks an important question, however. The issue of who appoints the appointers is brought out in the consultation document. There is also a proposal in that document for an appointments panel chaired by the permanent secretary of the Department, with a senior judge and another senior non-political figure. We await the responses to see what the reaction to that proposal might be, but I hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say.
    Mr. William Cash: The Minister will know that we affirm the absolute necessity of maintaining the independence of the judiciary as the safeguard of the freedom of the people, and of maintaining the freedom of the rule of law from political interference. How can the Government's proposed reforms achieve that? First, the ultimate appointment of judges will be made by the Secretary of State, who, on 14 July, said that he intended to act politically. Secondly, as has been said, the sifting committee will be chaired by his own permanent secretary. Thirdly, far from achieving a proper
    160
    separation of powers, the proposals remove the constitutional authority of the Lord Chancellor in the Cabinet, thus enhancing the power of the Secretary of State and thereby that of the Prime Minister—as usual.
    Mr. Leslie: The hon. Gentleman should pay a little more attention to the detail in the consultation document. He is wrong, for instance, in saying that we propose that the permanent secretary chair the sifting panel during the selection process. That is simply not correct. We want an independent judicial appointments commission that will undertake the day-to-day process of selection separately. Under the current arrangement, as with that operated by the last Administration, a political Lord Chancellor sitting in the Cabinet—a Minister—undertakes all aspects of the process. We believe that the time when that was justifiable is past, and we want a more independent system. I hope that the Conservative party will add its support for that.

    Judicial Reform
    Mr. Graham Allen: What consultation processes involving hon. Members he plans for his proposals for (a) a Supreme Court, (b) an independent judicial appointments commission and (c) the future of the rank of Queen's Counsel. [128465]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): The three consultation papers are available to all Members in the Vote Office, and views are of course most welcome as part of the consultation process. We will also endeavour to work closely with the departmental Select Committee, and make all responses available to it at the end of the consultation.
    Mr. Allen: I commend my hon. Friend for presenting three proposals that appeared in past Labour party manifestos. That is a high strike rate, which I hope my hon. Friend will continue.
    What involvement will there be with Parliament itself during the consultation, and in particular with the new Constitutional Affairs Select Committee chaired by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)? Would it not be a good idea to involve Members of Parliament, and also to involve members of the public by putting the process online so that everyone could discuss it rather than one or two insiders?
    Mr. Leslie: The noises off from the shadow Leader of the House, revolting against the concept of online consultation, clearly reflect his enthusiasm for that particular element of modernisation.
    I understand my hon. Friend's point. It is important for all sections of society to be involved as much as possible—not least hon. Members, who are never backward in coming forward with their views.
    Mr. A. J. Beith: Should not one of the first ways of involving Members through the Select Committee be to take careful note of what the Committee said about the experience in Scotland of setting up a judicial appointments commission? Is it not clear that that body's manifest independence from both

    161
    the parent Department and the political process has been very important in ensuring its acceptance by the judiciary and others? Is it not also important to resolve the difficulty mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), which still exists in the Scottish system, of ensuring that the fact that ultimately appointments are made on the advice of Ministers does not enable Ministers to become involved in a process that is supposed to be independent?
    Mr. Leslie: The right hon. Gentleman makes some interesting points. Like the Chairman of the departmental Select Committee, I think it vital that we have a dialogue with the Committee as the proposals evolve. I also agree that it is important to investigate the method of appointment in great detail. According to one model, appointments would go straight from the commission to the Crown; according to another, the single recommendation would go to Ministers and then, formally, to the Crown, which would preserve ministerial accountability to Parliament. That is another important issue with which I know the Committee will be concerned.
    Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: Notwithstanding the virtues of the Scottish independent system for appointing judges, will my hon. Friend note that in many people's opinion the appointments made by the independent commission have resulted in the appointment of more or less the same type of people as before, although perhaps they are slightly more conservative with a small "c" than their predecessors. 'Will my hon. Friend draw lessons from that experience when considering the introduction of an appointment system for England and Wales—and, indeed, for the supreme court?
    Mr. Leslie: My hon. Friend is right: a much more diverse judiciary is certainly desirable. We must preserve appointment on merit, but I do not believe that the two are incompatible. If we have a new judicial appointments commission drawn from a wider spectrum of society, it is more likely that candidates will be appointed from a larger pool, and I hope that that will happen.
    Peter Bottomley: The point that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) was trying to make is that if we move to a commission-based system, we will be less likely to see some of the bold, good appointments that have been made in the past two or three decades. If the Minister is going to take the Select Committee system seriously, could he try to give the Committee a clear answer as to whether the Prime Minister consulted either the previous Lord Chancellor or the current one before announcing the proposed changes to the appointment of judges?
    Mr. Leslie: There are of course always full consultations between all Cabinet members before policy announcements are made, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should think otherwise. I disagree with his view that a commission is somehow less likely to appoint bold, more interesting people to the judiciary. There is no evidence for that, and as we
    162
    develop policy we want to ensure that we have the capability to introduce a diverse range of potential candidates, but also those of the highest possible calibre.

    Judicial Appointments
    Keith Vaz: How many judicial appointments the Lord Chancellor has made since 15 June. [128467]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): Since the Lord Chancellor was appointed on 12 June, he has made or recommended 435 appointments.
    Keith Vaz: May I, through the Minister, congratulate the Lord Chancellor on his assiduousness in appointing so many people, under a system that the Minister has today accepted is flawed? Given the evidence that the Lord Chancellor gave to the Select Committee, in which he said that he wanted to see a new breed of person appointed to the Bench, could the Minister tell the House how many of those 400-odd appointments accurately reflect the Lord Chancellor's views?
    Mr. Leslie: Each of the appointments made is of the highest calibre. I would say not that the current appointments system is flawed, but that there are anachronistic elements, in so far as the system manifestly involves politicians. I believe that we should move away from that state of affairs. There are a large number of appointments, but it is certainly true that different types of people have been appointed, most of whom are magistrates. When the annual report on judicial appointments is published, it will include more detail about the nature of the people appointed.

    Court Closures (East Anglia)
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: What recent representations he has received from magistrates courts in East Anglia about proposed court closures. [128468]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. David Lammy): There are currently no plans for any court closures in East Anglia, and we have received no representations on this issue.
    Mr. Bellingham: Surely for justice to be seen to be done, it is highly desirable that most defendants be tried by magistrates as near as possible to the scene of the crime. Furthermore, the majority of members of the lay magistracy joined only because they wanted to sit in courts in their local towns. So why are the Government still giving the go-ahead to the closure of small magistrates courts in small towns—including some in Norfolk—that has taken place during the past six years? Do they not believe in the lay magistracy, and why are they undermining the morale of lay magistrates?
    Mr. Lammy: The hon. Gentleman has asked this question on three occasions in the past year and he is about to get the same reply. It is right and proper that magistrates live locally, but it is clear that we cannot have courts in every town. This Government closed six courts this year and seven last year; in the last year of the their Administration, the Conservatives closed 21.

    House of Lords Reform
    Mr. Clive Soley: If he will make a further statement on reform of the House of Lords. [128471]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): The Government published their response to the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform on 16 July. We are considering a variety of the issues raised, and we intend to consult on the role of the appointments commission in the near future.
    Mr. Soley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he do everything possible to ensure that the Joint Committee can continue its work? That is necessary in part because there are many, relatively straightforward reforms that we can carry out—not least of which is dealing with Members of the House of Lords who can still peg their seats and legislate, despite having criminal convictions. But more importantly in the long run, reform of the House of Lords has to be agreed between and within the two Houses, and the only way to deliver that is through the Joint Committee's continuing its work, and working by consent within that procedure.
    Mr. Leslie: Of course my hon. Friend is right, and the Government are more than content to see the Joint Committee continue its work of examining the issues and recommendations. We are grateful for the work of drafting and producing the second report, to which the Government responded earlier in the year. It was a useful summary of the debate and, as I said in my earlier answer, we now want to consult on the role of the judicial appointments commission for those appointed to the House of Lords. We hope to make further announcements in the near future.
    Mr. Chris Bryant: My hon. Friend will know of rumours in the national newspapers suggesting that the Government are going to introduce a de minimis Bill, which would effectively bring about a wholly appointed second Chamber. The Government's response to the Joint Committee's paper seemed to be pushing in the same direction. I am sure that my hon. Friend is well aware that that option received the fewest votes in this Chamber, so will he ensure that it is not the option that the Government bring forward?
    Mr. Leslie: My hon. Friend has far too great a stature to comment on rumours surfacing in national newspapers. I shall not do so, and my hon. Friend will have to wait to see what proposals we introduce. We have a new Department and a new ministerial team, and
    164
    we are keen to move forward. We do not believe that the status quo is desirable, but I repeat that my hon. Friend will have to wait and see what proposals we introduce.

    Judicial Reform
    Mr. David Burney: What the Lord Chancellor's plans are for reform of the English judiciary; and if he will make a statement. [128473]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): The Government intend to establish an independent judicial appointments commission in order to create a more open and transparent method of appointing judges. We also intend to create a new supreme court for the United Kingdom to separate the highest appeal court from the legislature. Consultation on those proposals closes on 7 November.
    Mr. Ruffley: Will the Minister confirm that in appointing judges the judicial appointments commission will not operate a quota system—either formally or informally—for certain groups?
    Mr. Leslie: Yes, that is absolutely our intention. We want not quotas, but appointments on merit.
    Mr. John Bercow: On occasions, which are bound to arise, when it proves impossible for the future judicial appointments commission to reach consensus on proposed candidates for appointment, does the Minister envisage that there will be scope for votes?
    Mr. Leslie: I presume that it will be for the new independent judicial appointments commission—we have tentatively suggested that it should comprise about 15 members: five from the judiciary, five from the legal profession and five from the non-legal sector—to undertake its own deliberations in the manner that it sees fit. We shall have to see whether that level of detail—providing for equal division—needs to be brought out in the response to the consultation. I am immensely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for focusing on that specific point.

    Supreme Court
    Mr. George Osborne: What the estimated cost is of establishing and maintaining a supreme court. [128474]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): As the consultation document on the creation of a supreme court makes clear, we are currently considering options on the accommodation and infrastructure requirements for the new court. Whatever option is chosen, it will have to deliver value for money.
    Mr. Osborne: I am disappointed that the Minister could not provide an answer. Surely he should have some idea of how much something will cost before proposing it to Parliament.
    Mr. Leslie: First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his elevation to the Opposition Whips Office—an immensely important post for him given his quick rise. The new supreme court will need to be housed outside the Palace of Westminster and we shall consult the present Law Lords, among others, on the requirements for accommodation. We do not want the supreme court to be an extravagant institution, but neither should it be done on the cheap. It should be fit for the purposes envisaged for the highest court in the land.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the new system be more expensive?
    Mr. Leslie: The hon. Gentleman should have heard the answer that I gave. I do not believe that we should have an extravagant system for the supreme court, nor one put together on the cheap. We want to ensure that the supreme court will be fit for its purposes, so we shall consult those who will work in it and who understand how the highest court in the land will operate on the necessary costs of administration and infrastructure.

    Judiciary (Political Independence)
    Mr. Peter Luff: What recent representations he has received on the protection of the political independence of the judiciary. [128475]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): We currently have judges of complete independence, probity and the very highest ability. The Government believe that they must continue to be independent, of both the Executive and the legislature. Proposals for an independent judicial appointments commission and a new supreme court have been published. Responses to the consultation documents that were published in July are still being received, as the consultation period finishes on 7 November.
    Mr. Luff: Does the Minister understand that those of us with experience of other so-called independent appointments commissions, such as those in the NHS—
    Mr. John Bercow: Or the Whips Office.
    Mr. Luff: Or the Whips Office, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) suggests. We have seen that the results have been completely distorted by the criteria laid down by Ministers. The commissions cannot be truly independent. I urge the Minister to reflect again on whether the proposals will genuinely enhance the independence of the judiciary.
    Mr. Leslie: I understand the warnings from the hon. Gentleman, but surely the House will support moves towards a more independent, transparent, open and accessible appointments system for the judiciary. I believe that that is possible, and so far I have not heard anyone oppose it.

  The Leader of the House was asked—
  LEADER OF THE HOUSE

    Select Committee Chairmen (Pay Review)
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: When he expects to respond to the Senior Salaries Pay Review Body's report on the remuneration of House of Commons Select Committee Chairmen. [128478]
    The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): When I laid the SSRB's report on pay for Select Committee Chairmen in the House of Commons before the House on 17 July, I stated that I intended to discuss the matter widely and to reflect on hon. Members' views before deciding on the terms of a motion to be put before the House in the autumn. Subject to the demands of parliamentary business, and to the completion of the examination by the Committee on Standards and Privileges of the issue of Chairmen's outside interests, I hope that we will find time for a debate as soon as possible after the conference recess, and certainly before the end of the Session. It will then be for the House to decide on its response to the SSRB's report.
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: I thank the Leader of the House for that response. Does he accept that the payment of Select Committee Chairmen must not be seen as an extension of patronage? With that in mind, will he consider looking again at how Select Committee Chairmen are appointed, and ensuring that such appointments are made by a committee divorced from the Executive and the Whips Offices? In that way, Back-Bench Members can take control of the process and the remuneration will offer a way to an alternative career structure for Members of this House.
    Mr. Hain: I very much agree that there should be a properly remunerated parallel career structure. If I may quibble, however, I would not necessarily use the term "alternative". People can move between the two occupations, as we have seen recently. But proper remuneration is important, and that will be a matter for the House.
    On the question of patronage, I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, who was an excellent Chairman of the Health Committee in a previous Parliament. He gave a very good example of how to defy patronage. [Interruption.]Opposition Members mention my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who is indeed an excellent Select Committee Chairman. In a sense, she has found her place by defying any laws of patronage. I do not think that patronage is the real issue. The issue considered by the SSRB was whether remuneration was proper, and in what form it should be implemented.
    Mr. Paul Tyler: Does the Leader of the House recall that the Select Committee on Modernisation's recommendation incorporated direct reference to greater independence and effectiveness in Select Committees, so that Chairmen genuinely earned their salaries? In those circumstances, does he think it proper for a Secretary of State for Defence to lean on the

    167
    Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs to try and secure a particular type of questioning in the recent inquiry? Does that improve the Committee's independence? Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider it extraordinary that the evidence placed before that Committee was so lacking in comprehensive coverage of the issue, given what has been exposed by the Hutton inquiry?
    Mr. Hain: Those matters are, of course, for the Hutton inquiry, but the hon. Gentleman should not demean the role of Select Committees, which play, in investigating and in holding the Executive to account, a vital part that the Government welcome and encourage.

    Laptop Computers
    Mr. Michael Jack: What plans he has to make further recommendations to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons on the use of laptop computers in Standing Committees of the House. [12848]
    The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Phil Woolas): I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment to the Select Committee on Information. He is also a member of the Speaker's advisory panel.
    My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has made no recommendations to the Modernisation Committee on the use of laptop computers in Standing Committees. He is aware that some Members would like their use to be permitted, but the Chairmen's Panel has concerns about the matter.
    Mr. Jack: While I thank the Minister for his kind words and his answer, does he not think that it would be timely for the Modernisation Committee to consider the situation now? Use of laptops is permitted in Select Committees, and a recent report has shown their advantages. However, that facility is not afforded to Members undertaking the detailed work of Standing Committees. Does the Minister not think that the time is right to consider that point, perhaps in concert with the Information Committee?
    Mr. Woolas: At present, that is a matter for individual Select Committees, although I share the view that there may well be advantages to the use of laptops as new technologies develop. The House may be interested to know that there are proposals for Members to have access to PDAs, which I understand to be personal digital assistants. The mind boggles about what the sketch writers will make of that, but new technology has an element of inevitability about it.

    Debates Procedure
    Julie Morgan: If he will bring forward proposals to the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons on procedure in debates on the Floor of the House. [128482]
    The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): Although I have no plans to do so, I am aware that the Procedure Committee is examining procedures for debates, and I await its findings with interest.
    Julie Morgan: What plans has my right hon. Friend to discuss the introduction of a list of speakers to be published before debates in the Chamber? Does he agree that it would contribute to the enthusiasm of Members taking part in debate if they thought that they had some chance of being called?
    Mr. Hain: I think, Mr. Speaker, that you may have views on this matter, and I therefore intend to tread warily. I understand my hon. Friend's concerns, and I know that the House of Lords, for example, has always had published lists. The Procedure Committee is considering the matter, and I am sure that you will make your views known in due course, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: One of the good things to come out of the Modernisation Committee when it was led by the Leader of the House's predecessor was the publication of a parliamentary calendar. Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be in a position to publish next year's calendar?
    Mr. Hain: I certainly intend to publish the calendar as soon as possible, once it is clear when the Queen's Speech will be and how the next Session will unfold. We shall do that as soon as possible, because I know that the calendar is useful to Members and to servants of the House.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Might the Leader of the House combine several modernisation techniques so that those of us who have a nasty habit of turning up here to make speeches could in future just read them into the record from some remote spot, saving us from having to come here at all?
    Mr. Hain: I would much rather hear my hon. Friend's speeches than read them in Hansard.I am sure that the whole House would agree with that.

    Bills (Online Pre-legislative Scrutiny)
    Mr. Graham Allen: How many Bills he expects will have been subject to online pre-legislative scrutiny by the end of the Session; and if he will make a statement. [128483]
    The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Phil Woolas): None of the Committees that conducted pre-legislative scrutiny of draft Bills in this Session has undertaken online consultation; nor am I aware of any plans to do so. However, the report of the Joint Committee on the draft Communications Bill in the previous Session demonstrated that online consultation on draft Bills could be useful. Whether it is undertaken remains a matter for decision by the Committee concerned.
    Mr. Allen: I took the trouble to write to all Secretaries of State asking whether they would hold any pre-legislative consultation in the next Session, and I

    169
    received a standard reply from each saying that they do not pre-empt the Queen's Speech. However, as a long list of Bills is being circulated, would it not make sense for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to use that list in talking to Select Committee Chairmen to try to build into their programmes of work serious pre-legislative scrutiny of all the Bills that the House will consider?
    Mr. Woolas: That is a matter for the House, but the Government recognise the benefits of pre-legislative scrutiny. There have been nine such Bills in the current Session and there were seven in the last Session. It is the Government's desire to facilitate online consultation. As I said, the matter is for the Committees, but my hon. Friend's suggestion seems to have merit within that policy.

    Bills (Programming)
    Mr. Andrew Mackay: If he will propose to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons that it inquire into the arrangements for programming legislation. [128484]
    The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): The Modernisation Committee stated that it will keep the operation of programming under continuing consideration and make further recommendations as it thinks appropriate.
    Mr. Mackay: Does the Leader of the House accept that the present programming is not working properly and that all too much legislation is not properly scrutinised, with large sections of Bills not even looked at by the House? That cannot be right, and there is urgent need for change by the time the next Session starts later this year.
    Mr. Hain: I am aware of the right hon. Gentleman's concerns and those of many of his colleagues, but I want
    170
    to put the matter into perspective. Under the previous procedure, prior to programming, large numbers of clauses were not debated or properly scrutinised, which was one of the reasons that we introduced the reform. Although I am always open to suggestions for change, and the Modernisation Committee is keeping the matter under review, we should compare realistically and accurately with what happened before, instead of trying to suggest that the whole situation is worse in respect of scrutiny. No Bill was fully scrutinised under the previous system—that is the issue.

    Devolution
    Andrew Selous: If he will introduce legislation to prohibit Members for non-English seats in the House voting on matters pertaining only to England. [128485]
    The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Phil Woolas): To facilitate for the House, given the lack of time, I simply say no.
    Andrew Selous: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that probably nothing is more inclined to bring disharmony between the constituent nations of this United Kingdom than the passing of controversial and unpopular measures, as far as England is concerned, with the support of hon. Members who are not from England? What is he going to do about that?
    Mr. Woolas: There is a fundamental disagreement. This House is sovereign and each Member of the House is equal—[Interruption.] Well, some may, in their opinion, be more equal than others. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would say to hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies that they should not be entitled to take part in legislative decisions that affect the United Kingdom as a whole, or indeed England. There is a disagreement.

EU-IGC
12.32 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the European Union's intergovernmental conference, which will begin in Rome on 4 October. Alongside this statement, I have today published a White Paper, "A New Constitutional Treaty for the European Union," in which the Government set out in more detail their approach to the IGC. The White Paper was laid before Parliament at 9.30 this morning, and copies have been made available so that hon. Members could question me on its content. In August, I published a Command Paper, 5897, which gives the full text of the draft treaty.
The origins of the IGC lie in the unfinished business of the treaty of Nice. Nice settled the simple mechanics of enlargement. but did not focus on how a Union of 25 states could then function effectively. So at the Laeken summit two years ago, EU Heads of State and Government agreed to establish a Convention on the Future of Europe with a view to both improved institutions and a single constitutional treaty.
Indeed, ever since the 1957 treaty of Rome, Europe's decision-making processes and institutions have not kept pace with the expansion of the EU's borders: for Rome's framework was designed for the six founding countries and it has been struggling ever since to cope with the demands of nine, 12 and now 15 member states. Without reform, we would be likely to see bureaucratic gridlock at 25.
It is hard to overstate the significance of the enlargement of the EU that will come to fruition next year, which will be three times greater than any previous enlargement. EU membership will be a fitting reward for the courageous steps that eight former members of the eastern bloc have taken since the fall of the Berlin wall to embrace the values of liberal democracy. In addition, the EU will be joined by two nations—Cyprus and Malta—which have long, historical links to the UK and are members of the Commonwealth.
Enlargement has been supported by successive British Governments, partly out of a sense of obligation to help correct the injustices of the cold war, but also on a pragmatic assessment of our national interest. Eight years ago, one of my distinguished predecessors, Lord Hurd of Westwell, said:
"enlargement is not a luxury. It is a necessity if we are to build a safe and successful Europe for the 21st century."
It is also a necessity if we are to build a safe and successful Britain. With the necessary reforms of the European Union's institutions, enlargement will mean greater trade and investment opportunities for British companies and more jobs for British workers. It will give us more partners in the fight against the problems that cross borders, such as drug trafficking, environmental pollution, international terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
The EU's greatest achievement has been to help to secure an absence of war among its member states. Enlargement will extend that achievement and cement the values intrinsic to peace across the continent.
172
Our commitment to a successful enlargement lay behind the Government's positive approach to the Convention on the Future of Europe. From the outset of the Convention, we were clear about the purpose of the new constitutional treaty. We did not want to scrap the Union's existing constitutional foundation, but that is however contained in a plethora of documents, from the treaty of Rome to the treaty of Nice. What we wanted instead was a text that brought those treaties together in a single, more coherent whole. We also wanted a treaty that streamlined decision making to ensure that the Union was able to act effectively with 25 members, and we wanted reforms that would enable the Union to deal with the problems of today, rather than those of 50 years ago, and to ensure that the Union delivers for Europe's peoples.
The text that the Convention finally agreed in July largely meets those criteria and Britain's interests, as has been widely acknowledged elsewhere in Europe. The Convention, skilfully chaired by President Giscard d'Estaing, has produced a text that is clearer and more comprehensible, but does not alter the fundamental constitutional relationship between the member states and the Union. Let me express my gratitude to all Convention members, including our own governmental team, led by the Leader of the House, the parliamentary representatives from both Houses and staff of the House and the other place who did so much to support our parliamentary representatives.
What I have sought to do in the White Paper is to set enlargement and the new constitutional treaty in its proper context. So in section I of the White Paper, we set out the benefits of EU membership to Britain. Section II deals with changes that have taken place in Europe. Section III explains the process of both the Convention and the IGC, and section IV sets out the Government's assessment of the Convention's outcome.
Let me summarise our major conclusions. We welcome the fact that the draft brings a sense of order to the EU's hitherto byzantine constitutional structure. It consolidates the Union's existing treaties in a single, logically ordered text, which replaces the Maastricht treaty's elaborate three pillars with a single treaty structure. It streamlines the number of EU legal instruments. As someone who has studied the draft with care, I do not pretend that it is an easy read, but it is a lot better than the texts that have gone before.
The draft treaty provides for more accountable EU institutions, rooted in the legitimacy of its constituent parts—the nation states. For the first time, we have a clear definition of where the Union can and cannot act. The text makes it crystal clear, in article IX, that the EU's powers derive from the member states and that any power not explicitly conferred on the Union by the member states remains with the national Governments. That article then goes on to establish new procedures for giving national Parliaments an effective role in policing the Commission's legislative proposals.
Under the draft, contained in article III–160 and a protocol, all such proposals from the Commission have to be scrutinised by national Parliaments for proportionality and subsidiarity, and where the national Parliament objects, the Commission has to take back the proposal for review. That significantly strengthens the powers of national Parliaments. The House will wish

173
to know that the House of Lords European Union Committee, having examined the proposals in draft, concluded that
"it is clear that the balance of power in the European Union is going to shift from the Commission in favour of the Member States if the"
Convention's
"proposals … are adopted".
We believe that in its present form the text will deliver a more efficient European Union, which is essential to the success of an enlarged Union. It includes a key British proposal: the creation of a full-time chair of the European Council. This will too, in practice, shift authority from the Commission to national Governments. The post would bring greater continuity to the Union's actions and ensure that the agenda decided upon by member states in the European Council was delivered.
The White Paper spells out our position on the charter of fundamental rights. The Convention text makes it clear in article 11–51 that the charter
"does not extend the field of application of Union law beyond the powers of the Union or establish any new power or task for the Union, or modify powers and tasks defined in the other Parts of the Constitution."
It therefore does not give any new powers to the EU. Member states are affected only when implementing Union law. As for the future of the Convention, the Government will make a final decision on the incorporation of the charter into the draft constitutional treaty only in the light of the overall picture at the IGC.
Like most other member states, we have reservations about some aspects of the Convention's draft. There are elements in the text that the United Kingdom does not support. There are some areas where the Convention was unable to finalise its proposals, and others that require further technical and legal work.
In the IGC, we will not support proposals to extend the principle of qualified majority voting to certain key policy areas. We will insist that unanimity remains for treaty change and in other areas of vital national interest such as tax, social security, defence, key areas of criminal procedural law and the system of own resources. Unanimity must remain the general rule for common foreign and security policy, as proposed in the final Convention text. We will not sign up to any treaty that does not, in our view, advance Britain's national interest.
Other member states have their own concerns about the Convention's text. At the European summit in June, EU Heads of State and Governments said that the Convention's draft was a good basis for starting in the IGC, but that it would obviously be for the IGC to make the final decisions. At a meeting of EU Foreign Ministers last weekend, it was clear that many of my counterparts wanted to raise their reservations once the IGC negotiation was under way.
Let me deal with the question of a referendum. In practice, in the United Kingdom, we have held referendums when creating or joining a new institution, but not on reforming an existing institution of which we are already a member. So, it was right for there to be a referendum on whether to stay in or leave the EU, and that will be right on whether to replace the pound sterling with the euro. Equally, the previous
174
Government were right to resist referendums on the major constitutional treaty changes in the Single European Act 1986 and the 1992 Maastricht treaty. Moreover, the proposals in the current draft treaty do not change the fundamental relationship between the EU and its member states, and on any analysis they involve less change than the Maastricht treaty and the Single European Act. The Government have therefore concluded that the right place to decide on any outcome of the IGC is here in this House and this Parliament.
It is for that reason that we have sought to involve Parliament in the drafting and scrutiny of the process from the outset. Our delegation to the Convention gave regular progress reports to the specially constituted Standing Committee on the Convention. These have been invaluable and it goes without saying that we would welcome further proposals from both Houses and their Committees on the draft text and our negotiating position. Ministers have been held to account by the European Scrutiny Committee here and the European Union Committee in the other place. The European Scrutiny Committee has already produced three reports, and the House of Lords Committee has produced 14.
As I have already mentioned, I published the draft treaty articles in a Command Paper. Following consultations with, and proposals from, the European Scrutiny Committee, the House will wish to know that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House tabled a Standing Order today, which appears on the Order Paper, to establish a Standing Committee of this House on the IGC. This will be closely modelled on the Standing Committee on the Convention, except that it will hear statements and take questions from Ministers rather than House parliamentary representatives, as the Standing Committee did when the Convention was operating.
Following a very helpful proposal from my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), we are supplementing the parliamentary processes on the IGC with an online public debate. My Department has opened an internet discussion forum—[Interruption.] Well, at Question Time there was concern that we should make such issues more accessible and members of the public will be given an opportunity to express their views on the draft treaty.
It would be rash to predict the ultimate outcome of the IGC. There will inevitably be many twists and turns in a negotiation between 25 countries. Neither am making any assumptions about the IGC's duration. What matters is that we secure the right text for the United Kingdom and for the EU as a whole. Securing that outcome flows not from seeking isolation within the European Union but from active and positive engagement. There is no need to approach this IGC with the defeatism of the kind that we sometimes hear. We approach it instead with a confident sense that Britain's rightful role is to play an active part in shaping the future of Europe in the interests of the British people. That has been the hallmark of the Government's policy on the European Union since 1997. By working with our European partners, we are ensuring that our vision of Europe—a vision of nation states, proud of their heritage and distinctiveness, working together for the greater peace and prosperity of the continent—guides Europe's future.

175
Britain's membership of the European Union is vital for our continued prosperity. To turn our backs on the Union at this historic time of an enlarged Europe would not only betray our national interest but mark a profound lack of confidence in Britain and everything we stand for. I commend the White Paper to the House.
Mr. Michael Ancram: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and start on a note of consensus by endorsing his welcome of enlargement. I have to say, however, that if this morning's process is part of his promised consultation, two hours to digest more than 50 pages of closely argued text is a travesty.
The White Paper is pretty typical of this Government: another dossier with another prime ministerial foreword containing inaccurate statements. In particular, the Prime Minister writes—it was echoed by the Foreign Secretary in his statement—that the proposed treaty reforms
"do not alter the fundamental constitutional relationship between the Member States and the Union".
Who do they think they are kidding? That phrase will return to haunt them. No one in Europe believes the tidying-up streamlining argument that we just heard. They see the treaty as a step change along the route to full political union. This dossier is another chapter in the Government's campaign to use smoke and mirrors to hide their true intentions towards Europe.
The White Paper was originally billed as the bold negotiating stance that the Government would adopt at the IGC. Instead we find that it is a timid attempt to soften us up for eventual acceptance of the draft text pretty well as it stands. That fits with the expectation of other European leaders that the text is unlikely to be changed. The right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) used to tell us about red lines that would not be crossed, the implication being that the Government would veto the treaty if they were crossed. The words "red lines" are nowhere to be found in the dossier. Instead we learn that the Government will "insist" on certain areas that the Foreign Secretary set out in his statement.
What does that insistence mean? If the Government's insistence in all or part fails, will they veto the treaty? We have a right to understand what the change of language means. If they will not veto the treaty, their insistence will, as I suspect, prove pretty meaningless. Anyway, most of the areas of so-called insistence are on issues that are already pretty well conceded, although I am sure that in due course they will be publicly spun by the Government as significant victories.
The Foreign Secretary has previously talked about constructively improving the treaty, and he has also told us again today that he believes in a Europe of nation states. The current draft treaty proposes something very different, namely a distinct political entity with all the key elements of a state, and no amount of prime ministerial bluster can disguise that fact. If the Foreign Secretary means what he says, there should be many more areas of insistence to achieve that goal of a Europe of nation states.
The Foreign Secretary should insist on opposing the legally binding and enforceable charter of fundamental rights, as the Government promised to do last year,
176
instead of suggesting, as the White Paper does, that it will be left until the end of the IGC to decide what the Government's position will be. We all know what that means. He should insist on removing the explicit primacy of EU law enshrined in a constitution that fundamentally overrides our sovereignty. He should insist on deleting the proposed five-year presidency, which strikes at the heart of the whole concept of intergovernmentalism and marginalises smaller countries.
The Foreign Secretary should insist on striking out the proposal for a European diplomatic service, which is by definition the tool of a state. He should insist on preventing creeping integration by way of the so-called escalator clauses. He should insist on the principle that subsidiarity and proportionality should be enforceable by national Parliaments. Above all, he should insist that a written constitution is not only, as the Prime Minister told us two years ago, unnecessary, but totally inimical to the interests of the United Kingdom and should be scrapped. Such insistences would be proof of the Government's sincerity when they claim to be against the establishment of a European state. but none of them has been made.
What has happened to those other changes demanded in former amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Neath? What has happened to the amendment to article III–162 on asylum, which he described in the amendment as fundamentally important? What has happened to the description of the proposal to create a EU Foreign Minister as unacceptable? If the Government have already backed down on those, as I believe they have, it does not augur well for any of their other areas of insistence.
This IGC is an unparalleled chance for the Government to act genuinely on behalf of the British people by fighting integration and resisting the onset of a European state. It is a vital opportunity to put forward a positive alternative vision of a new Europe, a genuine partnership of sovereign nations, as Conservative Members have been doing in recent months. [Interruption.] The White Paper tragically fails to do that, and for all Labour Members' laughter, its clear intention is to soften up the British people for the adoption of the constitution and the treaty as they stand, in a cynical exercise that shows yet again why the Government can no longer be trusted.
This is not so much a White Paper as a white flag, and the Government's docile surrender to the concept of a politically united Europe is a betrayal of trust. They can respond to that charge by letting the people decide who is telling the truth and who is speaking for Britain. A significant number of other European countries will be honest enough to trust their people on this issue in referendums. Why are our Government so frightened of trusting the people?
Whatever the spin, the changes proposed in the draft treaty are fundamental and constitutional. No Government have the right to agree them without the consent of the people. If they want to regain some of the trust that they have recently lost, they should start by trusting the people in a referendum.
Mr. Straw: I was hoping that we might have some forensic comments from the right hon. Gentleman. He

177
complains that he has had two hours to read the document, but I have to say that that is far longer than I used to get when I was in opposition. He has also had two months to read the full Convention text, and it is evident that he has not done so. He sought to create a fantasy of a European superstate, a piece of confection, and then to knock it down.
The right hon. Gentleman ought to be reading the text in the Command Paper, which is very clear, and, as I said, I published that not two hours but two months ago. Article I–9 in that document is very clear, and in terms of defending the interests of nation states, it is a far better text than that which the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues secured in Maastricht. The article makes it clear that the member states confer competences on the Union, not the other way round. Any competences not conferred on the Union remain with the member states.
The right hon. Gentleman says that the process is creating a European Union. I have to point out to him that that was created by the Maastricht treaty. That was part of the argument. He says that, outrageously, this process proposes to make European law superior to the law of the United Kingdom Parliaments and those of the other 24 member states. He is right to say that, but he forgot to say that that has been the central part of our law relating to the EU for 31 years.
Mr. Ancram: You are missing the point.
Mr. Straw: I do not think that I have missed the point at all. Thirty years ago, the argument about whether we should join the European Union turned critically on whether the House and the country were willing to accept that where the EU agreed legal changes, they had primacy over the law of this Parliament. What the House decided then, and what the country decided by referendum in 1975, was that European law would indeed have primacy over UK law in order that we were able to share the benefits of EU membership. That was the bargain that was struck, and nothing in this treaty changes the nature of that bargain.
The right hon. Gentleman then went on about subsidiarity and enforceability. His colleagues in the House of Lords looked at the draft proposal on subsidiarity, and they, not me, complimented that proposal, which is now in the text of the Union, saying that it would shift the balance of power
"from the Commission in favour of the Member States if the proposals … are adopted".
Obviously the right hon. Gentleman has not read that report or looked at the names of the members of that Committee, but I can tell him that it has five Conservative members, including a distinguished former Chief Whip of this House, Michael Jopling, and someone who is not known for his fantastic enthusiasm for all aspects of the EU, Norman Lamont. At least he had the good grace to recognise that, as the Committee said, this does represent a shift in the balance of power from the Commission to nation states.
I appreciate the difficulties faced by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). Here is a man who, in developing his political career, was strongly in favour of the EU. Many of us in the House will remember the dark days of the Conservative party, when, in 1992 and
178
1993, it was writing an extremely long suicide note. The right hon. Gentleman, along with 12 other members of the current shadow Cabinet, argued passionately against a referendum on Maastricht. He also argued in favour of what was in the Maastricht treaty. In those days, he was even willing—as I am not, and nor are my Government or my party—to contemplate being a member of a European superstate.
I ask the House to listen carefully to the right hon. Gentleman's words because they are confusing at first blush. He said:
"I said at the beginning that I did not want to be part of a European superstate. Equally, I do not want to find myself in a country that is outside a European superstate".—[Official Report, 4 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 343.]
That was perhaps a less eloquent part of his speech, but overall he was endorsing Maastricht.
In this White Paper we have set out in detail not only what is proposed in the Convention but what was decided at Maastricht, and I invite the right hon. Gentleman to refresh his memory of Maastricht. It changed the European Community to the European Union and extended the EU's competence to a number of new policy areas, including economic and monetary policy, social policy, education, vocational training and youth, culture, public health, consumer protection, trans-European networks, industry and development. It introduced the co-decision for the European Parliament, a fundamental change in the running of the EU, and extended or introduced qualified majority voting to 30 policy areas. I repeat that on any analysis the Maastricht treaty involved a greater and more significant change to the way in which the Union operates than does that which is before us.
Lastly, the right hon. Gentleman said that the set of proposals was inimical to the interests of the European Union and should be scrapped. I look forward to hearing from him what his position and that of his party is in respect of the EU. Are they manoeuvring themselves, as many members of the Opposition Front-Bench team are, including the Leader of the Opposition, to a position where they are proposing to leave the EU and to disengage altogether?
I do not pretend that the EU is perfect—far from it. However, after 37 years of experience, I believe that we are better in it than out of it. We are better making the best of it for Britain in it than out of it. I know that the body that is totally inimical to the interests of Britain is the Conservative party.
Mr. Jimmy Hood: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. I welcome also what I hope was an open-ended commitment by the Government to parliamentary scrutiny, be it in the Chamber, in Select Committees or in the Standing Committee on the Inter-Governmental Conference, which he reported to the House today. The European Scrutiny Committee is looking forward to my right hon. Friend giving evidence to us tomorrow on his White Paper, and I look forward to welcoming him.
I offer one word of caution, and it refers to the Standing Committee on the treaty. Will my right hon. Friend have a word with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House about consulting colleagues who

179
were members of the Standing Committee to learn from the lessons that clearly helped to improve the scrutiny of the Convention? I am sure that those lessons will serve the House well if we consult before the Standing Committee is set up.
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said. I have always believed in open-ended scrutiny of Ministers. I look forward to submitting myself to that process, including before my hon. Friend's Committee tomorrow.
Scrutiny will need to take place at three sets of levels. One of those levels should be Select Committees, including the one that my hon. Friend chairs. In some specific areas, I do not doubt that subject departmental Select Committees will wish to be involved in examining carefully how various drafts of the text are likely to operate. I anticipate that that will be the case especially in relation to foreign policy and defence. Secondly, there should be scrutiny on the Floor of the House, and thirdly in Standing Committee As I was not a parliamentary representative on the Convention, I obviously did not attend Standing Committee. However, I understand the point that my hon. Friend is making. I accept the need to consult him and his colleagues and, indeed, Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Committee and yourself, to ensure that the process operates effectively.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Foreign Secretary was right to shake us out of our domestic introspection by reminding us of the significance of enlargement and the consequences for those countries that have thrown off the yoke of communism and embraced liberal democracy. It is right that we should remember that when we consider the detail as far as it affects ourselves.
I had no difficulty reading the 60 pages in the time allotted. If I have a criticism of the White Paper, it is that it does not contain much that I have not heard before. Of the 60 pages, only 12 were devoted to the Government's opinion of the Convention text. May we take it that elsewhere will we see a detailed critique by the Government of the terms of the text?
I agree about the areas that are sometimes described as red lines—for example, tax, social security, defence and own resources. I agree that they should remain the exclusive responsibility of the House. They are a necessary part of the sovereignty of the Parliament to which we are elected.
As for the charter of fundamental rights, paragraph 103 reads:
"The Government will make a final decision on incorporation of the Charter into the draft Constitutional Treaty only in the light of the overall picture at the IGC."
That may not be byzantine, but it is certainly delphic. Do the Government have as a reserve position the vetoing of the whole process if they are not satisfied with the outcome of their negotiations in relation to the charter of fundamental rights?
Why is it that the Government set themselves so implacably against the idea of a referendum on a treaty that in my judgment raises constitutional implications,
180
not least in relation to the charter of fundamental rights? Surely a Government confident of their own position would be comfortable in seeking the endorsement of the people of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Straw: On that last point, it is not a question of being comfortable. I am very comfortable with the position that I and the Government have adopted. It is about what is appropriate. I have already said that in this country we have had, and will have in future, referendums when we are joining or, in one case, voting to leave an institution. In a European Union context, it was right to have a referendum in 1975. We should have had one in 1972 or 1973 as we were joining but, as I said, we had one in 1975. It is obviously right that when faced with a new economic institutional proposal—that of whether to join the euro or not—there should be a referendum on the issue.
The House needs to have some confidence in its own judgments. We have dealt with European Union constitutional treaties—my party has taken a consistent view on them, and I think that even the right hon. and learned Gentleman's party has in the past—by the parliamentary process. I believe that that is the appropriate way forward.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that the White Paper does not contain much that we have not heard before. I take it as a compliment that we have at least been consistent in the negotiating approach that we have adopted.
Mr. John Bercow: Consistently wrong.
Mr. Straw: Consistently right. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) will catch your eye later, Mr. Speaker.
As the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) will recall, there were four occasions before the summer break when we discussed these matters in great detail. Further detail will be provided about our negotiating position, not least in cross-examination by various Select Committees. I am glad that he endorses our position on the red lines.
There is nothing particularly delphic about paragraph 103. Given the nature of the charter of fundamental rights, we must ensure that the text properly protects what we want it to protect. We will not be able to make the final judgment on that until we have seen the rest of the text. In other words—the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me about the veto—nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
Mr. George Stevenson: There is much in the Government's approach to the IGC and the Convention that I want to support. However, there is an equal number of issues that I have serious concerns about. The weakest arguments that I find in the Government's approach are those that are deployed against having a referendum. The White Paper is clear that the Convention and the IGC will affect the lives of every man, woman and child in this country and will impact on the way in which we govern ourselves. In these circumstances, and given the fact that many other member states have decided to hold referendums, why

181
are the Government so insistent that the people of this country should not be consulted on the way in which they are governed?
Mr. Straw: It is a question of judgment whether the changes in the draft, if they were agreed, would fundamentally change the nature of the relationship between this Parliament, this country and the European Union, and I do not believe that they would. In the White Paper, we have not used the language that he suggested about how the changes will fundamentally affect the lives of people in the United Kingdom.
It is certainly true that an enlarged Union will fundamentally affect people's lives here, and that is why all parties in the House have been committed to it. 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, but it is not that there is a different level in terms of the relationship between member states and the European Union and between Nice and what is now proposed, except that under these proposals the European Council Heads of Government will in practice gain more authority with a small "a" because they will have a full-time president who will be able better to match the European Commission. In addition, we have the important proposals in respect of subsidiarity.
Mr. William Hague: Does the Foreign Secretary recognise that, by holding a large number of referendums over the past six years, the Government have already changed the constitution of this country? Would not other countries have taken more seriously some of the positions that he has now had to abandon if the Government took more seriously the views of the people of this country and were prepared to hold a referendum? Given that the Prime Minister has instead called for parliamentary scrutiny of the treaty—a statement in itself sufficiently remarkable from the Prime Minister that it betrays the absence of other arguments—will the Foreign Secretary commit himself to that treaty being scrutinised clause by clause on the Floor of the House by all right hon. and hon. Members?
Mr. Straw: The question of the scrutiny of any treaty proposals will proceed in the normal way and, of course, constitutional matters will be considered in the way that applies to any European Union treaty. I am not going to anticipate the precise nature of the arrangements for that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] The House knows that, but I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is committed to proper and effective parliamentary scrutiny.
We put our approach to the intergovernmental conference to the British people at the last election. We said in our manifesto:
"Labour wants the next Inter-governmental Conference in 2004"—
Mr. William Cash: The manifesto did not say what the constitution would contain.
Mr. Straw: I am sorry, but with great respect, the shadow Attorney-General, unusually for him—he gets
182
things wrong, but he at least reads the text unlike his right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary—is saying that we never mentioned it. I am quoting directly from the Labour manifesto, a document branded on the hearts of all Conservatives because of the historic defeat that it produced. It said:
"Labour wants the next Inter-governmental Conference in 2004 to address public concerns about the way the EU works, spelling out in a clear statement of principles what should and should not be done at European level. Labour supports a stronger role for national parliaments in European affairs."
We have delivered that, and there was no suggestion—we knew that the IGC was coming—in our manifesto that we would go for a referendum, and we all know what the result was.
May I tell the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) that in other countries the view is that Britain did very well in respect of the negotiations? Le Monde said:
"The British government is pleased with the Convention and has every right to be so. The text meets virtually all its expectations and allays most of its fears".
Robert Badinter, one of the leading French constitutional experts said that, as a result of the way in which we operated, the constitution for the Europe of the 25 could now be dubbed "la britannique". It may also be helpful to know that when the text was becoming clear, one of the leading federalists, Giuliano Amato, was so sad that he said:
"I want to kill myself".
Mr. Bercow: Is that intellectually conclusive?
Mr. Straw: No, it is just suggestive of the fact that we did rather well in the Convention, and we hope to do even better in the IGC.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: May I appeal to the House for brief questions and, along with that, brief answers?
Kate Hoey: May I urge my right hon. Friend to look again at the question of a referendum? I cannot believe that, deep down, he believes that the changes that the new constitution will bring about are not worthy of a referendum. Like me, he supported a referendum on Maastricht. A referendum would give us a stronger negotiating position and would mean that, if the people of this country wanted to be committed to the European Union, they would feel that they had the right to support it.
Mr. Straw: On a point of fact, I did not support a referendum on Maastricht. The record shows that I was against it and voted against a referendum. On the wider issues raised by my hon. Friend, I have already explained the Government's position. I urge colleagues on both sides of the House to look carefully at the text and the White Paper so that they can say where in the text, taken as a whole, there is a fundamental change in the wrong way in the nature of the relationship between member states and the European Union. I frankly think that they will find that very difficult.
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Why are the Government spinning the fantastic distortion that they

183
have achieved most of their aims already except for a handful of issues that are still to be decided? Will the Foreign Secretary confirm to the House that, in the European Convention, the Government tabled over 200 amendments to the draft constitution? I have the list here. Only 11 were accepted, so what has happened the other 189 issues which the Government opposed? Why has the White Paper downgraded or, in most cases, dropped entirely any reference to all those other issues to which the Government objected? Will the Government drop this absurd strategy of fastening on a handful of red line issues on which they think that they can claim victory, ignoring all the other objections that they made in the Convention and which they are now carefully forgetting?
Mr. Straw: We are not forgetting other changes.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: They are not in the White Paper.
Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman is making an error in insinuating that the draft from the Convention is the final word—it is not.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The objections are not in the White Paper.
Mr. Straw: I am talking about the draft produced by the Convention. The Heads of Government at Thessaloniki said that it was a good basis for starting the negotiations. I am not going to anticipate what will happen at the IGC, but a great many amendments will be submitted by many member states. As for the right hon. Gentleman's arithmetic—I shall come back to him if am proved wrong—what often happens in negotiations is that one member state submits language and another member state submits similar language. He will remember—improbably, he was Minister for Europe—that, in the end, as a result of negotiation, language is agreed that is not necessarily the same as that originally submitted, but which is acceptable. I said in my opening statement that there are other areas, which, I am sure, were covered by some of those 200 amendments, that require technical improvements. There are other issues, too, that we intend to raise in the negotiations.
Ms Gisela Stuart: The Foreign Secretary helpfully said that one area on which the Government will insist on unanimity is future treaty changes. In that context, can he help me with what seems to be more than just a linguistic inconsistency? The Command Paper talks about the draft constitution treaty for the European Union and a clear treaty structure. The document that the Convention handed over to the Heads of Government at Thessaloniki referred to a
"draft treaty establishing a constitution for Europe".
Most of the people who wrote that—I am not one of them—were quite clear that they wished to move away from the treaty structure and establish an independent constitutional structure, which would mean that there
184
would be no future treaty ratifications. If the Government are committed to treaties, what will they do to ensure that a treaty structure remains?
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend makes an important point. This is, in our judgement, a draft constitutional treaty and I have just spotted the fact that that is included on the cover, as provided by the European Convention to which my hon. Friend referred. We are clear that the basis of the European Union must be a treaty basis, and that is why I have spelt out today the fact that we have to keep the veto and proper processes for any treaty changes.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: Just before he rose to speak, the Foreign Secretary heard the Deputy Leader of the House assert the sovereignty of the House. That is only meaningful in the democratic age, as Winston Churchill said, as a shorthand for the sovereignty of the people. The Foreign Secretary prayed in aid a referendum that took place over a quarter of a century ago on a very different proposition from that facing the British people and the House today. It is not good enough, and everyone knows that it is not. Maastricht purported to establish things that were irrevocable and irreversible, and they will be included in the constitution. It is therefore imperative that the sovereign people of this country should have the right to judge whether the measures that have been taken in their name in recent years are what they want.
Mr. Straw: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point. I was praying in aid the distinction between a referendum on whether to join or leave the European Union and the proposition for a referendum on a constitutional treaty such as this, and saying what that distinction was. In arguing against a referendum, I was praying in aid the precedent of the previous Government—I know that he did not agree with it, but most members of the then shadow Cabinet did so—in deciding against holding a referendum either on the Single European Act 1986, which made profound changes and introduced qualified majority voting, or on Maastricht. I happen to think that that was the right approach and I am surprised that, without any good basis at all, some Opposition Front Benchers have now changed their minds.
Donald Anderson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the vision set out eloquently by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) is shared by no other country, whether by an existing or accession member of the Union, and that the logic of his shopping list is therefore that of withdrawal?
In terms of parliamentary accountability, especially for common foreign and security policy and European security and defence policy, what mechanism would my right hon. Friend devise to ensure such accountability beyond Select Committees, the Floor of this House and the new Committee, at an all-European level, including both national Parliaments and the European Parliament? Finally, as the accession of 10 new countries is such a grand thing to celebrate, how does he propose that we in Britain celebrate enlargement next May?
Mr. Straw: My right hon. Friend referred to a vision, but I would say that the right hon. Member for Devizes

185
(Mr. Ancram) has a fantasy about Europe that is not shared by any other country. Indeed, were the Conservatives suddenly to find themselves in government, they would betray Britain's interest and undermine the basis of its prosperity with their current approach. The simple truth of the matter is that the strategy set out by the leader of the Conservative party is, step by step, to put the United Kingdom in a position in which it has to leave the European Union. Indeed, that is what he has often talked about.
My right hon. Friend made some points about common foreign and security policy—
Donald Anderson: At an all-Europe level.
Mr. Straw: That would be done in part by the European Parliament. However, let us be clear that we in the United Kingdom are against any Communitisation of the CFSP and therefore against the European Parliament, which represents voters around Europe but not nation states, having a formal role in the settling of common foreign and security policy.
Mr. Robert Walter: In 1975, at the time of the last referendum, we had already been a member of the European Union for two and a half years. The question put to the British people was whether they approved of Harold Wilson's renegotiation. The consequences of their not approving would have been that we either left or sought some other arrangement. The consequences of a no vote in a referendum on this constitution would be very similar, so I do not believe that the constitutional position is any different. However, I do not want the Foreign Secretary to re-rehearse his arguments for or against a referendum. I want him to tell the House whether he believes that, if the Government are successful at the IGC, the British people will support continued membership under the new constitution. If he does, why does he not feel that that could be legitimised by the British people voting in a referendum?
Mr. Straw: I am quite clear that the British people support membership of the European Union. Of course, they also have criticisms of the way in which it operates, as do I, but what they want is a Government who stand up for Britain's interests and get the best deal for Britain in terms of prosperity, and also help to secure the peace across Europe.
Mr. Bill Tynan: There are many on both sides of the House who oppose our involvement in Europe or have done so for many years, and their position has not changed. However, I welcome the White Paper, as I believe that it is an opportunity to discuss in detail the effects of what has emanated from the European Convention. In the light of the low turnout of 59 per cent. in the previous general election, what level of participation would my right hon. Friend expect in a referendum in this country on the Convention?
Mr. Straw: I am sorry to say to my hon. Friend that I have no idea about his last point, as it is a hypothesis on a hypothesis. I am grateful for his welcome of the White Paper as an opportunity for Parliament to do its proper
186
job in scrutiny. I find it odd that Opposition Members seem to lack confidence in their ability effectively to scrutinise what the Government are doing.
Angus Robertson: The Foreign Secretary will be aware that there is consternation in fishing communities in Scotland about the treatment of fishing policy in the draft constitution. He will also be aware of the views of the European Scrutiny Committee, which is concerned about the prospect of exclusive EU competence in the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy. Why then did he make no mention of fisheries policy in his statement or in the whole paper? Is it because like the Heath Government, he views fishing as expendable, or as the irrelevance that the current Government treat it as?
Mr. Straw: It is neither. We happen to think that fishing is extremely important, and I know of its importance, particularly to Scottish communities.
Angus Robertson: Why is it not included?
Mr. Straw: The reason why it is not included—this has been the subject of correspondence between his party and me—is that the key competencies from which restrictions on fishing arise are already exclusive.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, since 1 January 1973, the Common Market and the European Union have not been one great big happy family, as has been evidenced by recent events over Iraq as well? Does he also agree that there has been a loss of manufacturing jobs since 1 January 1973, despite the fact that the great visionaries of the Common Market said that that would not happen? What guarantees can he give us that, in this wonderful new 25-member group, loss of manufacturing jobs will be stemmed? How much more will we be paying on the common agricultural policy as a result of the inclusion of a further 10 members?
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is, as ever, correct in saying that the European Union has not been one great big happy family since 1973 or even since a more recent date. Whatever the arguments were—I remember them well—about whether we should join the European Union or stay in in 1975, the truth is that it would not be in Britain's economic interest for us to leave the European Union or damage our national interest in it. I am quite clear that unemployment would be higher. There is a separate issue about manufacturing that is not directly related to our membership of the European Union. Overall, we and British work people stand to benefit greatly by the enlargement of the European Union.
Malcolm Bruce: Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that, in many ways, the protection of British interests about which hon. Members are concerned is best guaranteed by enlargement itself? Will he accept from me that it is welcome that the 10 applicant members will be full participating members of the IGC, but ensure that, having not been part of the negotiations, they will have the right to have their

187
concerns considered? Many of them say that they did not escape from the Soviet Union and acquire their new independence merely to give it up. It is absurd to think that they are signing up in referendums to accession with such enthusiasm in anything other than the belief that their independence is being enhanced.
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the position of the accession states. They are proud of their sovereignty and are not going to give it up. That also applies to the other member states. Whatever the question of their involvement in the Convention, those 10 accession countries are now participating on equal terms with European Union Foreign Ministers and will participate on equal terms in the IGC. Under the decisions made at Thessaloniki and Copenhagen, they have the same rights of veto over the final text as any other member state.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I assume that Her Majesty's Government are not supporting a referendum because the history of referendums on Europe is that if Governments do not get the right answer they keep on having them until they do.
Since health is not one of the areas that is protected by a veto in the document, will the Foreign Secretary confirm in good faith that if the national health service is told that it must agree to a system of patient payment, Her Majesty's Government will not only oppose, but not accept, such instructions?
Mr. Straw: Yes.
Mr. Boris Johnson: Given that the Government are obviously going to be too cowardly to hold a referendum to consult the British people on this new constitution for Britain and Europe, will the Foreign Secretary at least undertake to abide by the result of an independent referendum, conducted with the co-operation of the Electoral Reform Society and with cross-party support, in which every elector is consulted? Would he accept that result?
Mr. Straw: No, especially if it is to be run by The Spectator.

Skin Piercing
1.31 pm
Ms Gisela Stuart: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for cosmetic body piercing and micropigmentation; and for connected purposes.
Local authorities currently have the power to regulate any place that performs ear-piercing, tattooing, acupuncture and electrolysis. In recent years, however, a growing number of young people—I confess that I am not one of them—have had various parts of their bodies pierced, and new forms of permanent and semipermanent tattoos have become popular. I do not share their enthusiasm, but, as my constituency has large numbers of students, I know that such things can become incredibly popular. All such cosmetic procedures involve needles—which, however fine they may be, pierce the skin—and, in the case of semi-permanent tattoos, dyes. Piercing the skin leads to the risk of infections and their transmission. The potential health risks if equipment is not properly sterilised and hygiene is not respected range from the serious, such as the transmission of HIV, hepatitis B and blood poisoning, to the less serious, such as septic injuries and inflammations.
It is surprising that current legislation does not cover some of the more fashionable and recently introduced body piercing and cosmetic procedures. Ear-piercing is covered, but other parts of the body are not. Similarly, the traditional form of tattooing is covered, but the semi-permanent forms are not. London has had the power to regulate all such establishments since 1991. I wish that power to be extended to all local authorities in England and Wales. Ensuring that all establishments are registered and observe the byelaws and standards of cleanliness would contribute to public health, consumer protection and, in extreme cases, save lives.
In February, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn)—she is sorry that she cannot be in the Chamber today, as she is away on parliamentary business—secured an Adjournment debate in which she described the tragic case of one of her constituents, Daniel Hindle, a healthy, active teenager with a passion for music. Daniel and his girlfriend went to an establishment in Sheffield, doing what many teenagers do. His girlfriend had her eyebrows pierced and he had his lip pierced. Daniel had been born with a heart defect, but as he had had a healthy and active life he did not think that by having his lip pierced he would risk his health. No one drew attention to any risks, so he went ahead. A few days later, he became ill and was admitted to hospital. He was infected with septicaemia—blood poisoning—which attacked all his major organs and left him so weakened that he could not fight the infection. A few days later, he died.
There is no suggestion that the studio in Sheffield did anything wrong within the current law. It did not warn him because it had no duty to do so. There was a voluntary code, but there were no regulations. The Bill would change that. Voluntary codes of practice, which are used in some areas, are helpful, but they should be put on to a statutory footing. All local authorities need

189
to have the power of regulation that is available in London, so that establishments that perform all forms of body piercing will issue the appropriate warnings and provide the appropriate safe environment.
This is not a trivial matter. Fortunately, tragic cases like Daniel's are rare, but complications with less dramatic outcomes are numerous. In the past year, more than 95 per cent. of GPs in Greater Manchester treated complications caused by body piercing, and in 2001, incidences of damage to the ear in England and Wales increased by almost 2,000.
As I considered the matter more closely, another aspect came to my attention—henna tattoos. Fortunately, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), who has responsibility for public health, is sitting on the Front Bench, so I hope that she will take note of this. Many families who go on holiday to islands such as Tenerife and Cyprus find numerous stores that offer henna tattoos to children. Because there is no piercing of the skin and henna is a natural dye it is assumed that it carries no risk, but a black dye containing a chemical called paraphenylenediamine— PPD—has caused many cases of allergic reaction. For example, two brothers from Birmingham—one was eight, the other was 10—went at the same time to have a body tattoo in Tenerife. When young Kalum Beckford got home he had developed a tremendous infection as a result of his tattoo and is scarred for life—the Bart Simpson tattoo on his arm will never disappear. His brother, however, suffered no adverse effects. Jade Yates, a child from Staffordshire, will be scarred for life by a henna tattoo.
The Department of Health already issues guidance to those travelling abroad advising them to be careful about any procedures involving needles. It should also draw attention to the problem of henna tattoos for small children. All the cases that I have come across involve children under the age of 10. It is unclear what causes the allergic reaction; it may simply be their youth. I recognise that henna tattoos are strictly outside the scope of my Bill, but I wish to put the matter on record.
The gist and the essence of the Bill that I wish to introduce is that local authorities across England and Wales should be extended the powers that London already has to regulate all establishments that perform any kind of tattooing, whether permanent or semi-permanent, and any body piercing, whether to the ear or any other part. That would be a contribution to public safety and health. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms Gisela Stuart, Ms Meg Munn, Richard Burden, Mr. Philip Hammond, Dr. Evan Harris and Ms Ann Coffey.

Skin Piercing
  SKIN PIERCING
  Ms Gisela Stuart accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for cosmetic body piercing and micropigmentation; and for connected purposes And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 November, and to be printed [Bill 155].
Opposition Day
[15TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Military Situation in Iraq
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): We now come to the first debate on the Opposition motions. Mr. Speaker has not selected the amendment.
  1.39 pm
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of the military situation in Iraq.
  The motion is not designed to divide the House. It is a sad fact that the debate has been made necessary by a combination of the reluctance of the Secretary of State for Defence to make a proper oral statement to the House yesterday about the military situation in Iraq—[Interruption.] We received a pretty strong impression that the Government would try to shelter the Secretary of State by whichever means they could. The debate is also rendered necessary by the fact that post-conflict occupation of Iraq is proving a very different experience from what was anticipated.
  First, nothing should detract from the huge achievement of the British, American and other coalition forces earlier this year. American and British forces achieved their military objectives with extraordinarily few civilian casualties. In particular, the painstaking way in which 7th Armoured Brigade and 16th Air Assault Brigade took Basra and the surrounding towns will go down as a new textbook standard for how to fight a 21st-century war. We remain in no doubt about the prize that the military victory represents for freedom, regional and global security in the long term and, most immediately, the long-oppressed people of Iraq.
  We do not resile from the achievements of our armed forces or our support for the decision to go to war. We should not dismiss what has been achieved since the end of the combat phase. The leader who possessed and used weapons of mass destruction, never abandoned the ambition to obtain chemical, biological and nuclear capabilities and defied the United Nations to the end in his attempt to achieve his objectives, is gone. With the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime, Iraq is no longer a state sponsor of terror. Many key figures in his evil regime have been tracked down, killed or captured, including his two notorious sons.
  We should welcome and acknowledge that, throughout Iraq, 37,000 Iraqi police have been trained or retrained and are now taking on their proper role. A new Iraqi army is being recruited, trained and equipped and will progressively take on at least a share of the security role. Thousands of tonnes of arms and ammunition have been seized throughout Iraq and destroyed.
  Politically, a 25-member national governing council has been established and will create a preparatory commission to write a constitution. There are municipal councils in all major cities and 85 per cent. of towns, thus enabling Iraqis to take responsibility for managing local affairs.

  191
  That precious progress should confirm to anybody who cares about fundamental human rights that the terrible price of even the limited war was worth it. Moreover, there can be no going back.
  Llew Smith: On the price of the war, how many Iraqi civilians were killed or injured as a result of it or its aftermath?
  Mr. Jenkin: The number of Iraqi civilians who were killed during the conflict is a tiny proportion of Iraqis and other civilians who were killed by Saddam Hussein during his reign of terror. That should occupy the hon. Gentleman, who has a record of speaking up for human rights in the House.
  There can be no going back.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: In answer to the question of the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith), I believe that the generally acknowledged figure is more than 6,000.
  I do not want to interrupt the flow of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), since he is trying to support and oppose the Government at the same time. However, he said that things had not turned out as expected—expected by whom?
  Mr. Jenkin: I shall deal with that later. It should be possible to criticise some Government actions and support others. People would have more respect for politics in this country if it were more constructive than destructive.
  As one of the occupying powers, the United Kingdom has a moral and legal obligation to see through the political, social and physical reconstruction of Iraq. In the British sector, progress is due almost entirely to the extraordinary dedication of our armed forces on the ground. When I visited 7th Brigade headquarters in May, soldiers were not simply providing security but restoring utilities and public services, providing medical assistance, restoring local health care facilities and helping local people to reopen schools, community centres and even local newspapers. They were rationing fuel, taking food and potable water to where it was needed, running the railway system from Basra to Umm Qasr and even the banking system. The latter involved a daily decision by the responsible officer about the way in which to control the quantity of money in circulation to prevent inflation.
  However, there are clear limits to the amount that soldiers can be expected to achieve. In May, our officers on the ground were asking, "Where is the Department for International Development?" When my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary visited at the end of July, they were asking the same question. Precious little genuine construction has been taking place.
  My right hon. Friend has also tabled a written question asking how many contracts have been let and are in progress. If the Secretary of State for Defence can provide an answer today, I am sure that it will be illuminating. Lack of tangible improvements in living conditions in Iraq is increasing Iraqi frustration with and cynicism about the coalition, and creating ever more challenges for our armed forces.
  192
  British commanders warned in May and July that remnants of the ousted regime, backed by terrorists from outside Iraq, would become an increasing threat. According to some reports, hundreds if not thousands of insurgents from Saddam Hussein's former Government have organised into cells, especially in the Sunni-dominated areas in and around Baghdad. The nature of their resistance is clouded by the presence of hundreds of criminals freed from Iraqi jails just before the war and as many as 1,000 foreign fighters, mainly Islamic militants, who have filtered into Iraq from Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Jordan. Some are suspected of direct ties to al—Qaeda. They have been getting better organised and play on the widening disillusion among ordinary Iraqis.
  Why did Ministers apparently ignore those warnings? What intelligence existed before the conflict to show that armed opposition would become a problem afterwards? We have had to accept the terrible news of further British casualties, and I am sure that all Members want to pay tribute to our servicemen who have been killed in the course of their duties and extend our deepest sympathy to their families and friends.
  The Government are sending reinforcements when our armed forces are already overstretched and trying to recover their readiness for future military operations. Although increased military capability is clearly necessary to deal with the increased terrorist threat and the continuing burden of so many civilian tasks on our soldiers in Iraq, the reinforcement underlines the fact that the post-conflict plans, if they existed, have gone wrong.
  Before the conflict—I quote my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary—we made clear what had to happen before any military action
  "We need to hear from the Government that there is a blueprint—that there are plans and resources—so that a democratic, prosperous and renewed Iraq can quickly enter the family of nations and the global economy."—[Official Report, 24 September 2002 Vol. 390, c. 39.]
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I did not catch whether the hon. Gentleman said that the Government were right or wrong to send extra forces to Iraq at this stage.
  Mr. Jenkin: I have made that perfectly clear and I am surprised that the Secretary of State has not noticed. We support his decision but the reasons for its necessity are worth probing. If he is trying to reduce our military commitments and has withdrawn forces from Iraq only to have to start sending them back a few months later, I suggest that something has gone wrong. Does he deny that?
  Mr. Hoon: If the hon. Gentleman agrees with the Government's decision to send extra forces, does he accept that it does not help the armed forces if he makes erroneous claims about their being overstretched?
  Mr. Jenkin: I seem to recall the recently departed Chief of the Defence Staff pointing out that it would take some 18 months for the British armed forces fully to recover their readiness for future military operations of the kind that we saw earlier this year. Perhaps the Secretary of State has forgotten that discussion. Perhaps

  193
  he was not at that particular meeting, but it was certainly widely reported in the press. It is well understood that, with such a high proportion of the British Army committed to military operations, its training and readiness cycle is under significant strain. More particularly, on a personal level, many members of the armed forces have had their leave cancelled or their training delayed, which affects their personal morale and capability. If the Secretary of State is in denial about the problem of overstretch in the armed forces, I fear for their future.
  Mr. Paul Keetch: The shadow Secretary of State has detailed some of the visits that he made after the war and the discussions that he had with our military commanders about the prospect of civil disintegration in Iraq. Did he, however, raise his concerns about such a prospect when he visited our troops before the conflict, both in theatre and outside, and when he had discussions with the Secretary of State at that time?
  Mr. Jenkin:: I did not think that front-line commanders preparing for a conflict would have to worry about what the Department for International Development and the Government back home should have been worrying about. They were more concerned about whether there were going to be enough chemical suits or whether the food was going to be delivered on time to their soldiers, and about some of the other problems that our overstretched logistics were presenting to them.
  Mr. Keetch: I would like to press the hon. Gentleman on this point, because I am aware that he visited the Gulf before the war and that he had discussions with the Secretary of State at that time. The commanders certainly expressed to me their concerns about what might happen after the war. We probed that matter and, indeed, went to the United States and spoke to representatives of US Central Command about it. Did the Conservative shadow Secretary of State carry out the same exercise?
  Mr. Jenkin: We had a whole debate in the House—in January, I think—on post-conflict planning. It was then that the Government gave us assurances that planning would be in place, and it is for them to explain why those plans have turned out to be so different.
  Increased military capability is clearly necessary to deal with the increased terrorist threat and the continuing burden that so many civilian tasks place on our soldiers in Iraq. But this reinforcement underlines how the post-conflict plans have gone wrong. The Prime Minister assured the House on 3 February that he had to have a plan
  "every bit as viable and well worked out as a military plan." —[Official Report, 3 February 2003; Vol. 399, c. 36.]
  I questioned the Secretary of State for Defence on 3 April, during the conflict, as we became more concerned about the lack of preparation, but the only assurance that he would give about his "ambition" for post-conflict Iraq to be run by the Iraqi people was that it was just that an ambition. There was no sign of a plan.
  We now know from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) that there was no plan. What does the Secretary of State have to say about
  194
  that? Why on earth was the right hon. Lady allowed to stay in her post month after month, when she was so clearly seeking to obstruct the Government's policy? This underlines how weak the Prime Minister has become in his own party and his own Government. Presumably the Defence Secretary had discussions with the right hon. Lady, then his counterpart at the Department for International Development, about post-conflict reconstruction. What on earth did they discuss? Was he aware that there was no plan, when he committed British forces to this operation? More importantly, is there a plan now?
  Yesterday's written statement says that
  "the full scale of the requirement"—
  for reinforcements—
  "…has yet to be developed".
  It goes on:
  "The military capabilities needed will be identified as the detail of the plan's implementation takes shape."
  Does this mean that there is still no fully formed plan? If we are committing further UK forces, what exactly are we committing them for? The Secretary of State's statement tells us that the requirement is
  "driven by initiatives of the Coalition Provisional Authority and the Department for International Development (DFID) to accelerate reconstruction activities in Iraq".—[Official Report, 8 September 2003; Vol. 410, c. 2WS.]
  That is a laudable aim. The Foreign Secretary told BBC Radio 4 this morning
  "The key task there is to make use of these troops to get the infrastructure back up and running."
  Will the Secretary of State explain what is meant by that?
  There is an urgent need for increased security, increased patrols, better protection of key points, convoys and installations, and better intelligence as well as a need to improve border security, disarm rebels, mediate between warring Iraqi factions and speed up the recruitment and training of the Iraqi military. Our soldiers are fighting a classic counter-insurgency war, for which their training and experience have well prepared them. Their priority must be to kill or capture the terrorists, but are we to believe the Government when they say that they are increasing the burden of essentially civilian tasks for our troops? The fact is that the reconstruction effort has been painfully slow, and rectifying that is a key priority in restoring Iraqi public confidence in the coalition provisional authority. Where are the civilian agencies and contractors that should be undertaking these tasks?
  Will the Secretary of State tell us whether there is a clear plan? If there is, please will he publish a suitable summary of it for the House? Unless he can do so, in the light of the months that have already passed with so little reconstruction activity, why should we believe his assurances that any plan exists at all?
  Mr. George Foulkes: Did not the shadow secretary of State sit through the Foreign Secretary's statement yesterday, in which he went through plan after plan? (Interruption.] He did. He said, for example, that all 240 hospitals in Iraq are operating. That is probably better than France,

  195
  considering the way things are at the moment. The Foreign Secretary outlined detailed plans yesterday. It is the shadow Secretary of State who seems to be in denial.
  Mr. Jenkin: It might be the root of the problem that the Foreign Secretary's idea of detail is very different from ours. A few sketched aspirations do not constitute a strategic plan. There is a case for the Government publishing a proper document that includes details of how they plan to move forward and that sets out the military tasks rather than the civilian tasks that they expect our armed forces to undertake. I can tell the right hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) that there are people in the armed forces who are very worried about the lack of a strategic plan and about what the Government are taking on in Iraq without such a plan.
  Harry Cohen: Does the hon. Gentleman favour DFID employees and nongovernmental organisations operating in Iraq when the security situation is not safe? If not, why is he criticising DFID?
  Mr. Jenkin: I favour our military forces concentrating on the security tasks, so that those people can enter Iraq safely and carry out their tasks. That means that DFID will have to co-operate actively with the British armed forces and that the NGOs will have to work closely with our armed forces on the ground. That is the only way to improve the situation, rather than dumping on our soldiers all the jobs that they cannot do.
  Mr. Salmond: We are witnessing the collapse of the pro-war coalition. Did it never occur to the hon. Gentleman, or to any Conservative Front Bencher, that given that the Government deceived the country over the reasons for going to war, they might well also have deceived us over the after-war preparations?
  Mr. Jenkin: I am not here to play politics in this debate. I am here to hold the Government to account for their failure to plan properly for post-conflict Iraq. I am therefore asking the Secretary of State to publish a plan, perhaps in co-operation with his counterpart at DFID.
  The Government have clearly been involved in promoting good will between the United States and our other allies in the United Nations. We certainly support a greater role for the United Nations if it will bring other nations in to support the coalition's effort to improve security, provided that there remains a coherent single military command, which, naturally, would be American. Will the Secretary of State spell out exactly what increased role for the UN he envisages, and how it will affect the conduct of military operations in Iraq?
  The US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, has stated that the latest draft resolution contains
  "invitations, direction, and other ways of inserting the UN in the development of a new Iraqi government".
  If this is still not enough to appease French anti-US sentiment, what consideration has been given to a lead role for NATO? NATO is successfully leading the peacekeeping force in Kabul, and it has the experience
  196
  and expertise to lead multi-national military operations in war-torn countries. There is great confidence and expectation at NATO headquarters that it should play a role. NATO has already been assisting the Polish armed forces in Iraq moreover, it could decide to lead peacekeeping forces on the basis of a decision involving 18 rather than 19 in order to exclude any French obstructionism.
  The prerequisite for avoiding what the Foreign Secretary's memorandum described as strategic failure in Iraq is the restoration of personal security, along with a tangible start on the rebuilding of Iraq. If we fail to achieve that soon, it will be difficult for genuine political reforms to take hold, and the political liberation from Saddam Hussein will be in danger of becoming the kind of foreign occupation that the Iraqi people resent and for which we have no ambition.
  Iraq is already a magnet for terrorists who want to have a go at United States or United Kingdom soldiers. The horrific attack on the United Nations confirms that they want to destroy anything associated with the values of democracy and freedom. We cannot let them win.
  There is every reason to be optimistic about the future of Iraq, provided that there is coherent planning and determined implementation. That holds out the prospect not just of democracy and prosperity for the Iraqi people for the first time, but, with all eyes in the middle east focused on Iraq, of a transformation of security throughout the region. The Government must convince the British people that those prizes are worth the money, the sweat and even the lives of the hard-pressed men and women of our armed forces. They have our admiration and good wishes as they face the challenges ahead.
  2.2 pm
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Throughout the shadow Defence Secretary's speech, I hoped to hear one constructive suggestion of something that the official Opposition might do that would differ from the policy that the Government have pursued. Not once, in any part of his speech, was there the slightest indication that they would do other than pursue that policy.
  Mr. Jenkin: I will tell the Secretary of State what we would have done differently. We would have had a plan at the outset for the post-conflict reconstruction of Iraq. The Government clearly have no such plan, as we have been told by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short).
  Mr. Hoon: I will deal with that point in a second.
  The House is all too aware of the tragic events in Iraq over the summer months. The bombing of the UN headquarters in Baghdad on 19 August, in which the UN special representative Sergio de Mello, Fiona Watson and 19 others died, was a horrifying attack on an organisation dedicated to helping the Iraqi people. The bombing of the Imam Ali mosque in An Najaf, which killed more than 100 innocent people, demonstrated the contempt in which those responsible hold the future of Iraq and the lives of even their fellow citizens. No less tragic are the deaths of UK and other coalition troops, and the deaths of those—including

  197
  members of the new Iraqi police force—who have been targeted for working with the coalition. We are determined to find those responsible for the atrocities and bring them to justice, whether they are former regime loyalists or members of other extremist groups. We will not let them succeed in their efforts to destabilise Iraq.
  The security situation in Iraq is undoubtedly difficult. We face challenges even in the south, where Shi'a hatred of Saddam and the Ba'ath party has generally made the population more welcoming of the coalition's presence. Organised crime has increased since the collapse of the old regime, partly because of the amnesty that Saddam granted to prisoners as coalition forces entered Iraq. Sabotage, copper theft and fuel smuggling are all damaging the local economy, and the consequent need to guard infrastructure until the Iraqis are fully able to do so for themselves diverts effort from the primary task of creating a generally more secure environment.
  Yesterday I told the House of the outcome of the formal review of UK forces and resources in Iraq undertaken by the UK divisional commander in theatre. That review identified an immediate requirement for two additional battalions, 2nd Battalion The Light Infantry and 1st Battalion The Royal Green Jackets, together with some additional specialist personnel. Those additional forces, numbering some 1,200 people, are now being deployed to Iraq. Indeed, the 1st Light Infantry Company arrived in theatre over the weekend.
  Jeremy Corbyn: Can the Secretary of State give an indication of how many more troops he expects to send to Iraq in the next few months, under whose command and for how long British troops will be in Iraq, and when he expects all British and American forces to be withdrawn and to end the colonial occupation of the country?
  Mr. Hoon: I do not accept my hon. Friend's conclusion, but I will certainly deal with his questions during my speech.
  The extra forces will give commanders in theatre a range of additional capabilities to meet the growing number of military tasks that we face. Those tasks will include providing the coalition provisional authority with additional protection and improving our information-gathering capability in the divisional area of operations. Crucially, our extra personnel will also be involved in initiatives such as the training of additional indigenous Iraqi security organisations, in particular the Iraqi civil defence corps. Plans are being developed for a significant acceleration of the forming of 18 battalions of the ICDC, and we envisage their being able, over time, to take over many tasks from coalition forces.
  It should be emphasised that we are deploying additional forces to Iraq to allow commanders to undertake more military tasks. The situation in Iraq is constantly evolving, as are the kinds of tasks being undertaken by UK forces.
  Mr. Salmond: I thought that the reason for deploying extra forces to Iraq was to avoid strategic failure, to quote the Foreign Secretary. But given that it was the Government's bypassing of the processes of the United Nations that led us into this morass, might not ceding
  198
  full authority to the UN now help us to get out of it? If the Government do not do that, we will face not strategic failure but the needless loss of many, many more lives.
  Mr. Hoon: I do not accept that we bypassed the United Nations; and, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, discussions are taking place again in the UN about a further resolution to support the effort being made by the international community in Iraq.
  At the end of July, General Lamb's review concluded that force levels were about right for the tasks at that time, although we rebalanced them slightly with the deployment of a small additional number of troops. That shows that we keep force levels under constant review to ensure that we can move the right capabilities into theatre at the right time to undertake tasks as they arise. Our flexible approach allows us to minimise the effect on our forces by ensuring that troops who do not need to be in Iraq can take some well-earned time off. I am sure the House agrees that it would be wrong to keep troops away from their families for any longer than necessary. We will continue to keep our force levels under review and to adjust our force numbers as necessary to meet United Kingdom and coalition military objectives.
  We also intend to deploy a number of armoured patrol vehicles at the same time as the additional troops. That, too, is a requirement identified in GOC 3 division's review of the evolving situation in Iraq and the likely future capability requirements for UK forces. A full investigation of the incident that led to the tragic deaths of three members of the Royal Military Police on 23 August is continuing, but commanders constantly review the security situation, adapting protection measures to reflect different circumstances.
  We have always said that local commanders are the people best placed to identify the capabilities that they require and how to use them. It is obviously crucial for service personnel to be issued with the right equipment, but force protection is as much about tactics, techniques and procedures as it is about specific items of protective equipment. While inevitably carrying an inherent risk, those tactics—described by some as a softly. softly approach—have been tried and tested in operations around the world and are crucial to achieving our objectives in Iraq.
  No one ever suggested that it would be easy to restore stability in Iraq, certainly given the time frame that we have had since the end of hostilities. In the south particularly, the basic utilities—power and water supplies—were in a dreadful state as a result of the former regime's policy of deliberate neglect. The situation is now further complicated by looting and sabotage. I should emphasise, however, that that is the activity of a small criminal minority, not the population of the south as a whole.
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: I have been talking to some young people who have just returned from serving in Basra. What those soldiers have told me in my surgery certainly does not reflect the rosy picture that the Secretary of State paints of the south. Three soldiers

  199
  who had done a six-month stint out there said that pressure is being brought to bear For them to go back. They said:
  "The situation is getting much worse. They tolerated us at first; now they deeply resent us."
  Mr. Hoon: I was not painting a rosy picture; indeed, I went to some lengths to point out the difficulties faced by our forces in the south. Equally, I do not accept my hon. Friend's assertion that the situation is getting significantly worse. The great majority of the population in the south are very supportive of the coalition's presence and understandably simply want basic infrastructure—fuel, power, water—of a standard that we would expect, compared with the standard that they suffered under Saddam Hussein's regime. I shall return to that issue in a moment.
  Mr. Jenkin: I do not necessarily disagree with a great deal of what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but will he clarify what the Foreign Secretary meant when he said on the radio this morning that the key task is to make use of these troops to get the infrastructure back up and running? Can he confirm that, as he seems to be saying, British armed forces will be concerned with security tasks and military training to enable the civilian agencies and contractors to come in, rather than with providing soldiers to do civilian jobs?
  Mr. Hoon: Essentially, there is a need to ensure adequate power, for example. That can be achieved by moving in mobile generators, but there is not a lot of point in moving such generators in to the south of Iraq if they are then stolen and the metal sold in the scrap metal markets of Kuwait. The forces will be working with those providing the generation capability to ensure that such capability is providing electricity, not simply disappearing from the south.
  Llew Smith: Can the Secretary of State explain why the Government can provide precise information about the number of our armed forces who were killed or injured as a result of the war and its aftermath, but cannot provide similar information about the number of Iraqi civilians killed or injured as a result of that conflict?
  Mr. Hoon: I am sorry that my hon. Friend finds that question so difficult—I would have thought it self evident that we keep a very close track of those whom we ask to perform tasks on behalf of the United Kingdom Government. It is obviously more difficult to identify with precision those who are killed in the course of a conflict, especially civilians. I would have thought that the answer is self evident.
  David Winnick: Although, as I said yesterday, I would wish to see many more countries involved in addition to those that already have troops in Iraq, is there not one fact that every single critic on both sides of the House must answer? How could such a murderous dictatorship, responsible for the murder and
  200
  often brutal torture of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, be destroyed other than through what has happened in the past few months?
  Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend has been a consistent supporter of the Government's position and I am grateful for his observations. Above all else, whatever the difficulties and problems with security and the basic infrastructure, those who visit southern Iraq all say the same thing Iraq is an enormously better place now than it was under Saddam Hussein. Those people know that, and they are enormously grateful to the coalition and for the efforts that have been made.
  Harry Cohen: Will the Secretary of State explain to the House why any other country—France, for example—should send troops to Iraq, given that President Bush made it clear that control of the occupation will be fully under the United States, and that he is not prepared to cede an inch of that?
  Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend seizes on one particular example—France—overlooking the fact that the great majority of European nations are supportive of the coalition's position, and that up to 30 countries have sent forces. In a sense, it is for him to ask why all those countries are willing to help. Indeed, more countries have indicated their willingness to help, subject to a further United Nations resolution. There is a strong international coalition that wants the problems of Iraq to be resolved. I repeat to my hon. Friend the point that I made yesterday whatever his doubts about the situation leading up to the conflict. and about the conflict itself—I recognise that he had them—surely he and all of those who oppose the conflict must recognise that the situation now requires that we make a determined effort to restore Iraq to the international community, and to provide precisely the structures that we are putting in place to allow Iraq's people not only to take responsibility for their own affairs, but to rebuild their country.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Does the Secretary of State think that the United States' position might change if countries such as France and Germany decided to deploy the quantity of troops that the Americans have stationed in Iraq?
  Mr. Hoon: It is a fact that about 140,000 US troops are currently in Iraq, which says a considerable amount about the United States' determination to rebuild that country.
  Ms Dari Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend accept the words of Major Ivor Morgan, a constituent of mine who is serving in one of our field hospitals in Iraq? In writing from that field hospital, he makes it clear that the armed forces and Great Britain have a role—to give back to the people of Iraq what we all enjoy in England, namely, a life in which all people are free from tyranny, live equally and have choice, and live without fear where democracy exists. He wants to make sure that we all accept that this is an appropriate role for the armed forces, and that we support it.
  Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I cannot improve on the comments that she has passed on to the House.

  201
  A few moments ago, I pointed out to the House the importance of working with an international coalition. As I said, it involves some 30 countries. Seven countries have already deployed forces under the United Kingdom's Divisional Command, making a valuable contribution to the provision of security. To accuse the coalition of losing the peace, as some have done, is to ignore the real progress that we and the Iraqi people have made, in spite of the difficulties. It risks the assumption that the terrorists who blow up the United Nations building or the Baghdad police headquarters somehow speak for the Iraqi people. They do not on the contrary, the majority of Iraqis support the coalition and are delighted, as I have said, that Saddam has gone.
  Most of Iraq is calm. Newspapers, shops, markets and many other aspects of normal daily life are flourishing. Children will soon be returning to school after their summer break. The coalition has recruited and trained 37,000 police; a facilities protection service that is some 14,000 strong is designed to guard Iraq's economic infrastructure from looting and sabotage; and there are also 2,500 border guards. A further increase in the number of these Iraqi security forces is a key priority for the coalition in the coming months. In addition, coalition forces are working with and supporting Iraqi leaders at both local and national level.
  The Iraqi governing council, the establishment of which was welcomed in United Nations Security Council resolution 1500 as an important step towards the formation by the Iraqi people of an internationally recognised Government, has established a preparatory constitutional commission. This commission will put forward recommendations on the democratic drafting of a new constitution for Iraq—one that will enshrine human rights, transparency and justice for all of Iraq's ethnic and religious groups. The council has also sworn in a Cabinet of Ministers that is representative of Iraq's differing ethnic and religious groups. This is a major step forward in the process of transferring political control back to the Iraqi people. Our aim—the aim of all of those working together for Iraq's future—is to maintain this momentum, while building the secure environment within which progress in other areas can be made.
  Ultimately, the key to Iraq's success will be political and economic development. While UK forces have so far done all that they can to repair waterworks and power lines, we need to make more rapid progress on rebuilding Iraq's basic infrastructure. We must also ensure that the Iraqi people feel involved in this reconstruction process. The riots in Basra a month ago required careful handling.
  Mr. John Smith: In encouraging the Iraqi people to participate in reconstruction, it must be appreciated and recognised that they suffered for more than 20 years—a period in which nobody was brave enough to do anything unless it came as a Ba'ath party order. That factor has to be built in in asking the Iraqis to take the initiative. It will take time.
  Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He provides the answer to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn), who spoke about an occupation. Surely even he would recognise—he argues consistently in the House in favour of democracy, respect for human rights
  202
  and so forth—that the position in Iraq has improved enormously. Surely he would not prefer the people of Iraq to go back to the sort of society in which they lived under Saddam Hussein. We can all unite on that argument. I would not suggest that we can all agree on why military action was taken in the first place, but even from the perspective of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North, what we are now doing is the right thing, given the need to improve the lives of the Iraqi people.
  I was dealing with the position in Basra a month ago. There were riots, which required careful handling. I pay tribute to the sterling effort of the coalition forces to engage with local political parties and the protesters themselves, and to distribute emergency fuel supplies, which prevented further unrest. The incidents demonstrated the impact that infrastructure issues can have on security. Progress on those questions will be only short lived without accompanying progress on improvement in those basic facilities.
  Consequently, in southern Iraq, we will make a major effort to repair the damaged infrastructure, combining the expertise of the military, the Department for International Development and CPA South. The sum of £20 million has been allocated to fund the initial stages of that work, which will deliver a more stable power supply, improved fuel availability and lead to a significant improvement in the delivery of water services to all sections of the population. Critical to the project's success will he the enabling military support that we provide. The required military capabilities will be identified as the detail of the plan's implementation takes shape.
  Mr. Mark Francois: It is noteworthy for the whole House that when the Ministry of Defence needed to send more troops—another 2,000 or so—at short notice, it was often the military battalions that were despatched. We are all aware of the overstretch implications for the Army in general, and the infantry in particular, as a result of the present difficult position. In order to avoid any sapping of morale, will the Secretary of State take the opportunity this afternoon to scotch the rumours circulating within the Ministry of Defence that there are plans afoot to reduce the number of regular infantry battalions? Our recent experience shows that we desperately need those troops, so I hope that the rumours will be laid to rest now.
  Mr. Hoon: Recent times have seen a significant increase in the infantry forces available to the Army—progress that I greatly welcome. Many young people seeing the success of our armed forces in a series of different operations want to be involved. As I told the House yesterday in Defence questions, we need constantly to review our position. There are no plans along the lines that the hon. Gentleman suggested, but as I promised the House, a White Paper will be published in due course, in which we shall set out our short term future direction for equipment and other aspects of the organisation of our armed forces.
  I announced yesterday that we are taking steps to identify and reduce notice to move for some additional headquarters personnel in certain units. That will allow further deployments as rapidly as possible in response to the accelerating programme of work.

  203
  The Government have set out their vision for Iraq and the Iraqi people. In the document published on 16 March, we looked to a future in which Iraq would become a stable, united and law abiding state, welcomed back into the international community and providing effective and representative government for its own people. Our commitment to that goal remains constant and we will maintain the necessary military forces in Iraq for so long as is required to achieve it.
  2.23 pm
  Mr. Paul Keetch: May I begin by paying tribute to the brave men and women who are risking their lives to bring peace and stability to the Iraqi people, and pass on the condolences of all on the Liberal Democrat Benches to the families of those who have died recently in the conflict? The current military situation in Iraq should come as a surprise to no one. No one expected the war to be easy, but the warnings about the potential difficulties of the post conflict phase, and the tremendous difficulty of winning the peace were sounded loud and clear before the lighting began—even from within the US and British Governments. UK forces are performing their work in Iraq with tremendous skill, but they face a difficult and complex campaign. Parliament and this country were split over the decision to go to war when we did, but now that British forces are in the country, we support them and hope that they will succeed in their mission to bring peace and stability to Iraq. No reasonable person would oppose the plans for improving security in that country.
  Jeremy Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman do us the favour of explaining exactly the Liberal Democrat position on the war in Iraq? I recall standing alongside his leader on 15 February in Hyde Park to oppose the bombing and invasion of Iraq. Is the hon. Gentleman now saying that British troops should stay for ever more in Iraq and that he supports the Iraq war, or is the Liberal Democrat position to bring the troops home? I think that we deserve to know.
  Mr. Keetch: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we, like most reasonable people, support the Geneva convention. Britain and America are occupying forces. We invaded Iraq and have the responsibility to stay there to resolve the situation. If the hon. Gentleman will give me the time, I shall move on to explain the Liberal Democrat position—it is different from the Government's—on how that should be achieved.
  No reasonable person should now be calling for the troops to be withdrawn. Our reservations at the time about the difficulties of winning the peace and the lack of international consensus about the terrible costs of war led us, along with brave people from both sides, to vote against the Government. However, those decisions were taken, and now that the main conflict is over, securing stability and democracy in Iraq is in the interests of the whole international community. There are difficult and dangerous problems in Iraq and we should be trying to make the best of resolving them. An unstable Iraq is a danger to the region and a danger to the world. Iraq may not have been a hotbed of terrorist activity before, but it is in serious danger of becoming one now and that must be dealt with.
  204
  I welcome the review of troop movements conducted by the Ministry of Defence, but lament the lack of planning, or hopelessly over-optimistic planning, for the post-conflict phase. The UK has maintained approximately the same number of troops in Iraq since the end of major combat operations. We were told then that commanders on the ground believed that the situation did not merit more troops. Now, despite the arrival of Italian, Polish and Spanish troops, it is clear that it must have changed. Can the Secretary of State explain what is different now from the end of July? Is Iraq substantially more dangerous now, or has there been a change in the political imperative?
  Current UN figures place the number of attacks on coalition forces at an average of more than 10 a day. Will the Secretary of State comment on the rate of attacks on our forces? Is it an increase on previous months? Are British forces in greater danger now than they were a few weeks ago? The Secretary of State's written statement yesterday made it clear that the new deployment represents an interim reinforcement, so what are his estimates of the total number of troops in fact required? Will existing offers of troops from other countries meet that requirement; and will the Secretary of State confirm that if more troops arrive from other places, we may expect Britain and America to reduce their contribution?
  At the same time we await the Government's defence White Paper. We believe that the Government must think hard about the long term requirements for infantry numbers in the light of recent events.
  Mr. Tom Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman once again clarify Liberal Democrat policy? Did the Liberal Democrats oppose the war, but now believe that we did not send enough troops in at the beginning?
  Mr. Keetch: I do not even understand the question. Clearly, we opposed the war. There is no doubt about that; we voted against it. However, the House voted for the war and we accept that. We supported the troops in what they were doing; we wished for a swift and successful outcome; and we still wish for that. The number of troops on the ground should be determined by the force commanders. As the Secretary of State said earlier, at the end of July the force commander on the ground accepted that the number of troops was then correct. Clearly, more troops are now required and I am trying to ascertain whether the situation has become worse or whether the political imperative has changed. That is what the debate is about.
  In that regard, does the Secretary of State agree that if more troops were sent under a UN mandate, backed by a new resolution, they would stand a better chance of producing real stability in Iraq? That would be better than simply sending more coalition forces. Advocates of UN control make the case that a UN force would be better at restoring security than an American led one. Surely that is the case. A framework for political transition under the UN authority is the key to providing hope for the Iraqis and stemming the support of terrorist groups. Ultimate security in Iraq depends on the emergence of a legitimate Iraqi Government with

  205
  their own security forces, supported if necessary by international military and police. We believe that the UN can best create such legitimacy.
  Mr. Jenkin: Does not the hon. Gentleman understand that the UN is not a military organisation, and that it is not good at commanding multinational military operations? That is what we found in the Balkans. It was not until the Americans took a lead, with NATO, that we were able to get a grip on the situation there. Is not that the model that we should be pursuing, and not an ephemeral and idealised UN solution that is really only a vehicle for French resistance to American policy?
  Mr. Keetch: If one is looking for a model, the first Gulf war is a very adequate one. The UN authorised the Americans to control that force. Clearly, a force of the size involved now needs America to remain in the lead, but that must happen with UN authority, and other UN nations must also be prepared to take part. We believe that such a force—helping to keep the peace, develop the new political leadership of Iraq and bring about the reconciliation of the country—would best be led by the UN.
  Before his tragic death in Baghdad, the late and respected Sergio de Mello said that total security could never be provided by outsiders. The coalition could never provide enough guns to coerce all the people of Iraq all the time. So the sooner that there are Iraqi forces answerable to an Iraqi Government, the better. We believe that that can be brought about most quickly by a multinational UN-led operation in Iraq.
  I hope that the Government will impress on the US that it would be an error to disband the Iraqi army. If it is domestic security that is required, no one would be better placed to provide it than some of those former soldiers. It is difficult to see what obstacles lay in the face of reconstructing and retraining that army. If there are any, will the Secretary of State say what they are?
  Richard Younger-Ross: Is my hon. Friend aware that a precedent exists for using Iraqi forces? Personnel from the Basra naval academy have been retrained as guards for the world food store outside the city.
  Mr. Keetch: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who I know has seen the situation in Basra at first hand. If it is possible to use the Iraqi navy for such purposes, it should also be possible to use the Iraqi army.
  In that connection, will the Secretary of State say what plans exist to involve the governing council in security matters, policing and so on? Is there a coherent timetable for handing back power to the Iraqi people?
  The UK Government should be using whatever special influence they have with the US to put the UN in the driving seat in Iraq. That may mean sharing reconstruction contracts among other countries, but if that is the price to be paid for international help, it should be paid.
  That may be an extreme view, but a French politician told me only a few weeks ago that he would not ask French troops to put their lives on the line to protect American business men securing American contracts from an American-controlled Iraqi Government. Only
  206
  the UN can provide the Iraq council with legitimacy, get the constitutional conference moving, and make Iraqis feel that they have a say in their future.US and British forces will have an obligation to remain in Iraq until that time comes, but ultimately the UN should take over.
  We are debating the military situation today, but we should not forget the humanitarian situation—the supply of power and water, and the provision of food. It is clear that aid agencies cannot operate without security, and the reports that NGOs are leaving the country on account of the worsening security situation are deeply worrying. What impact is the current instability having on the welfare of the Iraqi people and the supply of assistance? Will the Secretary of State confirm what discussions he or his colleagues at the Department for International Development have had with the NGOs? Are the Government working towards achieving the security that the NGOs require to carry out their work?
  I turn now to the issue of weapons of mass destruction. What is the current assessment? Are British troops—or indeed Iraqis—considered to be at any risk from the yet undiscovered weapons of mass destruction? Has any more evidence been found?
  I conclude with some thoughts about today's Conservative-inspired debate. I find it rather surprising that members of the Conservative party—who supported the decision to go to war and, indeed, were the only people who were more vociferous in their support for the US than the Government—should now complain so bitterly about its aftermath. When the Leader of the Opposition led his party through the Lobbies with the Government on 18 March, he did so with full knowledge of the difficulties that might arise afterwards.
  People on all sides of the argument understood that going to war without the full support of the international community could cause difficulties when the war was over. I assume that members of the Tory party did not support the war on conditional terms—that they did not back the Government only on the understanding that everything went well. They supported the decision to attack Iraq at the time, and they have to live with the consequences.
  The House should imagine for a moment what would have happened if the US had attacked Iraq but the British Government had decided not to contribute. The Tory party would have attacked the Government for failing in their duty. Indeed, the Tory leadership fully supported a pre-emptive strike a long way in advance of the votes in this House on 18 March 2003.
  When did the Tory party start supporting the attack? On 2 September 2002, the Leader of the Opposition said that the party supported a pre-emptive attack on Iraq. He stressed that military action was about standing up for British interests and he criticised the Prime Minister for allowing the case for military intervention. He backed the prospect of a pre-emptive US and allied attack on Iraq. That was weeks before the publication of the so-called dodgy dossier, and more than six months before the votes in Parliament on 18 March. It was two months before the weapons inspectors returned, and before most of our forces were in the Gulf.

  207
  The Conservatives backed pre-emptive action to the hilt, and they did so in spite of the warnings from so many people—including members of the Conservative party—that such action might cause problems.
  In connection with today's debate, we should remember that, before the debate in March, the dossier and the deployment of troops, the Tories backed George Bush's war. This House, and this country, should never forget that.
  2.36 pm
  Mr. Jimmy Hood: When I listened to the start of the debate, I thought that there must have been some confusion behind the Speaker's Chair. I thought that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had bumped into the shadow Secretary of State, that they had dropped their notes, and then picked up each other's by accident. I was convinced that the speech by the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) was being made by my right hon. Friend. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has made many fine speeches, but it was not his finest hour today. The House has been deprived of a proper opportunity to discuss the Iraq issue, and the Opposition motion is very disappointing. If all my right hon. Friend has to worry about is what is coming at him from across the Dispatch Box, he does not have much to fear.
  I last spoke in a debate on Iraq last November. I opened my speech with a question would the world be a safer place if we went to war in Iraq? If not, I believed that we should not go to war. I supported the Government and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on that occasion, and continued to do so until March.
  I did not vote in favour of the war, however. That was not because I supported Saddam Hussein, or because I was against military action—had we succeeded in getting a second resolution through the UN Security Council, I would have been quite comfortable about continuing my support. I made my decision because I was worried about the consequences of intervention, and history shows that those concerns were justified.
  I do not speak from retrospective spite. I am certainly not one of the "I-told-you-so" brigade, although there may be a few of those. I am expressing my deeply felt conviction. It was not comfortable for me to vote against a three-line Whip for the first time in 16 years, but to this day I am convinced that my decision was correct.
  If Mr. Speaker were in his place, he, as a Glaswegian, would understand my next point. Anyone who goes to the wonderful city of Glasgow and who has lost his way will always find a friendly face prepared to give him directions. If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, said to someone in Glasgow, "I'm lost and I want to be there", he would give you a warm reception and say something like, "I'll tell you where to go, but if I was going there, I wouldn't start from here." There is no good our looking retrospectively and criticising what has happened. It is our duty and responsibility to concentrate on how we get from where we are to where we want to be.
  I speak from a position of supporting the Government. I am certainly not one of those who criticises the Prime Minister—quite the opposite. I am a
  208
  firm supporter of the Prime Minister, and history will prove that his influence on the American Administration from 9/11 onwards was vital. I hate to imagine how the world would be if he had not exerted his influence to restrain the hawks in the American Administration. People criticise the Prime Minister for blindly following George Bush, but that is not my reading of what he has done. The Prime Minister has not done that at all. He supported more the position of the US State Department and Colin Powell than he did the position of the Defence Department's Rumsfeld and others around the President of the United States.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point about how our Prime Minister may have restrained the actions of the United States. Would he care to think whether the new behaviour of the United States, more friendly towards the United Nations, owes more to the influence of our Government or to the practical experience of the Americans in Iraq?
  Mr. Hood: Let me give a politician's answer: it is very much a bit of both. However, I am sure that the Prime Minister would much have preferred to have a second resolution. So much was invested in getting that resolution that we were put in the position of not being able to back away and hold back some of the American hawks, and that may have added to the pressure placed on the Government to commit themselves to going in with the Americans rather than letting them go in on their own. I am sure that our Prime Minister has had influence in arguing the case for looking more supportively at the United Nations. I am confident, too, that what has happened in the European Union and in NATO must bring about a revision of how we work together.
  It is tragic for the rest of the world that the hawks were given so much power in America, but they are finding out now that they cannot go it alone. The only answer is to go through the EU and NATO, and certainly through the UN. To return to my Glaswegian story, the point is that in order to get to where we need to be, there is only one road to take—the road through the United Nations. I see no other solution. I heard the Secretary of State say that 30 countries will join the coalition in sending troops, and that is always welcome. But the question is how many troops those 30 countries will send.
  Mr. Keetch: From memory, and the Minister can correct me if I am wrong, I think that it is 140,000 American troops, 10,500 British and a total contribution of 9,000 Poles and others.
  Mr. Hood: There we are. Waiting for someone else to join the coalition and bring a solution is not the answer. The only answer is to go through the United Nations. The sooner we accept that, the better. We must not defend entrenched positions—all that happens when we get entrenched is that we stay in the trench.
  Mr. Keetch: The hon. Gentleman will agree that this is not just a question of numbers. The quality and experience of troops is also important. The benefit of having Indian, Pakistani and even French troops is that they have experience of peacekeeping operations and

  209
  know how to do the work. It is great to have 100 Lithuanian troops in Iraq, but they may not have been involved before in peacekeeping operations, while other troops from other UN forces will have had previous experience.
  Mr. Hood: I do not know whether that was an intervention or an amendment to the hon. Gentleman's speech.
  Let me conclude by turning to a real problem that has been made much worse by the events of the past six months. We can see what is happening in the middle east, in Palestine and on the west bank. There are people on both sides of that argument—indeed, we have people on both sides in the House. In my 16 years here, I have been fortunate enough never to find myself on either side of that argument; instead, I have seen the injustices on both sides and the need for the two sides to live side by side in peace. There is no rocket science involved in accepting the logic of finding a political solution, but politicians are all too often not part of the solution, but part of the problem. I despair when I see what is happening in Palestine and Israel, but once again the only solution must be a multinational solution though the United Nations. We must unite within the UN to bring solutions to such dark problems. If we do not, we will be here in six months holding another debate on Iraq and the middle east as we discuss more misery, more killings and a continued lack of commonsense political solutions. I hope that we can go forward through the UN and that the American Administration can bite their lip, swallow their pride and seek a UN mandate through the Security Council to solve the problems in Iraq and the rest of the middle east.
  2.48 pm
  Mr. Alex Salmond: My hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) often tells me how he finds himself in full agreement with the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) in the Select Committee on European Scrutiny, which the hon. Gentleman chairs. I, too, find myself in virtually total agreement with every word he has just said.
  Similar to the hon. Gentleman's Glasgow example, it would be possible for those of us who unambiguously opposed the conflict to say that it has nothing to do with us and is all the fault of the Government and the Conservative Opposition who led us into the morass in which we find ourselves. It would be possible to say that we should therefore offer no solutions or suggestions for how to get out of the mess. However, as the hon. Gentleman said, it is incumbent on us to put forward our proposals and solutions. It is a matter of great regret that the amendment that my hon. Friends and I tabled was not selected so that we could divide on it this evening. It would have found a lot of support across the House from people who genuinely seek a way to improve the situation. Indeed, I see the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch), nodding in support of that.
  What is the Government's objection to unambiguous UN authority for the stabilisation force in Iraq and to its being under UN control and within the ambit of the UN? I listened closely to President Bush's statement the other evening. Although I would not say that he is running back to the UN cap in hand, a significant level of concern has forced him into that position.
  210
  The House should reflect that, while we mourn the British armed forces' casualties in Iraq, the casualties of the American forces are much, much greater. They have lost more people in Iraq since I May, when the President of the United States officially declared that hostilities were over, than they lost during the period of actual conflict. The latest figures that I have show total UK casualties of 50, of which 17 occurred after 1 May, but 123 casualties among US service personnel since that date. Furthermore, on figures from websites offering counts and estimates from reputable academics, the Government do not seem to have grasped that more than 6,000 civilians have died in the course of the conflict. Whatever was achieved in Iraq, it was certainly not at a bargain; there has been a substantial cost in human life.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Clydesdale: pressure of events rasher than the eloquence of the Prime Minister persuaded America to put Colin Powell—the Secretary of State—back in charge of some aspects of American foreign policy. What has been proposed to date will not be satisfactory, understandably, for many of the countries that resolutely opposed conflict on US and UK terms.
  Although I realise that for the Government the BBC website is not the most reputable source, for a large majority of people it is, none the less, a much more reputable source than the Government themselves. Today, in analysing the moves of the UN, the website states:
  "Several Security Council members—including France, Russia and Germany—are reluctant to approve any resolution that appears to give retroactive blessing to the Iraq war, which they opposed."
  That is entirely understandable. I would not approve that. I am sure that the hon. Member for Clydesdale, although he is looking for a solution, would not approve of anything that gave a blessing to something that we thought fundamentally wrong. The website continued:
  "They have also insisted that any UN mandate give genuine power to the international organisation, rather than merely being a fig leaf for a US-run operation."
  That, too, is entirely understandable.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin)rose—
  Mr. Salmond: As the Minister wants to intervene, I hope that he will tell us what are the obstacles to giving a genuine UN mandate, rather than a US fig leaf. What are the blockages?
  Mr. Caplin: I intervene to tell the hon. Gentleman that if he had been in the House yesterday, he would have heard my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary explain some of those details; in particular, the work that the United Kingdom, the US Government, the European Union and others are doing in the UN to try to strengthen the UN mandate in Iraq. That is why there is a draft resolution; it is being discussed at the Security Council and proposes
  "a United Nations-mandated multinational force under existing unified command".—[Official Report, 8 September 2003; Vol. 410, c. 39.]
  because that is the best way for the UN to operate.
  Mr. Salmond: Under the command of US armed forces. The concern of many of the countries that opposed the war, and many of those that did not, is, as the BBC website pointed out, that there will not be genuine power for a genuine UN mandate. The Minister knows all too well that there is a substantial difference between an invitation with a supportive UN resolution under the US command structure and a genuine authority under the UN for a multinational force. Even if he does not realise that, the countries that are, as yet, reluctant to take part certainly do realise it. What exactly are the obstacles to moving to that genuine UN position?
  Mr. Keetch: Until that point, I was enjoying the hon. Gentleman's view. The point that we made is that the UN could authorise the United States to command a force. Can he give us an example where a UN force of the size that would be required in Iraq has ever had a multilateral system? Surely, all UN forces have a command structure. We suggest that it should be a US command structure. No other nation and no other body could actually command a force of that size.
  Mr. Salmond: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are other examples of UN administrations, most recently in East Timor, where such a command structure was established. It was not the size of Iraq, but we have not had to try to establish a command structure in a country of that size.
  Throughout the debate, the Liberal Democrats have tried to have things both ways. My interpretation of the hon. Gentleman's speech was that he was calling for a genuine UN force in Iraq. If he is saying that what President Bush is proposing at the UN is exactly that, his reading of the President's remarks a few nights ago is significantly different from mine. I thought that they were carefully phrased to say that the command structure would remain under US control.
  The Liberal Democrat spokesperson engaged us with a quote from a French source, which tried to suggest that there were a variety of other reasons for not conceding that command structure. I am calling for a genuine UN authority and command structure.
  Mr. Foulkes rose—
  Mr. Salmond: I give way to the former Minister in the Scotland Office.
  Mr. Foulkes: And in the Department for International Development.
  This is a strange debate. The Minister has just said that what my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National party are calling for is what the Government are arguing for at the United Nations. The Liberal Democrat spokesman is right: if the UN force that we want is not commanded by the US, can the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) tell us
  212
  which country will do it? I have great respect for Lithuania—apart from its football—but which country does the hon. Gentleman suggest? Lithuania, Poland?
  Mr. Salmond: I am interested in the fact that the right hon. Gentleman suggests Lithuania and Poland rather than France, Germany or one of the other major powers, or indeed the many other countries that have committed substantial numbers of troops. I have no doubt that it will be extremely difficult to summon the number of troops that will be required unless from a variety of countries. Equally, I have no doubt that unless the operation is genuinely UN authorised and led, it will be impossible to bring into that force the very countries that would participate, but will not do so, to cite the BBC website, as a "fig leaf' for a continuing US-run operation. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can explain why those countries are reluctant to embrace the UK Government's offer. Perhaps the Minister can tell me why the Government have yet to persuade those countries, and the many others that see the current moves of President Bush as those of a country under pressure through overstretch rather than one that is willing to embrace a UN operation.
  Nor do I have great confidence in the Government's claims of UN authority for their actions. If I interpret the Secretary of State's comments correctly, he still maintains that the conflict took place under proper UN processes. Few other people in the international community would maintain that position, but the Government maintain their fig leaf of proper authorisation because it is necessary to spin that yarn to try to justify the unjustifiable.
  Ms Dari Taylor: I object to the statement about spinning a line. With great courtesy, I remind the hon. Gentleman that in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in Serbia we could not achieve a force and command structure that was effective until the Americans and the British decided to take it over. Only at that point, when the structure of command was straight and easy, did we have sufficient troops. I remind the hon. Gentleman, with great passion, that we were told by the whole world that we were 10 years too late and thousands of Muslims died as a consequence, so I hope that he will withdraw that statement—it is silly and offensive.
  Mr. Salmond: I have no doubt that the hon. Lady objects to being spun a line. The majority of people in this country object to being spun into a war under false pretences.
  Ms Taylor rose—
  Mr. Salmond: I have heard the hon. Lady, now she will get her answer. I am certain that it would be a good thing if Muslim troops from Muslim countries were in Iraq at present, but we cannot get those troops because of the US Administration's anxiety to maintain absolute control over the command structure of the stabilisation force in Iraq. Incidentally, why was the US so anxious not to be in a dual role in Afghanistan, as a combatant country and in the stabilisation force, yet that is apparently all right in Iraq? What are the obstacles that prevent the United States from fully ceding authority to the UN? Is it a question of the contracts that the Liberal

  213
  Democrat spokesman mentioned a few minutes ago? Would it be too much of a climbdown to have to return to the UN and say that the French are not really "surrender-monkeys", that the Germans are not really ungrateful and that the UN is no longer the talking shop that the US Administration described it as only a few months ago?
  The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) shakes her head. Has she really forgotten the disparaging tones with which members of the US Administration described the UN? Can she really have forgotten the activities of those in the cabal in the US Administration who took us into this war? Is she really saying that she would trust their opinion more than she would trust the UN, as the international authority. which is supported by most people in this country?
  Ms Dari Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Salmond: With great respect, I have given way seven or eight times, and I want to make progress.
  Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman is in difficulty.
  Mr. Salmond: I give way a lot more to the right hon. Gentleman—a former Scottish Office Minister—than he ever does to me in debates; he has never been anxious to give way.
  I would simply like to know from the Government what is it about the doubts of France, Russia, Germany and many other countries in the UN that they are not willing to satisfy. The Government should establish that they are not trying to find a fig leaf for continuing US control, but that they want a genuine UN-authorised force. There is no doubt in my mind that such a force would stand a better chance of stabilising the position in Iraq in a way that is most certainly not happening at the moment.
  Finally, I want to continue the analogy used by the hon. Member for Clydesdale. He said that, in Glasgow, people say that they would not necessarily start from here. I also recall that English comedians regarded the Glasgow concert halls as the toughest venues anywhere, anytime. I have never heard the Braemar gathering described as a particularly tough venue, except that the Prime Minister managed to get booed while in the royal enclosure of the Braemar gathering this weekend. The police interviewed one of the people who booed him and decided that it was not a breach of the peace; it was a legitimate expression of opinion. [Interruption.] The booing was widespread.
  Mr. Foulkes: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the polls?
  Mr. Salmond: The polls are not good reading for the right hon. Gentleman either. I suspect that he should worry about a Prime Minister who cannot even venture safely into the royal enclosure of the Braemar gathering. I suspect that the reason for that is the deep-seated resentment of people of all classes and types. They deeply resent being gathered into a conflict on a trail of deception. If the Government want to recover any sense of regard among the population, instead of trying to smooth lines and pretend that things are not as they are, they should genuinely eat their pride, go back to the UN and start to make this process legal under international
  214
  law, as it always should have been. I hope that we will hear, in the summing up of the debate, that the Government will now embark on that course, which many of us would have advised many months ago.
  3.3 pm
  Jeremy Corbyn: I welcome the debate because it is an opportunity to discuss the situation in Iraq, and I suspect that we will have to discuss that for many months, if not years, to come. I cannot see the British and American Administrations easily withdrawing from that situation or being prepared to agree to a UN operation, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) has outlined, because that goes to the heart of the problem the politics of the US Administration, led by George Bush, who are deeply antagonistic to any kind of internationalism or multilateralism. Indeed, since US companies have already signed up a large number of contracts of behalf of the temporary administration in Iraq, I suspect that things will carry on like that.
  Mr. Foulkes: Does my hon. Friend know which Administration brought the US back into UNESCO and paid the back fees to the UN that President Clinton unfortunately had refused to pay?
  Jeremy Corbyn: It was indeed the Administration led by George Bush, who were then vainly trying to get UN support, but I am rather surprised that my right hon. Friend, with such a long and distinguished record in international affairs, should seek to defend the most right-wing US Administration we have ever seen.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Has my hon. Friend considered the fact that, with the forthcoming elections in America, the Government might find themselves in the very peculiar position of supporting the viewpoint of the Republicans in the US, while the Democrats are attacking the cause for war?
  Jeremy Corbyn: It is extremely perceptive of my hon. Friend to raise that issue. Watching the debate in the Democratic party in the US, it seems that the stronger the anti-war position adopted by the candidates, the more support they get and the more likely they are to gain the nomination. Come the primary elections next year, the British Government will be in the strange situation of being lined up with George Bush against a Democratic party that will, I hope, adopt some kind of anti-war position, and it may do so because a large number of ordinary people in the US are also deeply upset about the policy in Iraq and also deeply opposed to the military intervention there.
  I twice went to the US earlier this year to take part in anti-war activities, and I was very interested in the large number of ordinary people who journeyed through appalling weather to Washington to demonstrate in January. Some of them held placards saying, "40 million Americans go without any health care, yet our Administration can afford to go to war in Iraq." The same things were said in San Francisco and other parts of the country. There is a massive anti-war movement in the US, as indeed there is in this country.
  I intervened on the Liberal Democrat defence spokesperson, who kindly gave way while on that subject, but I have watched the Liberal Democrats in

  215
  operation, as we all have for many years, and they seem to have developed a fine art of making statements in the House and opposite statements on the streets of this country—something called Liberal Focus teams in operation on the ground. The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) himself said that the Liberal Democrats now support the position of British troops in Iraq and that they support the increase in British troops in Iraq as well as other things surrounding the war. Yet, on the ground, Liberal Democrats go around claiming, where it suits them, that they are the anti-war party in this country. I am not proud of the position that the British Government have adopted because I deeply disagree with it, as I have made clear on many occasions, but I wish that the Liberals would just be clear about what their position actually is.
  Mr. Keetch rose—
  Jeremy Corbyn: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's intervention.
  Mr. Keetch: I want to ask the hon. Gentleman a simple question does he favour today the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq?
  Jeremy Corbyn: Yes, I do favour the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq, and I favour supporting the development of a civilian Government in Iraq, if necessary, with UN support. What I see in Iraq at present is a British and American occupying force that is what it is in legal terms—and I see the Americans gaining contracts from that for Halliburton, Bechtel and many others, all of which happen to have funded George Bush's election campaign in the first place. The British Government are totally complicit in that whole operation. When George Bush says that he is not prepared to agree to UN control of forces in Iraq, what is the position of the British Administration? They say that they are in favour of the US and UN, but they are incapable of influencing that policy.
  I want to raise one or two other issues briefly, because this is a short debate. We have to ask ourselves some questions about how we got into this position. Was Iraq the real, credible and present threat that was claimed in the early part of this year? We were told, in terms. that there were weapons of mass destruction. We were told that there was a real, credible and present threat from Iraq. When will the Iraqi survey group report? When will we know definitely whether there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? When will we know about all the weapons that Britain sold to Iraq in the first place some years ago?
  If it is right and proper, as it is, for Lord Hutton to conduct an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr. David Kelly, why is it not appropriate to hold an independent judicial inquiry into all the circumstances leading to the war in the first place, the pressures that were put on and the political decisions that were made to take us into that conflict? It is only right and proper that the British public should know in whose name the war is being fought and who is benefiting from it.
  216
  I have observed from reading websites and information and from talking to people who have come back from Iraq that it is a country with varying degrees of insecurity. Some areas are considerably worse than others. Many poverty stricken and unemployed former Iraqi army soldiers, who were given their weapons but no money and told to go away from their barracks, are running amok throughout the country. I also observe increasing opposition to the British and American presence in the country, but the insecurity does not extend to the oil wells and oil refineries. Huge efforts are put into protecting the oil pipelines. The argument that the war was for oil is only part of the truth—it was not the only reason, but it was a major factor. I suspect that in the long run we will get a large north American base in Iraq and a long period of instability in the region, because if one reads the musings of Rumsfeld, Bush, Cheney and all the others, the project for the new American century is all about such wars and the imposition of American bases in different places throughout the world. Is that really the kind of world in which we want to live in the long run? Is that really a sane, safe and secure way to look at the problems that are facing the whole globe?
  Richard Younger-Ross: The hon. Gentleman referred to insecurity in Iraq. Can he say whether that insecurity would increase or decrease if British troops were withdrawn tomorrow?
  Jeremy Corbyn: I suspect that the insecurity is serious or very serious in some parts and less serious in others. If British troops withdrew, I suspect that there would be a change to the atmosphere because the Iraqis would have an opportunity to develop their society themselves.
  Is there to be a situation in which we put in more and more troops to protect their security? I heard the Defence Secretary yesterday defending the increase of 1,400 troops in Iraq—a few more are going. Successive generals used exactly the same arguments during the imposition of more American forces on Vietnam throughout the 1960s and 1970s. They said that the troops needed to be there for their own protection. Several hundred thousand troops ended up there, and there was ignominious defeat and failure as well as a huge loss of life among Vietnamese and American people. I am frightened that the same situation is developing in Iraq.
  Mrs. Mahon: Does my hon. Friend agree that when the Soviet Union went into Afghanistan, it did so quickly and had a fairly successful entry to the country? Ten years later, when it came out, the red army was defeated and Afghanistan in such a state that the Taliban were able to take it over. It is easy to conquer a country, but what happens afterwards must be considered.
  Jeremy Corbyn: The Soviet Union found to its cost that invasion is quick and simple with an efficient and well-equipped army, as my hon. Friend says. The problem arises in the longer term, and no doubt the situation was a major factor in bringing about the fall and demise of the Soviet Union.
  The war has tragically cost the lives of servicemen from Britain, the United States and Iraq as well as the lives of many Iraqi civilians—the hon. Member for

  217
  Banff and Buchan cited a figure of 6,000. Iraq Body Count, which is a reputable academic organisation, puts the figure between 6,000 and 10,000. I do not know the figure, so I look forward to the Secretary of State's answer. Many people are dying due to unexploded cluster bombs, which were sold by this country and are on sale at the defence equipment exhibition that is being held in the east end of London. I suspect that large numbers of people will die of cancer because of the use of depleted uranium weapons and the poison that comes from them. A price will be paid for the war by children who are yet to be born in Iraq and poor civilians who do not have access to medical equipment.
  Surely we need to look at the world in a rather different way from one involving a series of wars and conflicts during which we align ourselves politically with the United States Administration. We should instead examine the causes of war: injustice, poverty and the grasping of natural resources. When I hear the speeches of Bush and Cheney in which they talk about North Korea and other such places, I am horrified that what has happened in Iraq could well be repeated in other places. I ask the Government to think seriously about the need for a real break with the American strategy and about some intelligent approach to achieve peace and justice in the world, which would save us from wars in the future.
  3.14 pm
  Mr. Robert Walter: The debate is important and it is appropriate that we should have it after our two-month recess during which the situation in Iraq has deteriorated and we have seen the circumstances surrounding the outbreak of the conflict exposed in the Hutton inquiry. I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) and for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on not exposing, or gloating about, what has happened during the inquiry but concentrating on what has happened on the ground in Iraq. The situation has deteriorated and they have especially examined the role played by the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development. It is important to preface my remarks with congratulations to our troops on their efforts.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman comment on how it is consistent and reasonable to criticise the British Government's lack of planning in Iraq as the situation deteriorates, with which I have a fair degree of agreement, yet to make no criticism whatsoever of the American role, which is far more important?
  Mr. Walter: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his early intervention. Perhaps he would care to listen to the rest of my speech and make a judgment on that.
  I want to say a few words about the role that our troops have played in the conflict. I congratulate them on their efforts, skill and courage. I have spoken to many of my constituents who have come back from Iraq—I have a substantial Ministry of Defence establishment in my constituency—and I am proud to be associated with the attitude that the troops have taken on the ground. If I may say something to satisfy the comments of the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), I am impressed by the attitude of the British
  218
  troops compared with that of some of the American troops. The way in which the American troops have approached the Iraqi people might be described, at best, as arrogant. The situation has been deteriorating every day.
  Mr. George Osborne: Surely my hon. Friend accepts that the Americans are policing a much more difficult part of the country and that they must necessarily adopt different tactics.
  Mr. Walter: Whatever the tactics adopted by various troops, every occupying power has a duty to respect the human rights of those whom they are present to protect. There have been instances when United States troops have done things that I would frankly not wish to defend, but that is beyond the scope of the debate, which is about the military situation in Iraq as it affects this Government and our troops.
  I have taken a close interest in the situation in Iraq both in the run-up to the conflict and during it. I am a member of the Select Committee on International Development, which has published several reports about the preparations for the conflict. The Committee has taken evidence from two Secretaries of State and other Ministers and officials. It has taken an interest that sometimes has gone beyond the role of the Department for International Development by examining other agencies, including those that act for the Ministry of Defence.
  It is no secret that I spoke during the debate in the Chamber on Iraq and weapons of mass destruction on 26 February and that I voted for the amendment and against military action. What I said has been vindicated by the events that have taken place and the evidence presented to the Hutton inquiry. I said:
  "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator with scant regard for human rights. There is no doubt that in the past he has used chemical weapons against his own people. We know from the run-up to the last Gulf war that he sought an albeit crude delivery mechanism for his weapons. It is clear that, along with at least 10 other dubious regimes in the world, he would like to possess nuclear weapons."
  However, I went on to say:
  "Despite the Prime Minister's claims of 'linkage', there is no evidence that Saddam has assisted al-Qaeda. There are Governments with whom we have good relations who have given much greater comfort to those evil terrorists. We await"—
  we still await—
  "the evidence of the weapons inspectors that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. If he possesses them, the evidence is clear that the range of any of his delivery mechanisms would be a threat to his near neighbours, most of whom seem"—
  and remain—
  "totally unconvinced of the need for war at the present time."—[Official Report, 26 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 347.]
  Mrs. Mahon: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that although al-Qaeda was not conspiring with Saddam before the war, it is more than likely that it is in Iraq now, conspiring with any unscrupulous element to disrupt a settlement?
  Mr. Walter: I would not wish to speculate too much on that, but the conflict has not improved the terrorist situation. As we have seen on the ground in Iraq and in other parts of the world, the situation has deteriorated.

  219
  The Hutton inquiry has shown that the Government massaged some of the flimsy evidence on Saddam's capabilities. The evidence of the UN weapons inspectors was that they could find no weapons of mass destruction.
  Mr. Eric Martlew: As the hon. Gentleman said, he was not taken in by the document and voted against it, as I did. The truth is that we are in the position that we are in today because we lost that vote on the war, not because of what the Government said at the time.
  Mr. Walter: The hon. Gentleman is right, but the background to the current military situation is that the UN weapons inspectors could find no weapons of mass destruction. There were no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, yet the Prime Minister told the House that Saddam Hussein had them and they could be deployed in 45 minutes. That is the longest 45 minutes in history.
  Mr. Salmond: The Prime Minister may not have managed to persuade the hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) or me, but the point is that some of the Prime Minister's more gullible colleagues were persuaded by the variety of dodgy dossiers with which we were presented.
  Mr. Walter: The British people were taken in by dodgy dossiers and other things. I think that Hans Blix was too convincing in the view that he presented to the UN and that the military situation was precipitated by the possible disappearance of a window of opportunity, but that is all history, as hon. Members have said. We need to consider how we deal with the awful situation in Iraq now.
  From those whom I have spoken to who have been on the ground in Iraq, it is clear that the life of ordinary Iraqis in many parts of that country is not, as the Secretary of State said, better than it was. There are severe problems with electricity and water supplies and other basic essentials of normal life. Crime and killings are commonplace. Any occupying power should be truly ashamed of the breakdown of law and order in that country.
  In my constituency last week, I attended a meeting at which a number of people who had recently been in Baghdad and Basra told stories that are a fair reflection of what is going on, although I cannot corroborate them. We were told that a son was kidnapped in Basra. The family knew where to go to deal with the problem because the gang that had kidnapped him had set up a shop in the centre of town. It was clearly marked and everyone knew it was there. All one had to do was go to the shop with the name of the person who was sought and, after ferreting through files and so on, someone would come up with a piece of paper stating the ransom to be paid for the person to be returned. That is appalling and it is just one example of what is going on.
  There are many such stories: electricity transmission lines have been pulled down in broad daylight under the gaze of coalition forces who appear to the local population to be either unwilling or powerless to do
  220
  anything. I am talking not about sabotage but about a criminal business activity done for money. The scrap metal produced from such activities is freely available on markets around the world. The question is whether coalition forces were prepared for the aftermath of the war. Was the situation that we face today predictable? If so, what has gone wrong?
  The International Development Committee spent a long time considering the humanitarian consequences before, during and after the conflict. As I said, we published several reports on that. We took evidence from the United States Administration in Washington, the UN in New York, numerous other international organisations and non-governmental organisations. We took evidence a number of times from both Secretaries of State for International Development. When asked the general question of what planning had taken place or whether there had been any, Baroness Amos said on 30 June that plans had been made but that they were for a different outcome. That sums up some of the lack of preparedness of our Government.
  Baroness Amos said:
  "there was planning which DFID was involved in with respect to what would happen post the conflict, and much of that planning went into thinking about the scale of the humanitarian crisis. At that time it was feared that there would be huge numbers of internally displaced people, refugees and so on, and much of the planning went into that. What was not anticipated was the scale of looting which happened post the conflict and which has hampered the effort to a certain extent."
  She went on to say:
  "there was preparation, there was preparation for a range of possible crises, ranging from prolonged urban warfare through large population movements and widespread disruption of essential infrastructure. As it happened what we did see was widespread looting and a breakdown in law and order, which had not been anticipated and which led to serious problems."
  The disruption of essential infrastructure has happened, so what was the planning for?
  Baroness Amos said:
  "As I said, there is no doubt there were real initial difficulties, and that is because the planning was for different things."
  She went on to say:
  "I think that we planned for very specific scenarios which did not occur, and on top of that you had the looting which did occur… In addition to that there was confusion at the beginning, and part of that confusion was to do with the fact that the planning had been for these particular humanitarian scenarios."
  So they got it wrong, at least in the Secretary of State's post-conflict view.
  I take the House back to the evidence given by the previous Secretary of State, who on 21 March, in response to our first report, said in answer to our question about planning:
  "The importance of infrastructure—especially for water and sanitation—has been fully recognised by the military and plans have been developed to provide, where necessary, emergency water and electricity supply."
  In answer to a question about the possible security situation, she said:
  "The risk of ethnic violence following conflict is a serious concern. Military and humanitarian planning is informed by this risk … The objective will be to create a secure and safe environment for all Iraqis, so that people do not want to move. This will require a focus on quick stabilisation of areas coming under coalition military control".

  221
  I shall now cite one of the Committee's recommendations to which the then Secretary of State replied. We said:
  "It is important that the UN should have the lead role in a post-conflict Iraq as soon as possible. There is a real danger that donors and NGOs would not play a full part in the post-conflict reconstruction of Iraq if the country were administered by a military governor".
  I think that that has come to pass. The right hon. Lady's response of 21 March was:
  "The Government agrees. A UN mandate will be required to provide legal authority for the reconstruction effort, and to make possible the engagement of the International Financial Institutions and the wider international community. The Government is at the forefront of efforts to ensure that a suitable UN mandate is put in place and is holding regular discussions with key partners to achieve this."
  Another of our recommendations said:
  "We believe that one area in which the military could play an important role is policing and protection. We urge the military to develop plans to provide such protection, where requested, for humanitarian work if they have not already do so."
  The then Secretary of State replied:
  "The need for the maintenance of law and order has been fully appreciated and incorporated into campaign planning."
  The Secretary of State ended her response to the Committee's report by saying:
  "The Government is strongly committed to ensuring that we urgently relieve the suffering of the Iraqi people. In our view, the overall level of preparedness of the international community to cope with the humanitarian challenges which may lie ahead in Iraq is not as great as it could be … We will focus, in particular, on efforts to ensure that the UN is both funded and enabled, through Security Council resolutions, to play a leading role."
  The Government acknowledged that there was a need for post-conflict planning, but as the current Secretary of State for International Development said, they planned for the wrong scenario. It was clear from the evidence that we took from the United Nations, both here and in New York, and from senior officials such as the director of USAID, Andrew Natsios, in Washington, that the post-conflict planning was both far too limited and unco-ordinated. That reinforces the need for the UN to have a key position. If the new Iraq is to fulfil the vision of the beacon of democracy, prosperity and freedom that President Bush has talked about, the Iraqi people must feel that they have ownership of this process. They must feel that they have confidence in this process, which means that it must be a UN process. That security force must be a blue beret security force, and if we are to have an economic effort to rebuild Iraq, it must be an international effort, not just a United States effort.
  There is no doubt that we have removed an evil dictator who was oppressing the people of Iraq. I have every sympathy with those inside and outside Iraq who sought his removal. However, the case should have been made to the international community and executed under the auspices of the international institutions that we have spent half a century building up. Let us now restore the confidence and legitimacy of the United Nations. Let the United Kingdom and the United States put their strength and resources at the disposal of the UN for the benefit of the Iraqi people and for peace in the middle east.
  3.35 pm
  Mr. Eric Joyce: I hope that the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) will forgive me if I do not follow his general doom-mongering comments. We are fairly tight for time. I shall concentrate on what the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) said in his opening remarks. I listened with great interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), who is no longer in the Chamber. He made a series of pertinent observations at the beginning of his speech. He said that the hon. Member for North Essex can usually be relied on to make a pretty good speech in debates such as this. I would not necessarily agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman says, but he can be relied upon usually to make a pretty good quality contribution. Yet today—many hon. Members in the Chamber, and perhaps some of my hon. Friends, might agree—the hon. Gentleman's speech seemed pretty thin. As the debate progressed I could not help noticing that the Opposition Benches emptied. That was followed by frenetic activity, with the Opposition Whip leaving the Chamber and getting a few Conservative Members to return to their places.
  I could not help noticing also that the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), who I understand is the Opposition's spokesperson on international development, was looking rather concerned. Perhaps she was wondering whether she could make any meaningful interventions in a debate on the military situation in Iraq.
  Mrs. Caroline Spellman: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's remarks are in the spirit in which the debate has been conducted. Before he passes comment about the presence of international development spokesmen, he might like to look at the Government Benches. He will find that there are no representatives from the Department for International Development in the Chamber.
  Mr. Joyce: This is a debate on the military situation in Iraq, and I thought that the hon. Lady was looking rather concerned that she would be unable to participate. Fair comment has been made, so let us move on.
  The Opposition's problem is that basically they do not have a meaningful critique of Government policy. They broadly agree with the Government's position and their actions. They think that there is not a bad general prognosis for the longer term. However, they have to find some thin gruel with which to attack the Government. I suspect that that is why the introductory remarks of the hon. Member for North Essex were a bit weaker than they might otherwise have been in normal circumstances.
  I shall reflect on a couple of paradoxes that ran through the hon. Gentleman's comments. The Opposition want to agree broadly with the action taken on Iraq. The hon. Gentleman is reluctant to say negative things about the longer term, but everything that the Opposition say about the situation in Iraq conveys the impression that everything is falling apart. They do not really believe that, and when I hear Opposition Members make such comments on television they are clearly made without any spirit. We can see that in their eyes and hear it in their voices.

  223
  Earlier on, the hon. Gentleman raised the issue of overstretch. The Government made an announcement this week on the deployment of troops to Iraq. The hon. Gentleman talked about the deployment as a problem of overstretch. When he was asked by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State whether he agreed with the deployment, he said that he did. In government, decisions have to be made that may have some minor negative consequence. It is certainly the case that we had 45,000 troops in Iraq and now we have 12,000. My arithmetic tells me that that is not a recipe for overstretch. That is one of the paradoxes that run through the comments of Opposition Members.
  By and large, the Opposition, including the hon. Gentleman, understand the need for patience. In due course, small advances will be made here and there. We shall see a gradual reconnection of power, a gradual increase in lawfulness, and a gradual reconstruction of the infrastructure. There will be good reasons for some celebration. No doubt Opposition Members will want to take part in that celebration. However, the nature of their line at present is effectively to deny that any improvement will ever take place. That is not credible and it does not achieve a balance.
  Mr. Keith Simpson: The hon. Gentleman has considerable personal experience as he has served in the Army, and I should be grateful if he would comment on two points. First, my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), talked about the positive things at the beginning of his speech and tried to give a balanced view. Secondly, what is the hon. Gentleman's response to the Foreign Secretary's memorandum that was leaked last week and spelt out in dramatic terms the way in which the situation in Iraq was deteriorating, saying that 5,000 UK troops needed to be sent there? That is not something made up by the Opposition—that is the hon. Gentleman's own Foreign Secretary.
  Mr. Joyce: I wholeheartedly agree with the general assessment that more troops needed to be deployed in Iraq in current circumstances. The commander on the ground asked for extra troops, and that is exactly what he got. The previous troop level satisfied his earlier assessment. It is terribly important, as the hon. Gentleman will know, that the commanders on the ground state the troop requirement—essentially that is what the MOD has provided. I therefore agree with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
  Mr. Francois: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as the House has been in recess for two months, the Opposition have done the House a service by using their time to provide the debate today, thus allowing the House to discuss the latest situation in Iraq? Members on both sides of the House have welcomed that opportunity. On the point about overstretch, the hon. Gentleman is right that the Opposition have supported the deployment of troops, but we have pointed out that that has resulted in overstretch for our armed forces. That is not hypocritical—we have supported the action,
  224
  but we have to accept that there are knock-on consequences. Surely, it is perfectly appropriate for the Opposition to point that out in the House of Commons?
  Mr. Joyce: They can point out what they want, but the fact is that one cannot make an assumption of overstretch simply because troop deployment is to be increased. The overall deployment level is substantially lower, but the Opposition are using the term "overstretch" as if it were a given—an increase in troop deployment must mean overstretch. That is not the case either now or more generally.
  When the hon. Member for North Essex made his introductory remarks, he rightly praised the troops for their contribution to our successes to date, winning the conflict in the first place and their excellent work at the moment. Then we heard that everything is falling apart. I do not know how the Opposition or other Members would feel if they were on the ground, constantly hearing how wonderfully they were doing, but learning that the effect of their efforts was negative or had been neutralised. That is simply not the case, and it does not help the debate.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I do not have a clear idea of whether things are getting better in Iraq or worse, but many of my constituents are asylum seekers from Iraq whom I have helped in the past. In the past few weeks, I have seen a number of them. Many of them are from Baghdad, not Basra, and are desperate to get their families out because of the security situation. Last week, I had a call from someone whose wife was in Baghdad—the day before, one of her neighbours had been raped and strangled. The caller said that the security situation in Baghdad is far worse than it was before the war.
  Mr. Joyce: I accept what my hon. Friend is saying, and have listened to his comments before with interest—I know that he feels very deeply about this. However, I simply cannot accept that the situation now is worse than it was before when, if someone disagreed with the sons of the regime, they could be dragged off to a zoo, thrown into a tiger's cage to be ripped apart and eaten. Things cannot get much worse than that, and we know that that was a fact of life.
  Mr. Jones: I am not saying that the situation under Saddam Hussein was anything but deplorable, but things can be worse than they are for someone who says something against the Government leadership, only to be taken away and thrown to the lions. Someone could be in a position where it does not matter what they say—an intruder might come in, burgle their house, murder them or kill their children. That is a worse position.
  Mr. Joyce: I suspect that my hon. Friend and I will never agree on this issue. I simply do not agree that the situation is worse than previously. There is all sorts of evidence to show that that is not the case. For the moment, I guess that that will be the end of my comments on the issue, as we could debate it endlessly. I disagree that the situation is worse, as such a view does not stand up in the light of the evidence.
  Ms Dari Taylor: The newspapers have been full of reports—I have no doubts about them, as they have

  225
  been supported by military documents—that Sunni extremists, Ba'ath die-hards and Muslim mujaheddin are all fighting in their different ways to unsettle the situation and put anything they can in the way of reconstruction. Surely to goodness we all understand that the situation is going to be very difficult, and nobody assumes otherwise. Did we not assume that that was going to be the case? Are we not asking the impossible in suggesting that the armed forces should understand everything that is going on and be present in every place where such people can manoeuvre in the community?
  Mr. Joyce: I thank my hon. Friend for those wise remarks. It behoves us to remember that these are difficult times. I am sure that there will be a positive outcome in due course, but it will take time. This is not the time for political opportunism. but I sometimes detect a bit too much of it from the Opposition Benches.
  It is not difficult to see that the Opposition tend to criticise what is happening on the ground in Iraq while desperately avoiding being critical of a Republican Administration. They want to criticise the situation in Iraq, but not a Republican Administration for whose policies they no doubt have a great regard. Frankly, that approach does not stack up. The situation in the British sector is considerably better than elsewhere. That is not to say that the US is not doing a very good job in the light of the different difficulties that it faces. However, the fact of the matter is that it does not stack up constantly to gainsay the effect that this country is having in Iraq without being critical of the Republican Administration. As it happens, in large terms, I would not be critical of America's efforts, as think that it is making a pretty good effort. It takes a bit more than a generally negative tone in the short term with a hint at a positive tone in the longer term, along with the idea that the Opposition would have had some sort of cunning plan that they will not tell us anything about, to add up to a useful and coherent debate.
  3.47 pm
  Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: I should like to pull up the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn), who made some very interesting comments, but suggested that there was a vast anti-war movement in America. I have just returned from a holiday in America and I can tell him that, although there is an anti-war movement, it is not large and certainly not vast. I was in America at the time of the UN bombing, and the concern there is that it is not getting the job done quickly enough. That is exactly what we are saying in this House. As the Americans see it, their role is to try to turn the country back into a democratic state as quickly as possible. Their concern is the time for which their troops will have to be committed in the country. They are already talking about overstretch, and they have 140,000 troops there.
  On arriving in America, it was interesting to hear what people were saying on the streets. Obviously, when a bomb goes off and 100 people are killed, there will be much comment. It was extremely difficult to understand the Americans' long-term game plan. The local people saw a country called "Ayraq" that was somewhere the other side of Britain. They do not understand exactly what they are going to do with the long-term
  226
  commitment that they are going to put in. We in this country would not understand the control and information coming down from President Bush. It is not getting home to the American people this message: "We have to go through with this now, no matter what, because we have to finish off what we have started.
  The role of the United Nations, whether in Korea, Bosnia, Beirut or any where else, has always been to go into a country to stand between two sides to try to sort out a situation. However, that can be done only when there is some form of military stability in that nation. On 19 August, when a bomb was driven up to the UN building and an enormous number of people were killed, it was shown that that was not the case. Unfortunately, I do not think that it will happen in the foreseeable future. The longer that we are in Iraq, the more time there will be for opposing forces to build up.
  There are great open borders in Iraq with Iran, Jordan, Syria and the Palestinians. In a way, it is a new Cuba. People go there because they can be seen to make a difference. The UN has a vital role to play, but it has to be under the auspices of some form of military force. It is not possible to train a nation's policemen and soldiers without the help of the policemen and soldiers of other nations. We learned that in Rhodesia—Zimbabwe—and in Kenya and Malaya. We, as a nation, are not doing enough, quickly enough, to help those forces to build up. We learned a lesson in Zimbabwe in 1980 when we quickly got British policemen and soldiers out there to train the forces. It may not be a pretty sight 20 years later, but at the time the operation worked well, and it was the speed that counted.
  An increasingly prominent question—I certainly see it in my postbag—is: "Why haven't we found the weapons of mass destruction?" I supported the Government. Perhaps I am gullible and I was led astray by the Prime Minister, but—partly because I was in the services—I believe that one should support the troops when they are going in. We need to resolve the problem. It is all right for the Liberals to go on about it: they can change sides as many times as they want, but in the end nobody will believe them. At least we have the morals to stand by what we believe, unlike—I shall not say it.
  Mr. Keetch: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger: Oh, go on then.
  Mr. Keetch: If the hon. Gentleman will not believe the Liberal Democrats, does he believe his own leader, who said that he believed that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, and could build up an arsenal that he could use against Britain? He said:
  "The only question is will he choose to strike against Britain? I believe so."
  Does the hon. Gentleman believe his leader?
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger: I really must learn not to grant interventions to Liberal Democrats. I am not going to answer that. The Liberals need to learn when to be quiet.

  227
  I want to move on to reserve forces and overstretch. The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce) made some interesting comments, although I do not agree with him. If we are to continue to have a long-term commitment to Iraq, we must not allow our forces to become overstretched. The British military work on a three-year training cycle. The first year is operational, the second is for training, and the third is for recuperating and resting. We are unable to recruit enough people to join our volunteer forces, so there is bound to be overstretch. The situation will continue for a long time to come. Our experience in Northern Ireland shows that it takes much longer o help people than is anticipated when one first goes in.
  If we are to use our forces wisely, that must include our reserve forces, some of whom are hon. Members who are in Iraq or who may yet go there. We need a much better way of mobilising those forces. The cold war is long gone. A situation such as this never arose in the 1990s, at the time of the strategic defence review. We did not anticipate a long-term commitment to a country such as Iraq. If the situation is allowed to continue, we will find that troops are away so much that people will not join the military because their families will not see them or get the back-up that they need at home. The Royal Marines are based just outside my constituency in Taunton. Having just returned, they are about to be redeployed in another situation. That is fine—it is what they signed up for—but they find it very tough never to be off-duty. My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) asked the Secretary of State about the possible loss of battalions, or even regiments. I hope that that is not to be the case, because we can ill afford it.
  About 1.5 million refugees were chased out of Iraq over a long period. Those people should be brought back. Many of them—professional people who were chased out by the Saddam Hussein regime—are the kind of people who are needed back in Iraq to help to rebuild it. Many are in Jordan, Syria and Iran. We need to bring them back before they get the idea of coming back as armed insurgents. They must be brought back and assimilated into society but we must also do much more.
  Congress has been asked for another $87 billion. That is an enormous amount of money to have to put up to lead such a programme, but it will be needed. It is all very well claiming that things will get better; the time that they take to do so means that more goes wrong. One cannot expect 47 per cent. of the rural population to do without water for a long period. We must ensure that 100 per cent. of people have clean water.
  Why should anyone have faith in the supposedly developed world if we do not give a lead to people who need to be returned to the country and assimilated? Iraqis will continue to disbelieve what we are about. Why should they believe us? Actions speak louder than words. We must make progress; if we do not, we let those people down. The House should therefore completely support our role.
  3.55 pm
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: Today's debate is timely, but I am sorry that the Government did not provide a full debate on the subject. I support the amendment that
  228
  the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) tabled. If it had been selected, I would have voted for it because
  "stabilisation in Iraq can only be effective if implemented by forces under the control of the United Nations."
  I would add that political power must be handed over to the Iraqi people as soon as possible. Some dreadful mistakes have been made, not least the total disbanding of the Iraqi army. That has made the situation far worse.
  We are right to focus on the misleading devices that were employed to get the country to go to war. Like everybody else, I await with bated breath the outcome of the Iraq survey group's report on weapons of mass destruction and the Hutton report. However, now is not the time for that.
  It is timely to remind hon. Members of the genuine consequences of the illegal and immoral war for the people of Iraq. It is proper to examine the way in which millions of ordinary Iraqi people are suffering now. We should also consider the destabilisation of the middle east. There is no comparison between that and the impact on a few political careers and no question about what should receive priority.
  Mrs. Louise Ellman: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mrs. Mahon: No, I want to continue for a while and my hon. Friend has not been present for the whole debate.
  As many hon. Members said, the war has not been cost free. More than 6,000 Iraqi civilians are dead, hundreds of thousands have been injured and the security and livelihoods of many more have been destroyed. For what—a better life? We were told that when the occupying troops went in, flowers would be strewn in their path and they would be welcome. However, the reality is a massive increase in rape—women are not safe to go out—abductions, in the south as well as the north, murders, lootings and all other violent crimes. Power supplies have still not been restored and the water remains contaminated. Diseases such as cholera and dysentery are rife.
  Contrary to the claims of the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence yesterday that all 240 hospitals are operating, NGO reports present a different picture. I recommend that my right hon. Friends read those reports on how the hospitals are operating. A mass of evidence exists, if they look for it, that paints a grim picture. There is a huge increase in patients admitted with gunshot wounds; many hospitals are without the medicines that they require; much equipment is useless or not operable during power cuts. Much has also been stolen and wrecked by looters. It is therefore not true that 240 hospitals are operating as we would recognise a fully operating hospital.
  Mr. Hugo Swire: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Mahon: I shall do so shortly.
  In a sense, Iraqis are worse off than they were under that hateful man. Before anybody asks "Do you support Saddam Hussein?", I emphasise that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) and I

  229
  went to 10 Downing street and signed early-day motions in 1987 and 1988, when Saddam Hussein was considered to be someone with whom we could do business. I opposed him then; I do not have any truck with that man.
  The view is being put forward that we got rid of a dictator, that it was worth it, and that we are going to bring freedom and democracy back to the Iraqis. I believe that the contrary is happening at the moment, and will do so for the foreseeable future. I cannot see that changing. Iraq has descended into a lawless state—civil unrest is growing and about a dozen attacks on our troops take place daily. The jihadists are entering the country at an alarming rate. This was always predictable; indeed, it was predicted.
  What is happening in Iraq is seen by millions of Muslims throughout the world as a western crusade to grab the oil and to grab another part of the world for western society's needs. Iraq is surrounded by 10 or 12 Muslim countries, representing about 240 million Muslims. That is a fertile breeding ground for extremists. Al-Qaeda might not have been in Iraq before, but it, or similar groups, are almost certainly there now. I have never equated Iraq with Vietnam, although I know that some people think that it is going to end up like Vietnam did. My real fear is that Iraq could end up like Afghanistan.
  We should give Iraqis the vote, but I am not convinced that the Shi'a majority want anything like what we would view as a western democracy. Iraq will almost certainly become an Islamic state. I do not think that this process will lead to a secular society; the country will probably split into various pieces. Everything that has been said about keeping it as a sovereign state and introducing democracy will simply not come about.
  Yesterday, without making a statement to the House, the Secretary of State committed two more battalions and more specialist personnel to join the armed forces already in Iraq. This is a grave mistake. As I said earlier, I have recently spoken to troops who have just returned from a six-month tour of duty in Basra. They did not recognise the rosy picture that has been painted of southern Iraq. I sat and listened to them for more than an hour, and I suspect that two of them will be leaving our armed forces. There is no way that those two young men will go back to Iraq. They said that they were tolerated, at best, when they first went in, but that now there is deep resentment. If people want to look, they can see the demonstrations and the attacks that are happening on a daily basis, not only in the American-held areas but where we are, too.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: I am interested to hear what my hon. Friend has to say about the troops returning from Iraq. Other members of the Defence Committee and I visited Basra in late July, and I accept that the situation there is no bed of roses, mainly as a result of a lack of investment by the previous regime over many years. However, schools, for example, are being opened by dedicated troops who are working very hard there. Will my hon. Friend give credit for the fact that things are being done to improve the situation,
  230
  certainly in parts of southern Iraq? The picture is not entirely the bad one that she and, unfortunately, the press are trying to paint.
  Mrs. Mahon: I point out to my hon. Friend that all the schools were working before we carried out this illegal invasion. [Interruption.] Most of them were. I have had meetings with Iraqi women who were involved in higher education but who are now unable to pursue their studies because they dare not go out alone, either during the day or at night, because of the abductions, rapes and murders. Many Iraqi women in the south are also being subjected to the hard-line mullahs who now insist that they should be veiled. Many freedoms have therefore been taken away by this untimely and unnecessary war.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mrs. Mahon: I must make some progress; we do not have too much time.
  The Iraqis feel humiliated and deeply resent their country being occupied. It is much worse where the United States troops are in control. We are possibly doing a better job than they are, but the resentment is still there.
  Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Chris McCafferty) asked how many ordinary Iraqis—men, women and children—had died since the peace had begun. I think it shameful that the Foreign Secretary admitted that he did not know; but we can obtain the information from the websites, and we read daily of the tragedies caused by the disastrous methods of control used by some of our US allies.
  On Sunday Peter Beaumont, a distinguished journalist on The Observer who is very knowledgeable about this part of the world, reported on the victims of methods used by the coalition. Such things happen daily in Iraq. He said:
  "Farah Fadhil was only 18 when she was killed. An American soldier threw a grenade through the window of her apartment. Her death, early last Monday, was slow and agonising. Her legs had been shredded, her hands burnt and punctured by splinters of metal, suggesting that the bright high-school student had covered her face to shield it from the explosion.
  She had been walking to the window to try to calm an escalating situation; to use her smattering of English to plead with the soldiers who were spraying her apartment building with bullets.
  But then a grenade was thrown and Farah died. So did Marwan Hassan who, according to neighbours, was caught in the crossfire as he went looking for his brother when the shooting began.
  What is perhaps most shocking about their deaths is that the coalition troops who killed them did not even bother to record the details of the raid with the coalition military press office. The killings were that unremarkable. What happened in Mahmudiya last week should not be forgotten, for the story of this raid is also the story of the dark side of the US-led occupation of Iraq, of the violent and sometimes lethal raids carried out apparently beyond any accountability."
  That is part of the daily life that people think is making things better for those in Iraq.
  It is almost impossible to imagine the level of bitterness and hatred that such actions breed among the Iraqi population. I believe that our service men and women have been placed in grave danger. I believe that the United Nations and the non-governmental

  231
  organisations are exposed to an Afghan-type situation. When the International Red Cross is pulling out, we have some very serious problems.
  Suicide bombers are now operating in Iraq. These are certainly not just Saddam Hussein's disgruntled fedayeen. I think that we have opened Pandora's box. The resolution currently before the UN will not be acceptable. What country, what sane Government, would send their service men and women under that resolution? It keeps the United States totally in control and gives little military, economic or political power to anyone else.
  It is clear to everyone who has been involved in the debate that there was definitely no post-war plan. I still believe that the war was intended to allow the US Government to get their hands on Iraq's oil—and, shamefully, my Government were prepared to help them to do so. It has created division between Europe and America, and it has had profound consequences for the United Nations, which I think it has damaged. It was a dreadful and costly mistake. Questions will be asked for years to come about why we went to war. What we certainly do not have at present is an exit strategy, and as a Member of Parliament whose constituents contain young men and women in the services, I think that that is an absolute scandal. I want to know when they are coming home. I want the UN to be brought in—I think that essential—but it will not be brought in under the latest resolution.
  This has been a dangerous, reckless adventure, which has made the world a much more dangerous place for all of us. Those who misled and deceived us, and conspired to bring about this disastrous invasion, will carry the guilt. The rest of us should keep reminding the world that such recklessness should never happen again. We should use the United Nations and stick by international law.
  4.9 pm
  Richard Younger-Ross: I welcome this debate and it is opportune that we are able to discuss this subject today. However, given the seriousness of the situation in Iraq, I find the motion's wording rather wishy-washy. Considering everything that is taking place, much more could have been included in the motion and we could have had a more pointed debate.
  Many very wise things have been said in the Chamber today. For example, the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) made some particularly pertinent points about the lack of preparation. Preparation was an issue that we raised with various Ministers, including the Secretary of State for Defence, in the run-up to the war. We were always assured that everything was going to be all right, everything was planned and all eventualities had been catered for. Those assurances have proved about as worth while as the dodgy dossier, in that the reality has proved rather different from the case that was made.
  Some predicted that there would be problems afterwards. I shall quote not from Liberal Democrat Members or Labour Members, but from John Major. The current leader of the Tory party may have some difficulties with that former leader, but I wish that he
  232
  had listened to him a little more in the run-up to this debate; that way we might not have reached this current position. On 23 February, John Major was interviewed on BBC television. According to the BBC website, he said that there would be Armageddon in the middle east if the UK and the US attacked Iraq unilaterally. More pertinently, he went on to say:
  "The problems of winning the war are clear. The problems of winning the peace are going to be much more complex."
  Winning the peace is certainly far more complex.
  I contend that our troops are overstretched, both in and out of theatre. I am a member of the British armed forces parliamentary scheme, which is attached to the Army for the year. We were privileged to go to Basra in early June and to visit the training facility at the British Army training unit Suffield, in Canada, last week. While we were there, the forces on the ground were asked to do many essential tasks, which they did gladly. However, they involved supervising construction work, helping to purchase fridges for health centres, training policemen and many other tasks that could easily have been done by other agencies, had they been there.
  It was pointed out earlier in the debate—perhaps during the opening remarks—that the commanders kept asking, "Where is the Department for International Development? Where is the help that we expect from our Government with what we are doing? It is not there." It is no surprise that commanders are saying that they have adequate forces, but at the same time asking where DFID is. It was only a matter of time before the lack of assistance from DFID created stresses within the armed forces. The sending of extra forces is a response to that consequence.
  I point out to the Minister that extra armed forces alone will not resolve the situation. We have to get the restructuring in hand to make the country more prosperous. We must get the basic services working and back under Iraqi control if we are to resolve the situation. In many ways, the longer that takes the more difficult it will be.
  I referred to the overstretching of our forces in Iraq because of the tasks that they are being asked to undertake, and to the forces training at BATUS, whose training programme is called Operation Medicine Hat. Because of a lack of pre-training—as a result of Operation Telic, for example—Operation Medicine Hat has had to be cancelled. The troops are now training to a lower standard because the commanders do not feel that they will be able to reach the higher standard. For the Government Front Benchers to say that our forces are not being overstretched is palpable nonsense. Our forces are being reduced in capacity because they are not trained to the high standards that they were before.
  Mr. Salmond: If I understood him correctly earlier, the Defence Secretary said that no one should say that the troops are overstretched because it would demoralise them. In fact, every constituent in the armed forces that I have met has asked me to articulate the view that they are dramatically overstretched, which poses severe dangers for morale. Who does the hon. Gentleman believe—the Secretary of State for Defence or his own and my constituents in the armed forces?
  Richard Younger-Ross: I take the point, which the hon. Gentleman makes exceedingly well. I take the view

  233
  of my constituents and the forces that I have met in both Iraq and Canada, which is that our forces are overstretched. Saying otherwise is to look blindly and fail to see the reality. It is a problem that we need to face up to.
  I can provide an example of how the overstretching works on the ground. I referred in an earlier intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) to the World Food Programme warehouses just outside Basra. The British Army trained some guards from the naval academy and they had a base within the compound to keep an eye on things. They were able to prevent looting. With the changeover of regiments, the new battle group went in, the commander examined what he had to do and reordered his forces. He took the decision—it was rightly his to take—to remove that force, which had been permanently stationed within the warehouse, and allocate it to other tasks elsewhere.
  The World Food Programme was concerned and made representations to the Army and us that, if those forces were removed, the local guards would not be strong or disciplined enough, so looting would soon take place. The Ministry confirmed in a letter last week that that was indeed the case. Shortly after our forces were withdrawn, the walls were breached, looting took place and the British commander subsequently had to reverse the decision and put troops back within the compound to prohibit the looting. The problem facing the commander was that forces were limited and could be allocated only so far. Forces could have been allocated more readily if they were not doing the tasks that the Department for International Development and others should have been doing while they were there.
  There are major problems—for example, with the electricity, water and oil supplies and with clearing up munitions. The Foreign Secretary told us yesterday that Russian companies were asking to be part of the contracts for rebuilding the power stations. I would like to know why I was told in a parliamentary answer earlier this year that there had been no approaches from Russia regarding the power stations. If Russian companies are interested, why is the process taking so long?
  The power stations are not working to full—indeed, only 25 per cent.—capacity. Why cannot we get the components, probably stockpiled somewhere in Russia, into the power stations so that they can run at greater capacity? If they did so, there would be fewer electricity supply cuts, and without so many supply cuts, we would not have so many Iraqi children going to the munitions dumps, taking out boxes of mortars and emptying them on to the desert so that they can take the wood back to burn to boil the water in order to drink safely. How many Iraqi children have died as a consequence of the lack of power? Quite a lot. There is a poster campaign telling Iraqi children not to touch munitions, but the choice between clean water and opening a box of mortars to have the wood is a very hard one.
  Jeremy Corbyn: I am very interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and he makes his case well in respect of unexploded munitions. Has he any information about the effects of weapons that used depleted uranium, in both the first Gulf war and the
  234
  more recent conflict? What is the incidence of cancers, especially in southern Iraq, as a result of the use of those weapons?
  Richard Younger-Ross: I have no evidence on that. My information, as far as it goes, is that no link has yet been proven between depleted uranium and cancer.
  Other hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall conclude my speech. Yesterday, I asked the Foreign Secretary about the resources that are being made available. He said that
  "the Department for International Development has committed £198 million altogether this financial year. Within that overall figure, an allocation of £20 million was recently made for short-term infrastructure projects in the south of Iraq."—[Official Report, 8 September 2003; Vol. 410, c. 49.]
  That is fine, but it did not answer the question that I asked. I wanted to know what resources, including people, were being made available. When he responds to the debate, I hope that the Minister will say why only two police offices have been allocated to Iraq—one to Basra and the other to Baghdad. More officers are needed to train the local police.
  It is said that our forces are overstretched. I hope that the Minister will say how the Government will make available the resources to deal with the problems. Without those resources the prognosis is not bright or good. It is actually very gloomy.
  4.21 pm
  Mr. Richard Page: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, for not being here for the start of the debate. I had the responsibility of being in the Chair for a private Bill Committee upstairs. I have yet to perfect the technique of being in two places at once.
  I begin by congratulating my hon. Friends on the Front Bench on choosing this subject for debate. It is amazing that the Government did not take the opportunity provided by a September return to hold a full debate on this very serious issue. They will stand condemned in the eyes of the public for that omission. I can understand why they should be embarrassed about the matter, but their duty was to hold such a debate.
  The House has speculated about the reasons for the war. The Prime Minister may love foreign excursions, or he may want to show what a good buddy he is to George W. Bush. As the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) said, it may be that there is a strong oil connection behind the war.
  Regime change is illegal, as Canning made clear a couple of hundred years ago. However, he said that a pre-emptive strike was permissible under certain circumstances, if it meant that the safety of the realm would be secured. He did not quite use those words, but the sentiment is clear, and it is a short step from there to the Government's argument about weapons of mass destruction, to which the Prime Minister clings like a drowning man clutching at a straw. I suppose that there is a parallel there somewhere.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), the shadow Secretary of State, was the first to refer to the dodgy dossier, and events have proved him absolutely right. I voted against the war. I did so with sadness, but I did not believe the dossier. I remember the

  235
  Prime Minister's performances at the Dispatch Box: on more than one occasion, his face was contorted with conviction and honesty as he tried to convince the House, "I am Tony, trust me."
  Hon. Members of all parties told me that they did not believe that there were weapons of mass destruction, but that they could not believe that the Prime Minister could come to the House and say what he said unless he knew something that they did not. They said that that was why they supported the Government. What is the situation now, given that some 10,000 people are dead or wounded, and that billions of pounds worth of damage has been done? In the absence of a miraculous discovery, it is fairly obvious that there are no weapons of mass destruction. Also, it is clear that the plans to rebuild Iraq have been woefully inadequate, even though we were assured time and time again that the proper plans were in place.
  Mr. John Randall: Like my hon. Friend, I voted against the war, but like him, I wavered when I heard the Prime Minister, thinking that I might be in the wrong. Does my hon. Friend agree that the best thing for the good of the country would be a full inquiry? If we knew that the Prime Minister took his decisions on the best possible intelligence, I would always be prepared to say I was wrong.
  Mr. Page: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; indeed, that is how I meant to end my few immortal words to the House. Since he has said that for me, I shall just give the House the few bits remaining.
  I am amazed by the Government's surprise at terrorist and criminal activity in Iraq. It seems as if the Prime Minister writes a script then becomes aghast when the rest of the world does not follow it. There are no weapons of mass destruction—oh dear, there is a mistake. There was inadequate policy to rebuild Iraq after the war. And now they are surprised that terrorist activity is ruining all the reconstruction that should be taking place and they are asking more troops to risk their skins to save the Government's skin.
  We had better start looking through the right end of the telescope. I do not think that the west understands the strength of Islamic feeling, faith and fervour throughout the world. We try to impose our values and disciplines on the rest of the world, and we act surprised when that does not work as we want it to. The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) just asked whether we are right to impose western democracy on Iraq, and she was absolutely right. On how many places in Africa have we have tried to impose our democratic processes? Has it worked? Has it stuck? Has it continued? Of course not.
  Nor do we understand the strength of Islam. If someone invaded this country, would we expect our patriots to undertake guerrilla activity against the invader? I think we would. We would be surprised if this great British island did not contain people who would say, "No. We want them out. We want to be back in charge of our own affairs." We call people terrorists, but to the Islamic movement and faith, they are holy warriors and martyrs, protecting their own and protecting their faith.
  236
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) said we need quick training and a quick way out. I say amen to that.
  4.27 pm
  Mrs. Caroline Spelman: My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) has just said that the witching hour approaches. That is an interesting description of the time for winding-up speeches in the House of Commons, but I have no fears about exorcising ghosts and dispatching myths. If he cares to follow my speech, I hope that I shall not disappoint him after his catchy description.
  I thank the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) for pointing out how important it is to have the opportunity to hold this debate following the summer recess. It was nice of him to do so. We all feel the need to discuss this important issue, and the Opposition have been willing to donate our time for it. It is in everyone's interest.
  I rather liked some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood). I cannot say that I greatly enjoyed the anti-American aspect of his speech, but he made one very telling point. One rarely hears from those of us in this profession that, as he said, politicians are usually part of the problem, not the solution. There was remarkable profundity in that, and we should all show his touch of humility on that point.
  I had rather less time for the many interventions made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). He fails to understand that support for the war was not a blank cheque in support of the failures that came out of the war. Grown-up politics means constructive criticism, even from one's supporters, and that is very much what we are engaged in.
  Mr. Salmond rose—
  Mrs. Spelman: I am not giving way on that point. The hon. Gentleman has burned up too much capital with his previous interventions.
  I especially want to single out the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter), who is a member of the Select Committee on International Development. He explained clearly the inconsistencies at the heart of DFID's policy, which led to the military situation in Iraq. I am glad that a DFID Minister is on the Treasury Bench now, although none was present for the whole of the rest of the debate. The Government chose to open and wind up the debate with Defence spokesmen, yet DFID and the Ministry of Defence are in this together, which is why the Opposition have speakers from both briefs. One Department cannot operate without the other.
  There were a number of interesting contributions from the Government Benches. However, I disagree with the comments of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce), who disputes the claim that there is overstretch. With his military background, I am sure that he will listen to a former Chief of the Defence Staff talking about overstretch in the Army. Soldiers take us—their political representatives at Westminster—on one side, as they did when I was in Afghanistan and the Gulf, and explain what overstretch feels like, what it means and the consequences for them and their families. To dispute that it exists is not a wise course.

  237
  The deep concern of the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) for the people of Iraq is respected on both sides of the House. She brought us the important and troubling information that the ICRC is withdrawing from its work in Iraq. That the military situation has become so bad that the ICRC has felt the need to do that is extremely significant. In my experience, it is the one organisation that works in the direst military situations and has been willing to go through the lines to help people, so for it to withdraw from Iraq is very serious indeed.
  I hope that other hon. Members who contributed to the debate will forgive me if I turn to some of the main points. The debate has been interesting and it is important that we have had the opportunity to hold it after our break. Incredibly, in the last statement that we heard before our summer recess, the Government seemed to believe their spin about the military situation in Iraq: even then, they had persuaded themselves that it was better than the grim reality. The Minister of State, Department for International Development, actually said:
  "Life has regained an air of normality."—[Official Report, 3 July 2003; Vol. 408, c. 552.]
  That is extraordinary. How hollow that assessment rings today. Events over the summer have shown what a shambles the Government's policy for post-conflict Iraq has become.
  Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary admitted that the situation on the ground is more serious than it was at the end of July. That is important. A senior member of the Government formally admitted in the House that things were deteriorating. That means that, as a coalition partner, we have presided over a deteriorating security situation. The closest we got to an admission of the seriousness of the situation from DFID was in its most recent update on Iraq on 5 September, which stated that security "remains tense". Given that many NGOs are withdrawing their staff from Iraq, that the UN is still operating from a different country and that we are sending more of our troops, that was, to say the least, an understatement.
  It is difficult for the Opposition to resist saying, "We told you so", but almost exactly a year ago, on 24 September, the shadow Foreign Secretary gave the Government four key points that would have to be taken into consideration before a decision to go to war. First, we must act with the international community. Secondly, the basis for any war must be legal. Thirdly, if war took place, it should be prosecuted effectively. Fourthly, there should be no war without a clear vision for the new Iraq.
  Just in case the Government were not listening back in September last year, we reminded them of the same four points before the conflict started in a debate in the House on 21 January. The Government chose to ignore our advice, with some of the most churlish and complacent answers to parliamentary questions that I have ever seen. For example, in October last year, I asked what discussions had taken place between the Department for International Development and its equivalents in the US, UN and EU about a possible conflict in Iraq, and I received the answer that they were not actively discussing those issues. That is very hard to believe if, as the former Secretary of State for
  238
  International Development claimed on 17 June in her evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Prime Minister and President Bush had set a date for the war last September. What does that tell us about the Prime Minister's priorities for post-conflict Iraq if DFID was being sidelined from his discussions?
  In November, we held a contingency planning forum for the non-governmental organisations, the suggestions from which received barely an acknowledgement. In December and again in January, I asked what discussions had been held with Iraq's neighbours about refugees, and I got the same answer on both occasions—one word: none.
  On 30 January, the former Secretary of State for International Development stood right here in the House and said:
  "the preparations are as good as they can be."—[0fficial Report, 30 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 1054.]
  How does that square with her telling "The Politics Show" on 1 June that
  "preparations for post-conflict were poor"?
  So, poor means good for the Government, does it? That failure has contributed to the present military situation in Iraq.
  Who is to blame? On 3 February, the Prime Minister told the House:
  "We are well aware that we must have a humanitarian plan that is every bit as viable and as well worked out as a military plan."—[Official Report, 3 February 2003; Vol. 399, c. 36.]
  However, being aware is not the same as doing something about it. Now, in an article in The Independent on Sunday this week, the former Secretary of State for International Development lays the blame firmly on the Prime Minister, by claiming that the threat from Iraq was exaggerated. She said:
  "On top of this, there is the total negligence of failing to prepare for the inevitability of a speedy military victory. Many, many lives have been lost and are being lost in Iraq because of this incompetence."
  In her resignation letter, the former Secretary of State for International Development said that
  "she agreed to stay in the Government to help support the reconstruction".
  However, it appears that that reconstruction did not happen. The Prime Minister's added mistake was to ask her to stay on.
  Mr. Caplin: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Spelman: I am reaching the end of my speech. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity in his winding-up speech, and we both have limited time.
  Not only have the people of Iraq been let down by Government negligence, but our own people feel let down by the Government exaggerating important information on which the decision to go to war was based. A good outcome can be wrestled from the situation in Iraq. Above all, we have a responsibility to work towards that, but we need answers to questions about why the military situation got worse instead of better.
  We welcomed the judicial inquiry into the death of Dr. Kelly, for which we are all sorry, but out of respect for all who have died in Iraq, in part through the lack of

  239
  contingency planning, we still need a full, independent inquiry into the Government's mishandling of the war. The inquiry should investigate not only the handling of intelligence material and the basis of the decision to go to war, but what happened in the Government to result in such a poor planning process. The Government can best address the military situation in Iraq by publishing a clear plan for the reconstruction of Iraq. Failure to do that will fuel the fears that they do not have a plan, and that does not bode well for the situation in Iraq.
  4.40 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin): Today's debate has provided an important opportunity for the House to consider developments in Iraq during the parliamentary recess. I certainly welcome the nine Back-Bench contributions to the debate, which has been taken seriously by hon. Members of all parties.
  I must briefly tell the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) that we had Defence questions yesterday when my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Minister of State and I were in the Chamber to answer questions on all defence issues, including those that arose during the parliamentary recess. Parliament did not recommence today; it started yesterday.
  I want to reflect on the efforts of those from the United Kingdom—military and civilian—who are trying to restore to Iraq the political security and economic stability that it needs and deserves. Many non-governmental organisations and charitable organisations from throughout the world, together with our armed services and staff from the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development, are working throughout Iraq. The House can be justifiably proud of the work that is taking place and all those who are prepared to work in sometimes trying or even dangerous conditions for the benefit of another nation. I am sure that the House will join me in paying tribute to their courage and compassion and the important role that they are playing in the reconstruction.
  I want to go through some of the issues relating to the ongoing humanitarian and reconstruction work in Iraq. The Department for International Development has contributed £218 million for the reconstruction of Iraq, which is, of course, money from Her Majesty's Government. The United Kingdom is also providing €19 million—I know that Conservative Members will enjoy that—toward European Community funding in Iraq that is contributing to programmes relating to the humanitarian situation. The United Nations World Food Programme distribution system has been up and running since June. Small-scale voluntary returns of refugees from neighbouring countries are being facilitated by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. As the hon. Member for Meriden knows, plans have been announced for the construction of emergency housing in southern Iraq for returning refugees and internally displaced people. The aim is to create 4,000 homes within six months at a cost of $27.5 million using local contractors and creating 20,000 jobs.
  Despite what has been said this afternoon, almost all hospitals in Iraq are now in operation, although several still face some water, sanitation, power and security
  240
  difficulties—no Government Member denies that. However, coalition forces are providing security for several such hospitals and Iraqi security guards and the police force are being trained for that purpose. When necessary, Her Majesty's Government are supplying generators.
  US aid contractors are working to restore schools throughout Iraq. I am delighted that most schools were open by June this year and that about 5.5 million children were able to take end-of-year exams in June and July. The World Health Organisation reports that there is no overall shortage of medical supplies in Iraq, although there might be a shortage to treat several specific conditions. Some problems remain with the distribution of supplies to hospitals and clinics, which is largely a result of security problems. Routine vaccination for children has been restarted and a catch-up campaign run to vaccinate children who missed out during the conflict.
  Water supplies have been disrupted by sabotage, terrorism and looting, and the House should condemn such action, but the International Committee of the Red Cross and others, including British armed forces, have worked well to repair facilities and to provide water by tanker where supplies have been disrupted.
  I shall list some of the agencies that Her Majesty's Government are supporting through the Department for International Development. The World Food Programme receives £33 million; UNICEF £9 million; and UN Mine Action Service £4 million. The ICRC and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies together get £32 million.
  Mr. Jenkin: We are impressed by those figures and do not dispute them. We acknowledge the money that is being spent. What the Government have failed to do, however, is to say why the infrastructure problems in Iraq, which are contributing to the unhappiness of the population, are only now being addressed. Why does that problem suddenly require reinforcements to overcome it? Why was it not in the original plan? Why did the Government not act earlier?
  Mr. Caplin: That is all part of what was originally planned. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is timely and perhaps he will reconsider it in a moment. Unlike the Liberal Democrats, who quoted the Leader of the Opposition from last year, I shall quote what the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) said on the BBC 6 o'clock news last night:
  "There is no reconstruction taking place."
  I am putting on the record the reconstruction that is taking place time and time again on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.
  Jenkin rose—
  Mr. Caplin: Want to try again?
  Mr. Jenkin: The delivery of emergency water supplies or food parcels does not constitute reconstruction. How many contractors are working in Iraq, or has the security situation deteriorated to such an extent that they dare not go in?
  Mr. Caplin: I reject the hon. Gentleman's comments. [Interruption.] Yes, I do. I want to carry on with the list.

  241
  It is extremely long and the House is going to hear it because of the serious allegation by the Leader of the Opposition that no reconstruction is taking place. I note that the hon. Member for Meriden did not repeat that accusation because she knows that it is not true.
  Save the Children UK is receiving £500,000; the Mines Advisory Group nearly £900,000; the BBC World Service £400,000; the World Health Organisation £6 million; and the UN Development Programme £7 million. The BBC World Service is an important facility for the production of radio programmes on humanitarian issues for the BBC Arabic Service that the people of Iraq can hear.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: If the Government and the Minister contend that the reconstruction in Iraq is going according to plan, when will the standard of living for the majority of Iraqis be the same as it was before the war?
  Mr. Caplin: Two things. First, I am not pretending that everything is okay. There is much more work to do. Secondly, I note that the hon. Gentleman does not agree with the leader of his party who said that no reconstruction is taking place. [Interruption.] Let me repeat it for Conservative Members: the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green claimed on the BBC 6 o'clock news last night:
  "There is no reconstruction taking place."
  I look forward to seeing the right hon. Gentleman at the Dispatch Box tomorrow opposite my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Salmond: Let us accept that the Leader of the Opposition is an easy target, but if everything is going to plan, what is the Foreign Secretary going on about in his leaked memo by saying that 5,000 extra troops are required to stop strategic failure? Does that mean that we can expect either another 3,000 troops deployed or strategic failure, or is the Foreign Secretary wrong?
  Mr. Caplin: Later in my comments I shall turn to the hon. Gentleman's earlier contribution. [Interruption.] I shall answer him when I am ready. I want first to turn to the Liberal Democrats.
  The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) referred to the security situation and asked whether we need to send more troops, so his question was not dissimilar to that just asked by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). The Secretary of State talked about that in his opening remarks. I sometimes wonder whether hon. Members have been listening because my right hon. Friend made the point that we must not forget that much of Iraq is peaceable and the majority of the country continues to support the coalition. However, we must send troops where they are necessary.
  Mr. Keetch: I heard exactly what the Secretary of State said today and yesterday—there are to be 1,200 additional troops and 1,000 will be on standby. The question that I and a number of others have asked is whether the Government can give an assessment as to whether that will be the final tranche of British troops
  242
  deployed in Iraq. I understand that it is difficult to predict the future, but surely the armed forces need to know whether thousands more are to be sent to Iraq.
  Mr. Caplin: Thankfully, Government policy is more flexible than that, and I cannot possibly answer that question because, as the hon. Gentleman will accept, we do not know what circumstances may arise. [Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. Perhaps the House could come to order.
  Mr. Caplin: In the short time that remains—
  Richard Younger-Ross: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Caplin: Later, if I have time.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) referred to unexploded ordnance. Coalition forces have already cleared 350,000 unexploded munitions, and that was done primarily by UK and Danish teams.
  I turn now to the speech of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan. I feel that his horse-racing tips would have been better than his speech. He clearly did not understand my intervention about the UN Security Council. He kept going on about a UN force, but he will be aware that Kofi Annan has ruled out any suggestion of a blue helmet force. To clarify matters for the hon. Gentleman, I point out that the important donors conference in Madrid next month, to which I am sure he would like to give his support, is referred to in the draft text of the Security Council resolution that is currently on the table.
  Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Caplin: Go on then.
  Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister be kind enough to reflect on the fact that the majority of the speeches made by Back Benchers in this debate supported my point about the UN force and, indeed, our amendment, which unfortunately was not selected? Since the Minister chose to mention me, will he return to the question of what the Foreign Secretary was going on about in the leaked memo about 5,000 troops? Will he answer the question—can we expect more troop deployments or not? If it is all going according to plan, why cannot he answer that question?
  Mr. Caplin: Well, I believe that the story to which the hon. Gentleman refers was in The Daily Telegraph, which I do not read.
  Mr. Edward Garnier: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Caplin: I am afraid that I cannot. There is no time.
  Mr. Garnier rose—
  Mr. Caplin: With respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, he has not been here all afternoon, but those

  243
  who have, including the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) and some of my colleagues, asked about the Iraq survey group. As hon. Members will know, the US is leading efforts to uncover the full extent of the misdeeds perpetrated by Saddam's regime. As well as unearthing efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction, that will include investigations into possible war crimes and support by the regime for terrorism. The group will have all the expertise that it needs for each particular task, and some members will be former UN weapons inspectors. The UK contribution to the group will be between 60 and 100 personnel, both military and civilian.
  Questions were asked about troop deployment. My hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) asked about non-UK and non-US troops in Iraq. There are 14,700 such troops, of whom the majority, 9,200, are Polish, and we very much welcome the support of our soon-to-be EU colleagues in Poland. About 5,500 of the troops are from other nations, including good friends of the UK such as Denmark, Norway, the Czech Republic and the Netherlands.
  Other questions have been asked about troop deployments by the hon. Member for Meriden and others. There was a review of troop numbers in July, which was accepted by the hon. Member for North Essex as being right and proper. At that time the review in theatre decided not to contribute any more troops. I emphasise the comments made earlier by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Local commanders in Iraq have requested the additional troop deployments that he announced in the written ministerial statement, and we shall continue to keep the matter under review with our commanders in the field in Iraq.
  Richard Younger-Ross: Does the Minister accept that commanders on the ground said earlier this year that they were happy with the number of troops deployed because they were told that the Department for International Development would provide more resources? The Department has not done that, which is why we have the problem.
  Mr. Caplin: I do not accept that. The clear emphasis of the earlier part of my speech was on the work of Her Majesty's Government through the Department for International Development and other agencies. It seems
  244
  clear to me and to the whole House that the Department is working alongside our armed forces, and with the agencies that I listed earlier.
  I shall conclude by taking up three or four points that were made in the debate. The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) talked about overstretch in the reserves. Reservists exist to be used—I think that the hon. Gentleman will know that. That is in line with the strategic defence review. Indeed, it is what reservists are paid for, and that is why they are reservists. Currently, 2,200 reservists are in theatre, and no extra reservists were called out as part of yesterday's statement and deployment.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith)—I do not know whether he is in his place—is the chair of the parliamentary Labour party defence committee and he knows a good deal about some of these matters. He spoke about the plan to establish democracy in Iraq. The House must understand that two months after the formation of the Iraqi governing council, that council is now heavily involved in the key economic and political decisions. On 3 September, only about a week ago, the council appointed 25 interim Iraqi Ministers. From now on, Iraq's Government Ministers will be led by Iraqi politicians responsible for implementing policy and managing their budgets. That was worth welcoming by the hon. Members for Meriden and for North Essex, but they never referred to it.
  Even for those of my hon. Friends who may have opposed the military intervention, I think that it is now time to support those who are working so hard in Iraq to complete the task of its reconstruction. Our thoughts should remain with the families and friends of those who have lost their lives in Iraq. Fifty members of the United Kingdom armed forces as well as some civilians have died since 20 March. More have sustained injuries, some of them particularly serious. The whole House will wish them a speedy recovery.
  What those people, both military and civilian, have in common is that they were trying to improve the lives of their fellow human beings in Iraq and the security of the middle east and the wider world. We are determined that their sacrifice will not be in vain. We shall continue what we have begun in Iraq, and we shall see it through to the end.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of the military situation in Iraq.

Teacher Shortages
4.59 pm
Damian Green: I beg to move,
That this House notes that thousands of teaching posts have been lost in schools as a result of this year's funding crisis; condemns the Government for failing to respond early enough to reports of these redundancies, instead seeking to lay the blame on local authorities; further condemns the Government for not using any of the Department for Education and Skills' underspent money to alleviate this crisis; further notes that schools are having to ask parents for regular contributions to alleviate cash shortages; is concerned about the effect of these redundancies among teachers and support staff on the implementation of the Workload Agreement; and urges the Government to simplify the funding system for schools so that there will be no repeat of this year's problems in the recruitment and retention of teachers.
I am sure that the House will understand, as I do, that the Secretary of State has a prior commitment at the TUC, which is why he is not with us today. I hope that he takes the opportunity to talk to some of the teachers' representatives who will no doubt be there. One reason for our calling this debate is to show that the Government are letting down not just those who rely on our public services but those who work in them. It is not only parents and children who have been hit by the Government's school funding crisis but teachers, who are being made redundant in schools up and down the country. I am not surprised that teachers are angry—they have been betrayed by the Government's false promises, and they will never trust them again.
Ministers sometimes affect surprise that trust in the Government and especially the Prime Minister has disappeared. They seem puzzled that people no longer think that they are competent to run the public services. For an explanation they need look no further than the mess that they have created in our schools and their own performance in responding to this crisis since it became apparent earlier this year. This year, Ministers have provided the general public with a master-class in blunder and confusion. One moment we have protestations of innocence, while in the next breath the Government concoct a short-term and inadequate solution to the very problem that they just told the public did not exist at all.
The history of the crisis is instructive. When questioned by the Select Committee on Education and Skills in July this year, David Normington, the permanent secretary at the Department for Education and Skills, told us when he began to feel that there were going to be problems with school funding in the year ahead. His answer to the Select Committee was that it was after the Secretary of State's arrival
"at the end of October and before Christmas, some time around then."
We now know that the Department knew before Christmas that the crisis was going to hit our schools. After Christmas, at the Secondary Heads Association conference, the Secretary of State said that there was no problem. Indeed, he had previously told the Association of Chief Education Officers that simply throwing more money at them would not solve their problems. Such a request, he said, showing less than his usual charm,
"just floods straight over my head. I don't listen to what you say quite frankly".
I am sure that the association responded in kind.
Mr. Andrew Turner: Is my hon. Friend not being characteristically over-generous to the Secretary of State and, indeed, the Department? In fact, it would have been clear to anyone that a major upset in funding to local authorities would result in a major upset in schools' funding. That should have been clear well before the Secretary of State assumed his present post.
Mr. Green: My hon. Friend makes a distinguished contribution to the Education and Skills Committee, and he is exactly right. Indeed, it ought to have been apparent to the Secretary of State and other Ministers that not only was the local government settlement likely to cause difficulties but many other matters under the direct control of the Government were going to cause problems, not least the Chancellor's insistence on increasing employers' national insurance contributions, which hit schools particularly hard—characteristically, 80 per cent. of a school's budget is taken up with staff costs—and the decision to increase employers' pension contributions, which came straight off the bottom line of school budgets. The bulk of the crisis has therefore been caused by decisions made inside government.
I therefore agree with my hon. Friend that the Secretary of State's apparent ignorance of the fact that the crisis was going to happen, let alone the reason why it was happening, is quite extraordinary. I can only assume that he was convinced by the announcement by the Minister for School Standards that every local education authority
"will be getting at least 3.2 per cent. per pupil increase for next year, with further increases in the following two years. No LEA will lose out in real terms as this new system is introduced".
That was the Government's formal position in the early months of this year.
Chris Grayling: The logic of my hon. Friend's argument and the comments given in the Select Committee evidence to which he referred suggest that when Ministers sought to blame hard-working LEAs for the problem, claiming that they had held back money from schools and that that is where the root of the difficulty lay, they were presenting a disgraceful travesty of the reality and that their statements were, frankly, untrue.
Mr. Green: My hon. Friend is correct. I am afraid that it is sadly characteristic of the Government that, when they are faced with a problem, their first instinct is to look not for a solution, but a scapegoat. In this case, the scapegoat was to be local education authorities. I suspect that the reason why the Government gave up on their fruitless quest for a scapegoat had nothing to do with the merits of the case, but related to the fact that many Labour-controlled authorities throughout the country were pointing out that their schools were suffering in the same way as those of Conservative-controlled authorities, which became politically unhelpful to them.
In May, in response to many LEAs of all political colours, protests from schools and the rising number of complaints about the crisis, the Department finally announced that it would allow schools to set deficit budgets and that they would be allowed to use their capital budgets for paying teachers' salaries. That was

247
the first signal that the Department was beginning to accept the scale of the problem. However, I remind Ministers of what we said at the time: allowing schools to dip into money intended for capital projects as well as their reserves risks storing up even greater problems for the future. The scale of the problems that the Government have stored up with that approach to the problem is now beginning to become clear.
Mr. Nigel Waterson: Does my hon. Friend agree that any school that was planning major works, which would almost certainly occur during the summer holidays, would already have committed itself to the contractors by the time that the Secretary of State panicked and made this apparent concession?
Mr. Green: My hon. Friend is right. Many head teachers have said that when a school is engaged in a major capital project, it is extremely likely that it will be carried out during the summer holidays. Given the need to book builders, it is likely that arrangements will have been made for this year long before the Government gave permission for the money to be spent elsewhere. Their gesture was therefore moderately futile as well as ill timed.
Mr. Peter Pike: Is it not a fact that we are now spending more on our school buildings and putting an end to the decaying, crumbling schools that existed under 18 years of Tory rule? The Tories never for one moment accepted that the standard of school premises had any effect on the education of our children.
Mr. Green: If that is the best that Labour Members can come up with, they will have a lot of explaining to do to head teachers who have been told to use their capital budgets for revenue spending. Let me quote Nick Christou at East Barnet school, just one of the many affected head teachers, who has had to divert £90,000 from capital projects. He said:
"The money that I had was for repairing the roofs because they are leaking all over the place—in the maths office and textile technology room for a start. But we have to use it and run with our leaky roofs for one more year. We will just have to put buckets underneath them."
In Labour-controlled Ealing, schools are using between 70 and 100 per cent. of their reserves just to avoid another crisis this year. The Government's first response merely stored up a worse crisis for years to come.
Even once the Department and its Ministers had accepted that there was a problem, there was still an enormous gulf between the reality of life in our schools and the purported facts coming from the Government. Even in June, some in the Government were unwilling to accept the scale of the problems. On 11 June, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister
"how many teachers are facing redundancy right now?"
The Prime Minister replied:
"According to the Department for Education and Skills, there are about 500 net redundancies."
248
We now know that that answer grossly underestimated the problems that schools have been facing. As my right hon. Friend said at the time:
"The reality is that the figures for redundancies are that, this year, three times as many will face the sack as last year."—[Official Report, 11 June 2003; Vol. 406, c. 673–74.]
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: Does my hon. Friend agree that the number of potential redundancies is being masked? What would he say to those at my local school, Chalfonts community college, which has been forced to send out a letter to parents and guardians asking for £20 per family per term to enable it to maintain a full teaching staff and equipment to further the children's education? Is it not true that all those teachers are facing redundancy unless they get those parental contributions because the Government have kept money back from our schools?
Mr. Green: Absolutely. All that I can say to my hon. Friend is that I hope that Ministers will apologise to the head, teachers, parents and governors at her school and at many others that face similar problems.
By midsummer, even Ministers had stopped trying to bluster their way out of the crisis. Extraordinarily, one of their partial solutions was to scrap one of their own flagship policies—the school achievement award. That was truly bizarre. Only in May, the Minister for School Standards had said:
"It is right to reward the staff whose work helps pupils to learn and today's awards celebrate their achievements".
Two months later, the Secretary of State announced that too many teachers had been allowed to go to the top pay levels too quickly. In the next month, he announced that the Government would be scrapping the policy that was, according to them, intended to
"celebrate the work of the entire school community".
Clearly, 2003 is not the year to be a teacher under this Labour Government. Last week, the Secretary of State finally came close to apologising to the thousands of children facing the new school year with fewer teachers. In a webcast to welcome the new academic year, he said:
"The government make mistakes, certainly I do, my colleagues do, and the handling of the schools' funding last year was a good example of that which I am determined to put right this year."
In these circumstances, with so many teachers experiencing redundancy or facing the threat of redundancy, I am amazed that the Government have the nerve to run expensive TV advertising campaigns for teacher recruitment. There is something surreal about watching a news programme that contains an item about teachers losing their jobs just before an advert urging people to become teachers. I congratulate Ministers on their latest advert, which features large numbers of headless people. As a piece of post-modern irony commenting on the Department's performance this year, it cannot be beaten.
If the Secretary of State had admitted culpability when these problems first arose, and had created a real solution instead of merely putting off the inevitable, perhaps we would not be in a situation in which one school in five are asking parents to make contributions to keep the school system going—my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) gave an example—and in which a survey by the

249
Secondary Heads Association and The Times Educational Supplement found that 2,700 teaching posts had not been filled and that 700 teachers have been made redundant. Only months ago, the Prime Minister was talking of losses in the order of 500 teachers.
Mr. Alan Campbell: To clarify that survey for the information of the House, did it say that more jobs were created last year than were lost?
Mr. Green: I would be pleased to read out a lot more from The Times Educational Supplement if the hon. Gentleman likes. Its headline is: "Staff cuts running into thousands", and it gives what it calls the "critical numbers", stating that 2,729 teachers and 1,152 support staff have not been replaced because of lack of funding. [Interruption.] The Minister for School Standards urges me to carry on. I need no urging. The TES goes on to say that there have been 730 teacher and 301 support staff redundancies; that there are 1,881 unfilled teacher posts; and that, of teachers appointed, 4,246—16.6 per cent.—were judged unsatisfactory by heads.
The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): I am pleased that I, too, brought that copy of The Times Educational Supplement with me. Is it not the case that it reports that 3,548 additional new teachers are being hired, which is a net increase of 89 on the numbers that the hon. Gentleman quoted?
Mr. Green: The Minister also knows that the increase in the school population means that approximately 1,000 teachers are needed to keep pupil-teacher ratios steady and that the Government have failed to do that. Perhaps he will turn to the inside pages of The Times Educational Supplement, which paint an even bleaker picture. [Interruption.] The job adverts appear in a separate supplement because teacher retention is so difficult under the Government.
The head of the Royal Grammar school in High Wycombe has pledged £15,000 of his salary to ease his school's budget problems. The school caretaker is offering £5 a month. In East Anglia, one comprehensive school is considering charging for textbooks. One school in London—the London Oratory, which, I dare say, is familiar to senior members of the Government—is asking parents for an increase of £5 in the monthly £30 contribution that they already make. The school made it clear that the call for extra money is a direct result of the funding cuts for many schools in southern England that the Government announced early this year. The Oratory started term last week with fewer teachers.
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Green: Of course I shall give way to my right hon. Friend, who is a distinguished former Secretary of State.
Mrs. Shephard: Labour Members, notably Ministers, display some reluctance to accept the facts that my hon. Friend is presenting to the House. Here is a fact: at the Old Buckenham high school in my constituency, more children are on the roll this term than last term and there are two fewer teachers. Is that factual enough for Ministers? It is an example of what is happening
250
throughout my constituency: more children and fewer teachers. Moreover, any sicknesses in the school mean that classes will have to double to 60 pupils. Is not that a marvellous achievement by the Government?
Mr. Green: My right hon. Friend is right that Ministers appear peculiarly reluctant to accept the facts that everyone else acknowledges to constitute an accurate description of life in our schools today. Their immediate reaction to the Secondary Heads Association survey was simply to rubbish it. It was followed by a survey of local education authorities in The Guardian that showed similar results. Ministers must stop pretending that the rest of the world is out of step.
In 55 local authorities, more than 1,000 full-time teaching posts have been lost through redundancies and schools opting not to replace teachers who leave for other reasons. If that pattern were repeated in all local education authorities, approximately 2,500 teaching posts would be lost. We have a consistent set of numbers, which everyone, except the Government, recognises.
In the Minister's authority, 17 teaching posts have been lost. The LEA told The Guardian:
"Schools have set budgets by using their high levels of carry-forward balances."
In the Secretary of State's authority, 11 teaching posts have been lost and French and German classes are being cut in schools, which can simply no longer afford them. The Government tell us that they want to revive language teaching in schools, yet schools are having to cut such classes because of the Government's funding policies.
Not only teachers but support staff are suffering. According to The Times Educational Supplement, on top of the 301 support staff who have been made redundant, 1,152 support staff have not been replaced because of lack of funding. There are also problems with cuts in the capital budget that the Government have forced on schools. One can only spend one's capital once.
What do Ministers say to Roland Waller, the head of Morley High in Leeds, who said:
"We have protected staffing by cutting repairs and maintenance to the bone this year. Upgrades to classroom furniture will be virtually zero and our rolling programme of redecoration and refurnishing has been curtailed."
Only yesterday, Anne Welsh, the new president of the Secondary Heads Association, said that this year's cash crisis would have repercussions for many years. She said that problems were exacerbated because
"It is increasingly difficult to persuade young teachers to take on the responsibility of middle management roles, which is very worrying given that most in leadership positions are within 10 years of retiring."
We are not therefore considering a one-year crisis; it will linger in schools for years.
The crisis throws into severe doubt the success of the Government's workload agreement with teachers, which is supposed to be their big reforming idea of this Parliament. It will work only if there are enough teachers and teaching assistants to make it work. I was therefore fascinated by the Government's amendment, which mentions 25,000 extra teachers. Ministers like to talk about such figures. We have heard some of that from those on the Government Benches already this afternoon.

251
Let us look at the facts as they have been revealed today by the Department itself. The number of full-time, regular, qualified teachers has fallen by 1,400 over the past 12 months. These are not my figures: they are the Department's figures, published today. The number of overseas and unqualified teachers has quadrupled since this Government came to power. Without raiding countries that need their own teachers and using unqualified teachers, the Government would not be able to staff our schools, even before the work load agreement comes into effect.
Jonathan Shaw: The hon. Gentleman referred to robbing other countries that need their teachers. Which countries is he referring to?
Mr. Green: Jamaica, in particular. The Jamaican Government have protested to our Government that our country is enticing away too many of Jamaica's teachers to work in our country. The hon. Gentleman is a decent man: I am sure that he worries about relatively poor countries, and that he does not want this country to be scouring the world for teachers from poorer countries that need their own teachers in their own country.
Of course, school funding will be affected. West Berkshire council has calculated that the agreement will cost it an extra £2 million this year, with another £1.7 million in September 2005. I believe that it is a Liberal Democrat council, and it states that the cost of the work load agreement reform will be £78.20 per pupil in primary schools, and £100.93 in secondary schools.
The evidence of the Department's permanent secretary has made it clear that one of the main reasons behind this problem is that the funding system is far too complicated. In his exchange with the Education and Skills Committee, he was asked for his definition of the formula spending share and, with commendable honesty, he answered:
"I am not sure I know".
If the permanent secretary does not know how the system works, it is hard to imagine how heads and governors—let alone parents—are supposed to know how it works.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that that is one of the reasons why the Government find it so difficult to understand exactly how serious the problem is: for the first time in my 39 years in this House, the Secretary of State was unwilling to meet Members of Parliament and representatives of local schools to explain the seriousness of the situation? The junior Minister was going to meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) today but that meeting was put off because of the debate. We are now told that it will be yet another two months before we even meet him. Would it not be infinitely better if the Secretary of State would meet Members of Parliament—as all Secretaries of State have always done in my experience?
Mr. Green: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. It is a shame if the Secretary of State will not meet him. I am sure that when he does reorganise his meeting—with whichever Minister—it will be extremely fruitful.
Before the recent crisis, I do not think that anyone inside or outside this House thought that the current system was simple enough to understand or, more to the point, fair enough to deal justly with the different needs of different areas of the country.
What is needed to remove this unnecessary confusion is a far simpler method of funding our schools in a manner that will give each school greater autonomy and remove many of the complications that exist in the current system. The Government have not yet made it clear whether they intend to cut out local education authorities altogether from their new system—which I assume they will announce in the next few weeks.
Whatever the Government do needs greater predictability and simplicity to remove the need for central Government to set minimum levels of delegation and to ring-fence budgets. That would mean that many of the problems that we have seen this year would have less chance of recurring in the future. Crucially, it would also mean that heads and governors could choose their own priorities, and not simply reflect what Ministers want. It would also allow parents to compare funding levels in different areas, force Governments to defend the weighting applied to different factors, and allow good local authorities to use savings from administration for improved services by spending the money where it matters—in our schools.
Just 15 months on from the announcement of the comprehensive spending review, which was supposed to solve the financial problems in our schools, Ministers are presiding over cuts, redundancies, deficits, short-term sticking-plaster solutions and rising anger from teachers and parents alike. It is a terrible indictment of ministerial incompetence that they did not see this crisis coming, spent months trying to find a scapegoat instead of a solution and are still floundering around hoping that they have not stored up further problems for years to come. They stand condemned in schools up and down this country. I commend our motion to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
5.25 pm
The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
"applauds the significant increase in funding made available by the Government to schools since 1997 and the increase in standards schools have achieved; recognises that schools have had extra costs as well as extra investment this year; welcomes the statement to the House on 17th July by the Secretary of State for Education and Skills announcing measures to bring stability to school funding in 2004–05 and 2005–06, including a guarantee of a minimum per pupil increase in funding for schools, and maintaining and inflation-proofing the income that schools will receive from the Standards Fund; supports the consultation his Department is undertaking with representatives of head teachers and local education authorities; welcomes the fact that there are around 25,000 more teachers in schools and over 80,000 more support staff than there were in 1997 and more teachers with Qualified Teacher Status in schools than at any time since 1984;

253
acknowledges three years of rising recruitment to teacher training and the 3,000 more graduates who have accepted training places than this time last year; and welcomes a 25 per cent. fall in the number of unfilled teacher vacancies between 2002 and 2003."
I am delighted to have an opportunity, at the beginning of the school term, to put on parliamentary record the Government's congratulations to students on their exam and test results this summer, and also our thanks to teachers up and down the country whose hard work has contributed to those results. We in the Labour party say without reservation that when teaching improves and students work hard, we should welcome rising standards and not denounce them. This year we have seen world-class standards in primary schools maintained, good improvement at key stage 3, steady progress by those aged 16, and excellent results at A-level and in vocational studies. Those qualifications are well worth the paper on which they are written, and the country should applaud such results. The reactionary curse that somehow more will mean worse has no place in the 21st century.
I also welcome the opportunity to repeat what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said here on 17 July. Some schools face significant funding problems this year; we are determined to work with them, and with their local education authorities, to overcome those difficulties. I will address the problems directly, because in some schools they are serious, but it is wrong to pretend that every school and every LEA in the country faces them.
Labour is proud that the last teacher census featured 25,000 more teachers than six years ago, and 13,000 more than two years ago. We applaud the growth in support staff numbers: there are over 80,000 more than six years ago. We are encouraged by the fact that the teacher vacancy rate fell to 0.9 per cent. in 2002–03, with 1,130 fewer vacancies than the year before. We also welcome the fact that the latest teacher training numbers, for 2003–04, are up by nearly 3,000 on last year.
We note that, even according to the partial Times Educational Supplement survey on which the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) hung so much of his case, more teachers were hired than were laid off, with four times as many support staff hired as were leaving their posts. The annual survey of teacher numbers is conducted in January, and the results are published in spring. It will give definitive figures for this academic year. It is interesting that both the Local Government Association and the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers have said that it does no one any good to exaggerate the problems, and both report an aggregate position similar to that of previous years. We recognise that there have been serious problems, however, which is why we want to overcome those problems. We share responsibility with LEAs for raising funds and for distributing them.
Mr. Andrew Turner: The Minister quoted the view that there was no point in exaggerating the problems. Will he tell us whether the 25,000 figure refers to full-time equivalent qualified teachers, and, if it does not, will he tell us what is the figure relating to such teachers?
Mr. Miliband: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the 25,000 figure refers to full-time equivalent teachers with
254
qualified teacher status or qualifications from other countries equivalent to such status, or to teachers on employment-based routes into training. We discussed this at Question Time in June, and the figures are absolutely clear: qualified teacher status numbers are higher than they have been at any time since 1984. There is also a significant number of teachers with equivalent qualifications from other countries, as well as teachers on employment-based routes.
There have been problems this year. Let me summarise the reasons for them. Total education funding for 2003–04 has risen by £2.7 billion. I shall return later to the irony of the fact that a Conservative party that refuses to support the increased spending now says that it is not enough. While investment has risen, however, so have costs, by some £2.45 billion. A teacher who joined the profession in 1997 is now 60 per cent. better off in real terms. There has been a one-off increase in pension contributions this year, as well as the national insurance changes mentioned by the hon. Member for Ashford.
Increased costs mean that however great the increase in investment, overall headroom this year is limited. At local level—the hon. Gentleman did not mention this—pupil numbers are falling significantly in the primary sector for the first time since the introduction of the local management of schools. There are 55,000 fewer pupils this year than last in the primary sector; next year, there will be 60,000 fewer. That means funding reductions for some schools. Meanwhile, the decentralisation of the ring-fenced standards fund that was long urged by teachers and local government proves—how can I put it?—to be extremely popular in theory, but in practice, because it means the re-direction of direct grants, some schools are hit hard. Furthermore, in a significant number of local education authorities schools did not receive the full amount indicated under education formula spend, and spending on centrally retained pupil services rose faster than budgets devolved to schools. Also, the lateness of information for schools, for which this Department and local authorities bear responsibility, has made budgetary planning difficult.
Mr. John Horam: A promise has been made—certainly to London MPs—that information will be brought forward and decisions taken earlier in the round. When will that be?
Mr. Miliband: The hon. Gentleman anticipates a matter that I shall come to in a moment. Essentially, indications of local authorities' passporting intentions have been brought forward by at least a month, and the School Teachers Review Body will report in early November, rather than in early February.
David Taylor: Will the Minister confirm that the two figures for the reduction in primary school numbers that he has just announced—55,000 this year and 60,000 next—represent about 1 per cent. of enrolled primary school numbers, but that the total reduction in costs for the relevant schools will be

255
significantly less than the 1 per cent. that they will encounter when the grant formula allocates the amounts to them?
Mr. Miliband: The answer is that that depends on the formulae that the various local authorities have for reflecting pupil numbers in the distribution of funds to schools.
Let me turn to how we will work with heads and local government to fulfil our commitment to ensuring that, in 2004–05 and 2005–06, stability and growth are delivered on the ground. The number one demand from head teachers is confidence for future years to help them manage their way through this difficult but unique year. On 17 July, the Secretary of State announced the initial steps, the first of which is a commitment to augmenting the floor increases paid to LEAs with a minimum per pupil guarantee for every school in the country—the first time that this has ever been attempted. The second step is the continuation of the standards fund and other grants for 2004–05 and 2005–06, giving extra direct help of about £400 million a year for school budgets. The third step is earlier notification of funding decisions and better support for the management of funding, on the way to delivering the three-year budgets for schools which many heads believe will be an enormous step forward in the management of their funds.
There is also a commitment to full passporting of money into education and a two-and-a-half year pay deal, with rigorous management of the upper pay spine. I can report to the House that there is close and ongoing co-operation with local government and representatives of teachers and head teachers on these issues, and I pay tribute to the constructive and serious way in which this work is being done.
Mr. Waterson: Will the Minister now apologise to all those hard-working and committed LEAs, such as mine in East Sussex, which gave a robust rebuttal to his and the Secretary of State's allegation that they were hanging on to money bound for schools? Will he accept that those allegations turned out to be totally without foundation?
Mr. Miliband: I can only say that, in the round and partly because of the difficulties of notification to which I referred, significant funds certainly were still being held at local authority level in April or May. I do not know about the individual circumstances to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I am very happy to write to him about whatever difference of opinion exists.
I want to explain the fruits of the efforts being made by the Department, head teachers and local government. In the next month, we will be able to announce the level of the per pupil guarantee and the decisions on the standards fund. In November, the Government will announce the local government settlement, and the School Teachers Review Body will report its pay recommendations significantly earlier than usual. We intend that, by the end of December, every school will know of its LEA's passporting intentions. This is a considered and effective process to deliver continued growth and progress in the education system. As the Secretary of State made clear in July, at
256
each stage we will sustain the national agreement on work force reform. That agreement is phased over three years, matching the profile of spending increases. I am pleased to report that unions representing teachers, all head teachers and all support staff remain resolutely committed to that work force agreement. That is an example, if I may say so, of the social partnership that is talked about on both sides of the House, and which is certainly being talked about in Brighton at the moment.
Mr. Andrew Turner: Will the Minister further clarify the minimum per pupil upgrading? Will it be based on the amount paid per pupil this year after cuts—or after increases paid for out of capital budgets—or will it be based on the amount paid in the previous year before the result of the turmoil?
Mr. Miliband: That is precisely what we are discussing with head teachers. We obviously want to reflect as closely as we can the actual position in schools throughout the country. The per pupil increase that will be announced at the end of September or early October is designed to provide a fair reflection of the position on the ground.
I was talking about the work force agreement. We are agreed with our partners that the costs of the agreement rise over three years, but it is also important not to accept that every change in the way teachers work requires additional resources. That is why the national remodelling team is working with heads and, critically, with governors to share good practice in the management of teacher work load. The Conservative motion suggests, I think for the first time, support for the principles of the work load agreement. If the Conservatives are committed to its principles, I welcome their conversion, albeit a late one, to changes that will benefit teachers and pupils alike.
The motion refers tentatively to underspends in the Department, but the theme was not developed. However, anticipating that it might be a strong point, I asked the Department to dig further into the issue and it would benefit the House if I set out the position clearly. The motion refers to the public expenditure White Paper published by the Treasury, in which a figure of £1.8 billion is mentioned. I do not want the House to be under any misapprehension that somehow that amount is waiting to be spent. That money is not underspent, but being spent. The sum of £900 million was allocated to departmental programmes, including schools, for 2003–04 and beyond. That was made clear in May. The sum of £350 million was spent in 2002–03, but billed by outside contractors in 2003–04. More than £300 million is being spent on projects such as sure start, but only after rigorous quality criteria are met; and £200 million is being committed to school budgets for future years. The Department is committed to spend what it is given for the three years of the spending review period—and we are committed to spending it well, to secure quality as well as quantity.
Mr. Ken Purchase: These are very impressive and helpful figures to learn about—[Interruption.] They are very convincing, but has the Minister made any assessment of the surplus funds held by a considerable number of schools on account of the fact that local authorities no longer

257
financially manage the funds that go to schools generally? Does he have any idea of how that money could be released for this particular year?
Mr. Miliband: It is always encouraging to receive my hon. Friend's praise, however gently it is disguised—faint praise. He makes a serious point, however. From memory, the figure quoted for school balances was about £1.2 billion, but those balances will have been reduced substantially over the past six months. I believe that local education authorities collect the figures about once a year. The annual survey will provide a clearer sense of the position and we can judge the circumstances on that basis.
Mr. Purchase: Can the figures be released?
Mr. Miliband: I can reassure my hon. Friend that the figures are released, not kept a secret.
The Department and Ministers are, as I hope I have been able to demonstrate, in close touch with schools and local education authorities that face problems this year. We take their concerns seriously and will work to sort them out. However, I suggest that one group from whom lessons are unlikely to be learned is the Conservative party. In a debate in Westminster Hall, the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), freely admitted that Conservative Governments did not do enough for education in the past. He can say that again. Over 18 years of Conservative Government—between 1979 and 1997—47,000 teaching posts were lost. That is what the hon. Gentleman euphemistically referred to as "not doing enough".
David Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Conservative spokesman was a little unfair to his party's track record? The support—moral, financial and legislative—that his Government gave to the private sector in education accounts for its steady growth in the Conservative years.
Mr. Miliband: My hon. Friend tempts me into very productive terrain. In a debate in a Committee considering a statutory instrument in July—I cannot remember whether my hon. Friend was in the Chair at that point—the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West made it clear that he was proud of what Conservative Governments had done in the 1980s to support the private sector, and that he was committed to returning to some of those policies. I am sure that we will return to that matter in the future.
Mr. Pike: Is not it a fact that the decline in school teacher numbers happened at the same time as there was a massive decline in the standard of school premises? Schools really did decay and crumble during 18 years of Tory rule.
Mr. Miliband: I think that the figure on the tip of my hon. Friend's tongue is that, by 1997, £700 million a
258
year—or £30,000 per school—was being spent on schools in capital terms. The figure is now £3.8 billion a year, so my hon. Friend is absolutely right.
Andrew Selous: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Miliband: I will let the hon. Gentleman intervene, but I hope to edify the House with some more information about Opposition policies.
Andrew Selous: If the Minister believes that a growing independent sector is a sign of failing Government supervision in schools, will he explain why independent numbers are growing at present, under his Government?
Mr. Miliband: First, I did not say that. Clearly, the Government are committed to making the state sector as good as possible. That is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) was making.
However, I want to develop the point. Although the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West said that Conservative Governments had not done enough for education in the past, the hon. Member for Ashford said in July 2002 that the Opposition were not "in principle opposed" to spending more on education. His deputy, the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, went further. In a debate on school funding on 29 April, he made the extraordinary claim that the Opposition had "no quibbles" with the extra spending on schools inaugurated by the Government.
I looked up the word "quibble" in the dictionary. It means to make trivial objections. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale was right about one thing: the Opposition's objections to the increased spending have been far from trivial: they have been fundamental, ongoing, dogmatic and ideological at every stage. While the hon. Member for Ashford said that the Opposition did not oppose spending on education, his party's official position was quite the opposite.
The Conservative policy guide was published last October. I commend it to the House. It had the ironic title "Leadership with a Purpose". Need I say more than that it was written by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), before he stormed out of the shadow Cabinet in protest at the leadership that he was promoting? Even so, let us listen to what the guide says. In contrast to the hon. Member for Ashford, it states:
"Conservatives do not support the tax and spending the Government has announced."
Mr. Green: That is absolutely consistent.
Mr. Miliband: The hon. Gentleman says that that is absolutely consistent, but how can it be consistent for him to say that the Conservatives do not oppose the spending increases, but for his party's policy guide to say that they do? That seems quite a contradiction.
The Leader of the Opposition then went further. In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, the quiet man said:
"I explicitly on three separate occasions when asked said we will not match Government spending plans."

259
The hon. Member for Ashford says one thing, yet his party policy is the absolute opposite.
Mr. Green: Let me resolve the confusion in the Minister's mind. What we oppose is the way that his Government waste huge amounts of taxpayers' money. We think that money spent in the education budget should go to schools and be spent on decisions taken by heads and governors and teachers. It should not be wasted on bureaucracy, in a way that causes teaching redundancies all over the country even when the Government are taxing people more than ever before. It is the way that the Government tax and spend that lets them down. That is why the British people do not trust the Minister or the Prime Minister any more.
Mr. Miliband: The hon. Gentleman will regret prolonging this discussion because I can assure him that we shall return to the point again and again in the years ahead. He obviously was not listening to what I said, because his own policy guide says in clear terms that the Conservatives do not support the tax and spending increases that the Government have announced. His own leader explicitly said:
"We will not match Government spending plans."
I do not know what could be clearer than that.
Mrs. Gillan rose—
Mr. Miliband: I beg the hon. Lady's pardon, but I shall ask her to intervene once I have made my point.
It is not just the Opposition's words but their actions that tell their position. Every time they have had a chance to vote on spending increases they have not, it is true, quibbled, but they have sought to tear up the spending increases and deny them to schools. On money to fund the new deal for schools, which will be of interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), the Opposition voted against. On cutting class sizes, they voted against. The 1998 spending review, which raised school spending by £340 per pupil, they denounced as reckless. The 2000 spending review raised spending by a further £370 per pupil but was described as irresponsible and imprudent. The 2002 spending review delivering this year's rises in teachers' pay was denied the support of the Opposition.
The Conservative party is a party of serial quibblers, serial opposers, and serial voters against money for schools, money for teachers, money for books and money for buildings.
Mrs. Gillan: I seek some clarity from the Minister. He says that everything in the garden is rosy and that so much money is coming down the line from the Government that our schools, teachers, governors and parents have nothing to worry about. Can he give me a clear recommendation for the parents of the children who go to Chalfonts community college? Would he tell those parents not to pay the £20 per term for their children's teachers and equipment, or would he tell them to pay the money because it is necessary? May we have some clear guidance on that? Is the instruction to the parents to pay the money to maintain the school or not?
Mr. Miliband: I could not have made clearer at the beginning of my speech the fact that there are serious
260
problems in some schools. I must have said so up to half a dozen times. Of course I do not pretend that everything is—
Mrs. Gillan: Should they pay?
Mr. Miliband: The hon. Lady was very patient in waiting to ask her question, but might show a bit of patience in waiting for the answer. I did not say that everything in the garden is rosy. It would be absurd of me to make a recommendation to parents of a school in her constituency without knowing any of the details. Indeed, it would be quite wrong of me to do so in any case. For many years schools have undertaken fundraising drives in all sorts of ways. It would be odd of Ministers to give them commands. I do know that the efforts of parents and the wider community to raise funds for schools are much better suited to a situation in which funding is rising rather than falling.
Mr. Damian Green: It is not.
Mr. Miliband: The hon. Gentleman says so, but we have been through this before. When his party was in office between 1992 and 1997 spending fell by around £100 per pupil in real terms.
I do not want to try the patience of the House, so I shall try to come to a conclusion.
James Purnell: I do not think that my hon. Friend is trying anyone's patience. Does he recall visiting Hyde technology college in my constituency, and has he seen that results there have gone up from 50 per cent. of students gaining five A to C grades to 63 per cent. of students doing so? Will he agree to visit some more schools in my constituency so that he can try to have the same effect?
Mr. Miliband: I wish I could have that effect on every school in every constituency that I visit. I do remember my visit to Hyde technology college, which is an extremely impressive school boasting committed teachers, governors and pupils. I am delighted to hear of the significant increase in GCSE performance. We announced A to C rates for entries at GCSE in August, and the evidence that I heard from Labour Members in the Lobby last night was that rates of achievement of five A to C grades by pupils around the country far exceed that. The evidence that my hon. Friend has just adduced is relevant in that regard. I take seriously his further offer of hospitality and look forward to trying to take it up on some occasion.
Schools face serious problems this year, as I have repeatedly said, but we are determined to overcome those problems in partnership with head teachers and local authorities. This is the year when the majority of secondary schools will achieve specialist status. This is the year when 1,400 of our toughest schools receive the leadership incentive grant. This is the year when capital investment tops £3.8 billion a year and when teachers have the first contractual change in their work load for a generation.
According to all the international comparisons, we are doing well, but the Government are determined to do better. That is our commitment and I commend our amendment to the House.
5.50 pm
Dr. John Pugh: May I apologise for not being my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis)? I am not entirely sure that is something for which I should apologise, as there is little I can do about it, but I wanted to underline the point that the debate will be much poorer without his searching, yet always constructive, critique of Government policy. Even as I speak, my hon. Friend is pushing back the frontiers of education in some other place—not, of course, the other place—and I am bereft of his counsel.
I feel somewhat exposed standing here without a Dispatch Box or my customary barrier to lean on, and heavily outnumbered to boot. However, as the Government have adopted an anti-bullying strategy, perhaps I can afford to relax—[Interruption.]. An hon. Member points out that the strategy is only for the under-fives.
Unsurprisingly, the proposition is that the Government are a bad lot. They have got school funding wrong, have tried to blame local authorities and, in triggering redundancies, have jeopardised promising agreements to reduce teacher work loads and created problems for teacher recruitment and retention. That, I understand, is the objection, as set out by the Tory motion.
That thesis was significantly improved by the Liberal Democrat amendment, which unfortunately was not chosen. Our amendment pointed out that previous Conservative Governments created, if anything, bigger financial problems for schools. That sophistication adds a measure of fairness and historical perspective to the original motion.
The Government amendment appears to consist of a recognition of the problem, a clutch of partial truths and a dose of self-congratulation. I fail to see why the refined Liberal Democrat amendment should not commend itself to any rational Member of the House and I shall endeavour to provide evidence.
When it became apparent that schools had problems, the Government clearly, and perhaps genuinely, thought that their ambitious plans to pass money to schools had been foiled by avaricious or acquisitive local authorities, which might have used the money for other purposes. On 2 May, and even before, they began an assault on local authorities that must, I guess, retrospectively embarrass Ministers and which they will not want repeated or even alluded to in this place. However, although it is tactless of me to mention it, we need to dwell on it for a while.
By the time the Select Committee on Education and Skills had got around to examining the fiasco and Mr. Normington had given his evidence, even the Government's advisers were talking not of the perfidy of local authorities but of the failure of modelling—whatever that means. In essence. in ordinary parlance, they had got their sums wrong.
It is unkind of me to rake the matter up, as I am sure that Ministers would like to bury the infamous press release of 2 May, which contained the amusingly ironic statement:
"The purpose of this exercise is not to apportion blame."
It seems to be commonly agreed that if one took the additional money given by the Government—and there was additional money—subtracted the effect of
262
increases for national insurance and pensions, the effect of the salary improvements this year and last year, the differential effect of the new local government finance system, the effect of the withdrawal of the standards fund, added inflation and rolled it all up, some schools would receive no real-terms increase. That is not only possible, it actually happened. There is incontestable evidence that it happened in many parts of the country and the extent is becoming increasingly clear.
Only this week, a paper from a constituency adjacent to mine carried a telling headline, which was promoted neither by me nor by my party. It stated simply:
"Whitehall dunces get new term budget sums wrong."
That is a fairly accurate summary, in journalistic speak, of what actually happened. That it happened is evidenced by the Secretary of State's statement to the House on 17 July, which was penitent but, in the view of many, possibly not penitent enough. There was no mention of duplicitous local authorities, but no real apology either. In fact, it contained some rather robust warnings of the future consequences of any duplicity, imagined or real. On the positive side, schools were given guarantees, stability over a period and early notice of their budgets, and they were cushioned against fluctuations and inflation—all entirely desirable features in any financial environment—but everything hinges on something called the school funding spending share. which Ministers will fix rigorously.
I know two things about the new deal for schools. First, it will be discussed with what are now known as the Government's partners in education. Secondly, the aspiration is that things will be transparent. Sceptics and perhaps even cynics will see the Treasury's hand in that, because things are not transparent. Could it be that the Treasury or the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister would like the school funding spending share to be opaque, rather than transparent? Could it be that it is not so much a generous promise by the Secretary of State to open his coffers, but more an instruction to councils to extract more cash from council tax payers?
We will find out soon enough, but we may be back to the old game of standard spending assessments and passporting, which have long since been rumbled and will continue to be so. That may be unkind; the Secretary of State impresses me as a man of natural generosity. [Interruption.] I will apply that comment to other Ministers as well; perhaps they have the same disposition. The Secretary of State is even prepared to make handouts from his own Department's money, and he referred in his statement to something called end-ofterm flexibility, which most of us would call an underspend. Hon. Members would agree that £1.2 billion, or whatever the figure may be, is an awful lot of flexibility and that school bursars would genuinely like a bit of flexibility too.
A key problem in the new settlement—I should like the Minister to listen to this specific point and to respond to it—is that local authority special education budgets will be constrained under the new regime. Local authorities will be constrained in the amount by which school budgets increase. Everyone accepts that special education budgets are demand-led—they are controlled by the rights of parents and those of the children themselves—and that individual cases can be

263
extraordinarily expensive. The net effect of that artificial constraint can only be to open the door to worrying litigation involving individual cases, as councils try to constrain their budgets in line with an artificial limit and seek to keep down costs. I want to flag up that concern, and I should like the Minister to respond to it in summing up.
Moving to the positive side, the Secretary of State and other Ministers will be reassured to discover that I am sending a copy of the reassuring statement issued on 17 July to every school in my constituency, and I hope that, in turn, it will be pinned up in staff rooms, so that staff and governors can study it in the dark days of November and February. It will act as a powerful reassurance for their doubts. If, perchance, all does not come to pass as they expect, they will know who has misled them.
Teachers will not necessarily be reassured by the current tranche of statistics thrown down by the Government. They will not be reassured by people telling them that there are an extra 25,000 teachers because that figure includes trainees, instructors and people without qualified status. They will not be reassured by talk of 3,000 more graduates opting to teach because they read the papers and know that one in three people gives up the profession after about three years. They know for a fact, from their own experience, that there are acute shortages in some subjects and in some areas, such as the south-east. They know that, according to The Times Educational Supplement, 700 teachers were made redundant this year and that four times that number of jobs were not renewed. As has been said, the school work force statement issued today has given no comfort that things will get a great deal better. It has certainly given the teaching unions and schools no such comfort, and those figures, which show a decline, were documented before the current fiasco, so there may be worse figures to come.
It is worth standing back and asking who—apart from parents, staff and the Government—is a significant casualty of this sad episode in educational history, where the Government got their sums wrong, as we all have to acknowledge. My local constituency research seems to show that there is another major and perhaps unspoken casualty—classroom assistants. Their terms and conditions of employment are less certain and it might be easier to let them go when financial circumstances get worse. Any sizable reduction in their numbers could have near fatal consequences on the work load agreement. There seem to be problems with the agreement anyway—perhaps expectations are pitched too high—but whatever its merits, it will not work if budgetary pressures lead to the shedding of support staff. That piece of information might be shown to be true later this year.
Added to that, no Minister has given any guarantee that the money for the work load agreement will be ring-fenced. For all that I understand, it might well be muddled in with other expenditure. The money will be in the local authority grant and people will be asked to identify it. That might be a symptom of Treasury caution overriding the natural generous instincts of Education Ministers. I shall be glad if the Minister
264
contradicts me on that point but I doubt that he will, and nor do I think that he will give me any guarantee that no child will be taught by unqualified staff next year—we have every expectation that many will.
To sum up, there is clear substance in the Opposition's charge that the Government have imperilled what is, on the face of it, a decent initiative. It must be said that there is little evidence of the Conservatives wanting to provide additional substantial resources to improve matters. We must accept that the Government are guilty of blundering rather than callous deceit. They have found their exposed position uncomfortable and they do not welcome a re-run. They know for a fact that educationalists are not stupid and that they are hard to deceive. Their only option now—I commend it to them—is to take the path of complete honesty and transparency. They should not hide behind local authorities or obscure formulae but give schools the financial stability that they need to do the job that the Government and the country want done.
6.2 pm
Mr. Adrian Bailey: Before I start my speech, may I apologise to the House? I am supposed to be at another meeting at the moment and I shall have to attend it when I conclude my remarks, although I shall be back as soon as I can afterwards. The great virtue of that is that it gives me the best incentive to keep my remarks as short as possible.
I especially wanted to speak in the debate because I could not help but feel that Opposition comments in support of the motion demonstrated a collective amnesia about, or airbrushing from, the educational or local government history of funding for education. I felt moved to speak because I was chair of finance for Sandwell metropolitan borough council for five years. The council is a major unitary authority in the black country that is typical of many deprived urban metropolitan borough councils with specific educational problems. I could not help but remember the funding arrangements that existed during the years when the Conservative party was in government.
I have researched a few statistics. Between 1992 and 1997, the collective cuts that Sandwell metropolitan borough council had to endure amounted to £42.9 million. I remember that because the local authority was so concerned about maintaining education in the borough that it tried to minimise the extent of the cuts that would apply to education. However, notwithstanding that specific policy, the fact that education represented 60 per cent. of its total budget meant that it could not make the cuts required to stay within its capping levels without affecting funding for education. Indeed, over that period there was an £18.3 million cut in education spending, an average of about £3 million a year.
Andrew Selous: If the hon. Gentleman is maintaining that the Government's difficulties are minor compared with what happened during the Conservative years, how does he account for the fact that Michael Clapham, who represents heads in east Yorkshire, said:
"In the last 12 years, this is far and away the worst budget settlement that I have had to manage as a head teacher"?

265
That includes the last six years of the Conservative Administration.
Mr. Bailey: I cannot comment on Michael Clapham's perspective, but I know that my local authority is not alone in its experience. Between 1992 and 1997, my local authority shared a common experience with nearly every major industrial metropolitan borough authority in the country. I am sure that any head teacher within those authorities would make the same comment and I think that more head teachers would share that view of the situation.
The legacy of the funding policy that we inherited in 1997 was that although standards were rising in Sandwell, they were not rising fast enough. The local authority recognised that there was much more to do. We had a disproportionate number of schools with appalling physical accommodation, including a disproportionately high number of temporary mobile classrooms and a shortage of teachers. I am not whinging specifically on behalf of Sandwell; the experience was common to many local authorities. However, we recognised the challenges that faced us and we managed them.
I contrast that with the situation five or six years on. The national figures given by the Minister demonstrate the huge increase in education funding, which is now a higher proportion of our gross domestic product than when the Tories came into office. I can say for sure that it is paying dividends. Sandwell is one of the authorities involved in the excellence in cities programme and I know that there have been measurable improvements in key areas of our educational performance. Just last year, Sandwell's maths results were up 4 per cent., its science results were up 3 per cent. and its information and communications technology were up 10 per cent., all of which were above national targets. There is no doubt that that is a direct result of the investment in local authorities such as Sandwell.
Sandwell's A* to C GCSE results were up 2 per cent. Five of its secondary schools had their best ever results, two of them in my constituency. The results of Wood Green school, a specialist school benefiting from the range of funding available to such schools, are up 63 per cent., which is above its target of 50 per cent. In addition, virtually every school has improved its physical environment. There is investment in the infrastructure and that, too, is playing a part in improved standards throughout the borough.
The funding arrangement that existed before the arrangements were revised this year discriminated against local authorities such as Sandwell. We recognise that changing them would cause difficulties, but in the interests of both equity and improving the performance of areas that hitherto had suffered from underfunding and underperformance, it was necessary. However, the procedures incorporated into the revised funding arrangements to ensure that all local authorities benefited from a real-terms increase in funding were a fail-safe measure that never existed for authorities such as Sandwell under the Tory Government.
I believe that the Government's proposals for assisting with the budget arrangements of those local authorities that are having difficulties should, in future, play a considerable part in helping those authorities to
266
sort out their short-term budget problems. I know from my local authority experience that the last-minute announcement of the funding mechanism causes schools enormous difficulties. The lack of flexibility in how they can use collective and individual balances, or the balance of capital and revenue expenditure, also causes difficulties.
The £800 million available as back-stop funding for schools in difficulties will be an enormous help in certain circumstances. We recognise that with the huge range of school funding regimes and the differences in local authority expenditure, it is incredibly difficult to provide a funding arrangement that will effectively protect every single school in the country from difficulties. However, the mechanisms that the Government have proposed will provide flexibility and assistance that I do not remember receiving from the previous Conservative Government when I had to cope with such funding problems.
The Government have handled a difficult situation with some sensitivity. We must recognise that this has been an exceptionally difficult year, with changes to teachers' pension and salary arrangements and a substantial drop in pupil numbers. A number of difficulties came to a head at once, but the Government have listened to local authorities, they have taken steps and they are prepared to put their money where their mouth is. Out of that will come a more effective, focused funding regime that will help the schools that most need it to raise standards where they most need to.
6.12 pm
Mr. David Amess: "Education, education, education" and "tough on the causes of crime" are very slick phrases that Labour has used, but the situation now is that the British people simply do not trust a word that the Government say.
I suspect that the Minister for School Standards has to go to another meeting, so I should perhaps first put on record my reason for speaking in this debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) suggested earlier, representatives from Southend education authority were to meet the Minister at 3.30 this afternoon. There can be no criticism whatever of the Minister for his having to postpone the meeting. My hon. Friends called for this debate today, and it is just one of those things. It is not for me to speak for my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East, but I suspect that he was disappointed because, much earlier, he had specifically asked for a meeting with the Secretary of State.
That being said, I say to the Minister for School Standards that I hope that nothing in my speech will sour the tone of our meeting, which I believe has been rescheduled for November. I am very anxious to work with the Government to get the best possible settlement for children in Southend.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that as we have waited a while for a meeting, and it is now the beginning of September, we should have that meeting as soon as possible, not in November?
Mr. Amess: I know that the Minister will be abroad for a while on parliamentary duties. Many of the

267
representatives coming from Southend are teachers and head teachers. It has been somewhat difficult to pull the dates together. I suspect that that is why—I say this gently to my hon. Friend—the meeting will be in November. Who knows, perhaps we might even be—
James Purnell: In an effort to ingratiate himself with the Government Front Bench, the hon. Gentleman might start by talking about the fantastic examination results that we have just had, where they have come from and whether the extra funding that we provided has made any difference to the results.
Mr. Amess: That is certainly on the list. I shall be joining the Minister in his congratulations to local children in Southend.
Given the amendment to the motion of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, the pattern of the debate is already established. The Opposition, as is our job, are holding the Government to account. The Government and their partners in crime, the Liberal Democrats, want to talk about what happened during the last Conservative Government. They do not want to consider what has been happening in the more recent past, and we are moving on to seven years of Labour government. They can try that, but it will not wash with the general public, who are interested only in what the present Government are doing. In terms of education, they will regret that since 1997 the Government have centralised everything. If I were to be asked to analyse where the money is going, I would say that too much is going on centralisation.
I suppose that the violins will come out now, but teaching used always to be seen as a vocation. Teacher retention was highlighted in a recent survey by the General Teaching Council. which found that across the nation a third of England's teachers are expected to leave teaching within five years. Among the main reasons cited by teachers for their wish to leave the profession are badly behaved pupils, an excessive work load, initiative overload and a target-driven culture. Thirty-four per cent. of teachers expect to leave the profession within the next five years. That says it all. Teachers no longer see their profession as a vocation.
I know that Labour will say, "Look at all the wonderful IT units that Members are being asked to open every week. Look at all the marvellous sports facilities. Trevor Brooking is opening a new sports facility next week at Belfairs school." However, the survey shows that teachers have never left the profession because they felt that they were teaching in a dump. It was never like that. I do not believe that teachers were leaving the profession because of physical circumstances. The situation is much more serious than that. I hold the Government to account because I believe that there has been centralisation.
Jonathan Shaw: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is interesting to note that the survey does not show that teachers are mentioning pay? Is that not a reflection on the fact that the Government have invested in pay, and that that factor is not in the list?
Mr. Amess: It does not appear to be in the list in the survey, but it is on every other list.
268
I gently refer to the Annunciator screen, which shows that I am not speaking. It shows that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) is still on his feet. I do not know how that is taken into account in terms of time.
I wish to respond to the intervention about examination results. Four of my five children are still at school. I rejoice with the Minister for School Standards that my oldest daughter got an A and two Bs and will be reading English and drama at Queen Mary college. It is a splendid university which rejected her father more than 30 years ago. I am delighted that St. Bernard's school did not only produce Helen Mirren; it was responsible for providing my daughter with a splendid education. My youngest daughter is about to start there. My other daughters are at Southend high school for girls and at Westcliff high school for girls. I never forget that it was the Labour party, supported by its partner in crime, the Liberal party, which did everything it could to undermine grammar school education. Opposition Members like to send their children to grammar schools, but we found in Southend that we had to fight Labour to retain our four grammar schools.
The House may also be interested in another piece of information. My research assistant comes from a staunch Liverpudlian family. His parents wanted the best for his son, so they sent him to a private school. He is a staunch Conservative because he wants to thank the last Conservative Government. When his father lost his job, the assisted scheme enabled him to stay and enjoy private education.
Jonathan Shaw: Would the hon. Gentleman assist the House and tell us what a staunch Liverpudlian is?
Mr. Amess: Someone who is still proud of Liverpool—I see that the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) is in the Chamber, so I must be careful—and speaks with a strong Liverpudlian accent.
As for Southend, I am advised by our education department that we have nine primary vacancies, 19 secondary school vacancies for teachers and two vacancies in our special schools. The Minister for School Standards has probably had a chance to glance over the agenda for a meeting that we were going to have. We would have discussed the effects of Southend's low formula spending share settlement on schools' budgets in Southend and the passporting of £700,000 over and above the required sum. The second issue that we were going to explore was the marked effect of cuts on our high-achieving schools in Southend—sadly, Southend high school for boys has had to remove Latin from the curriculum for the first time in its history. We would have discussed those who have followed the Government's instructions in schools serving areas of considerable disadvantage, and the narrowing of the attainment gap. The Government have said that poverty is not an excuse for low achievement, but some of our schools are having to dismantle the staffing structure that has brought about excellent achievements. When the Secretary of State came to the Dispatch Box on the day before we rose for the summer recess, more money was pledged for next year but, of course, the damage had already been done.
The final matter that we wanted to explore with the Minister for School Standards was the borrowing that some schools have had to make from the local authority

269
to get through this year. Next year's settlement will be low, and those schools simply cannot sustain that deficit.
I wanted to share with the House three comments by head teachers of schools in Southend. None of their letters was politically motivated—they were simply written when the ramifications of our financial settlement began to bite. I shall not name the first head, who said:
"I am not one of those headteachers who constantly complains about a shortfall in their budget. However, the proportion of my budget that has been attributed to staffing costs has risen from 82 per cent. last year to 90 per cent. this year. Obviously this makes all other aspects of school management difficult, although I have managed to set a balanced budget. This budget does not, however, allow for the extra staff and other resources that I would wish in order to achieve an improvement in school results."
National insurance contributions were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), and the head teacher says that NICs, together with an increase in teacher pension contributions, are
"having a huge effect on a largely people-based environment."
That says it all. It does not matter what the schools are like—if there are no good-quality teachers, schools will struggle to provide the sort of education what we want.
The head teacher went on to say:
"The consolidation of teacher salary grades from point 9 down to 6 is also biting hard this year as more staff become eligible to apply for the upper pay threshold."
Finally, she said:
"By good housekeeping I am fortunate to have a carry forward figure that allows for some maintenance and refurbishment to take place, but I cannot do this from the … financial government income."
I will name Mr. Frank Keenan, headmaster of St. Thomas More high school for boys, who would have been at the meeting with the Minister and represents secondary heads in Southend. He says:
"several schools in Southend are forced to declare deficit budgets in this current year (including my own), and we are having to meet L.E.A. officers to draw up four-year recovery plans. In my school, we are in the absurd position of having a £3 million new extension project due to open in September, but we will not have the money to clean it or maintain it!"
That is an absurd situation.
The third and final letter comes from a head teacher at the largest primary school in Essex, which has the biggest education authority, although Southend is unitary. She says:
"Our school is very successful but also very vulnerable. Our current budget deficit of £170,000 will place our school at risk. Our success depends on good will. Redundancies and the threat of redundancies undermines the good will that keeps our school open to children and their families from 7.30 am to late at night … We have been told to come to terms with running a 'less successful school'. That can never be right especially in the current context with its emphasis on equal opportunities for all young people … We have made cuts. We are not replacing teaching staff and support staff who are leaving (value of £70,000)."
I hope that when we meet, the Minister will have had an opportunity to reflect on the points that I have made.
One of our local newspapers, the Southend Evening Echo, cribbed a recent story in The Sun calling for private tutors to be subject to the same legislation as state school teachers. I shall not name the gentleman in question, but it has come to light locally that a private
270
tutor—I am thinking here of morale in teaching generally—is still teaching despite having been caught with indecent images of children on his home computer. He was not charged, but received a police caution and was placed on the sex offenders register for five years. Teachers are drawing to my attention the fact that, as the law stands, a person who is placed on the sex offenders register is barred from teaching in a state school, but not prevented from giving private tuition. Will the Minister reflect on that issue and perhaps write to me, so that we can at least have some guidance locally?
I come to the end of my speech feeling confused about how long it has lasted, as there seems to be a problem with the monitor. This year's funding crisis in the education system has led to what one head teacher calls
"far and away the worst situation I have ever had to manage."
The over-centralisation of education has created a situation of huge complication, and no one understands the way in which the system works. Despite showering the education system with money, the reality is that teachers and parents are all suffering the effects of the Government's regime of command and control.
I think that the Government, in their seventh year in office, have lost for ever the trust that they had. They have broken their promise that extra money would get to the schools where it would make a real difference to standards. That is what has happened in Southend. Parents and teachers have a right to be cross about the crisis in our schools. Thousands of children face the new school year with fewer teachers and support staff than ever before. For the Government to accuse local councils, schools and the School Teachers Review Body of being responsible for the funding difficulties is an absolutely shameless piece of buck-passing.
At the 1997 general election, we can all recall seeing in the wee hours of the morning all the Labour supporters gathered together, at a time when they thought that it was trendy to be associated with celebrities, to the sound of the D:Reem song, "Things Can Only Get Better". I do hope that they still have a copy, because the incoming Conservative Government will play it with relish.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Before I call the next speaker, I should tell the House that I am aware that the Annunciator is not working properly. This is the second day running that it has happened; I think that computers may have gone down. However, there are clocks under the Galleries that hon. Members can see—and, of course, the Chair keeps a very close watch on exactly how long they take in making their speeches.
6.31 pm
Jonathan Shaw: Despite Southend's disappointment, I can assure the House that the Minister is making himself available to meet delegations from schools—I was pleased to accompany one from Medway earlier today. In my area, we have a standstill budget and there has been one redundancy. We welcome the additional £1.3 million of extra funding following our initial budget settlement, but the council

271
had to go into its reserves, and for a small authority £3 million is not a sustainable sum. We have concerns about next year, but look forward to being given the details later in this Session.
The Select Committee on Education and Skills will certainly work rigorously on behalf of the House of Commons to ensure that the Secretary of State provides clarity and delivers on what he has told us about better settlements for schools. If hon. Members have any doubt about that, I point out that although it is a Labour-dominated Committee, the last time the Secretary of State came before it I was described on "Yesterday in Parliament" as the Tory MP for Chatham and Aylesford.
It is important to recognise what is happening today in the teaching profession. Ofsted reports that we have the best teaching work force that we have ever had; we need to say that a little more often. I have an interest, because yesterday my daughter had her first day at St. Katherine's school in Snodland in my constituency—an excellent school, led by an excellent head, with many new resources that are evident to parents and teachers alike. We should applaud the work that teachers do, which is delivered through students' examination results. Every year, we hear the same denigration of exam results. What does that say to students, parents and teachers? What does it do for their morale? If more students pass, the complainers say that exams are too easy; if fewer pass, they say that schools are failing. De facto, what they want is for results to remain the same for ever. Well, that is not going to happen, is it? It is reported that by 2010 some 180,000 to 250,000 extra students will be presenting themselves for university places. That is something to celebrate, but it also creates a demand for funding.
As well as acknowledging the work force, we must work out how to continue to recruit. The age profile of teachers is worrying. Within the next 15 years, 45 per cent. of teachers will be in their 60th year. That is a serious matter. The Teacher Training Agency reckons that it must recruit between 30,000 and 35,000 teachers a year. Complaints by Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen about the agency's advertisements therefore miss the point. We need more people to come into our schools and take advantage of the additional resources that the Government have provided, not least the £6,000 that is made available to students who take the courses.
I have spoken to several friends who are either on or have recently completed their teacher training. It is a very demanding course, which is reflected in Ofsted's claim that we have a skilled and able work force. However, we should consider some of the detail about our teacher work force. For example, we must examine the need to promote more ethnic minority teachers. There are currently 9,100 teachers from ethnic minorities in our schools. That is approximately 2.4 per cent. of the work force.
When the Select Committee visited Birmingham, concern about underperformance, especially of Afro-Caribbean boys, and the woeful lack of role models in schools was apparent. We met some role models, but they were few and far between. I am sure that all hon. Members would like there to be more. It is obvious that
272
if we are to promote standards in all the different communities in our society, we need role models in front of the class. The Teacher Training Agency advises us that the position is improving and I know that Ministers take the matter seriously. All hon. Members should take any opportunity to encourage those from ethnic minority backgrounds to go into teaching.
Andrew Selous: I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman's points. Indeed, I am proud to sponsor a reception by "Black Boys Can" later in the Session. He mentioned "promoting" more ethnic minority teachers; I wonder whether he meant "recruiting" many more, with which we would all agree, rather than promoting on merit, irrespective of race, colour or creed.
Jonathan Shaw: I meant promoting the exciting opportunities in teaching to ethnic minority members of our community.
Mr. David Rendel: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but does he agree that a further group—male teachers in primary schools—is sadly lacking?
Jonathan Shaw: That is right. At the primary school of which I am a governor, we are fortunate in having two mature male teachers and one younger male teacher. That makes a genuine difference. The school is in a deprived socio-economic area and many pupils do not have a positive male role model outside school. The hon. Gentleman is therefore right and we have discussed the matter with the Teacher Training Agency. Again, we must consider not only teachers per se but detailed matters such as ways in which to get, for example, black teachers and male teachers into specific schools.
We should also do more to encourage mature students, who have had careers elsewhere. Increasing numbers are coming into schools, and the Open university advised the Committee that mature students progressed far more rapidly into senior management grades than younger students. They bring in their experience from outside. We should applaud the Government for the fact that the £6,000 is available, making it possible for many people to consider changing career and going into the teaching profession.
It is important to keep people in the profession. The Committee also heard about the wide range of initiatives being undertaken by local authorities, in terms of providing opportunities for teachers to leave their schools for a period and to take up certain initiatives, so that their careers can become more varied. People are increasingly looking for that, and those initiatives, which play a vital role in the infrastructure of our teacher workforce, are to be applauded.
The Conservative party is casting doubt on the future of local education authorities. New Zealand got rid of all its LEAs, but the Government there have now had to create their own authorities throughout the country. An infrastructure is required, when schools are struggling, to work out who is going to run the special needs provision, meet the transport requirements, and so on. Most schools cannot operate in isolation. I am sure that successful schools, which cater for the higher socioeconomic groups in society, can do so, but schools in inner cities with particular needs need special support.

273
In Birmingham, the Committee noted the work of an education authority that was applauded by teachers and parents. That does not often happen. There are not always tangible outcomes that we can point to, to show that local education authorities have made a difference in terms of examination results. We know, however, that support—providing training, running effective services, and so on—is vital, and that support can be provided far more economically by an overarching body such as a local education authority.
Another important job that the Teacher Training Agency is doing is recruiting returners. There are thousands of people out there who have taught, and who have perhaps not considered returning to the classroom. "Golden comebacks" are now available—I think that they are worth between £2,000 and £3,000, but if I have got that wrong, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will advise me. Those are available across the board, but there is a question as to whether that should be the case. We heard from the employers—the Local Government Association—that the situation is not the same everywhere. In parts of the country, there are no recruitment difficulties whatever. Should a school with a full staff complement in an area that does not have a recruitment problem be eligible for that money? I am not sure that it should, when there are dire problems in our inner cities. It is better to use the money where the resources are needed the most. The Government should seriously consider better targeting the "golden comebacks".
On passporting money into schools, of course local education authorities should pass on money to schools, but they cannot pass it all on. It is easy for Members to criticise one another here today, but the fact is that the Government have increased the percentage share that goes into the delegated budgets. But we, as Members of Parliament, write to our directors of education when people come into our advice surgeries with concerns about the special educational needs provision for children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder or autism, for example, or about transport matters. If every penny is passed to the schools, where will the money come from to deal with the issues about which we make representations to the local education authorities? We all do it. We should reflect for a moment before saying that not all the money is being delivered to schools. We should bear in mind psychology and transport needs, for instance.
Given the Tories' record, when I consider the criticisms they make of the Government words fail me. I have been a governor of Kent schools for many years. Every October we would receive a note from the education authority telling us to start thinking about cuts. Head teachers say, understandably, that this is their worst year ever, but in fact it is their worst year ever under a Labour Government.
I believe that the Government are committed to improvement. There are so many examples of extra investment in all our constituencies. For instance, the school of which I am a governor had a nursery built under the last Labour Government's urban aid programme. There are only a handful of purpose-built nurseries in Kent, which has one of the largest education authorities in the country, because the authority consistently failed to spend to the level of its standard spending assessment. This school had to wait for an
274
incoming Labour Government to enable its nursery to be refurbished under the new deal for schools against which both Opposition parties voted. That is the difference between the two sides.
Andrew Selous: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was paying attention when I intervened earlier, so I shall repeat what I quoted then. He said that the current difficulties were the worst that had been experienced under a Labour Government. What would he say to the head of an East Yorkshire school, Michael Clapham, who represents a group of East Yorkshire heads? According to him,
"In the last 12 years, this is far and away the worst budget settlement that I have had to manage as a head teacher".
That includes six years under the last Conservative Government.
Jonathan Shaw: The hon. Gentleman need only look at the record and see how much has been spent on education. I cannot account for how much the Yorkshire authority passed to that particular school, and we see variations throughout the country; but the hon. Gentleman will know that, notwithstanding all the computer suites, new classrooms and additional learning support assistance provided in Bedfordshire, the same is happening in Kent and elsewhere.
I think the Government have acknowledged that this has been a particularly difficult year. The Conservative Government did not acknowledge that in any year; all that they did was cut and cut. It will take a long time for this Government to deal with the backlog that has resulted from the Conservatives' failure to invest, but I know that—as with the nursery in my constituency—they are committed to doing so.
6.48 pm
Andrew Selous: Like others, I begin by congratulating pupils in schools in my constituency on their excellent work over the past year. Their results have been excellent. I also pay tribute to work in Bedfordshire's lower schools. Pupils at that stage do not take exams, but Studham lower school, of which I am a governor, was visited by the strategic director of education for Bedfordshire because it had done so well over the year. I congratulate the children, and also the excellent teachers and other staff who brought about such a high standard.
In the context of exams, though, I think there is a need for an independent Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, given the A-level fiasco of recent years and the beginning of a lack of trust in our examination system among the public. That lack of trust is a great pity, and it devalues the hard work and excellent results that we have rightly celebrated today.
Mr. Bailey: The hon. Gentleman speaks of a fiasco and of undermining trust, but the Select Committee looked at this issue and in fact, very few A-levels were misgraded. When we looked at the picture closely, it was nothing like a fiasco.
Andrew Selous: The hon. Gentleman's Government made an excellent decision in making the Bank of England independent—it had not been done before and

275
it proved successful—and with that in mind I would encourage him to be a little more far-sighted here. I can see absolutely no downside to making the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority independent; indeed, doing so would provide considerable strengths. It would offer a general reassurance to parents, pupils and teachers throughout the country that there was absolutely no interference whatsoever from Ministers of any Government.
It is no good looking at historical perspectives during this debate, for one very simple reason. We are talking about children's life chances as they go through school today, not the care and maintenance of some wonderful historic building. This is not a question of saving a little on exterior renovation this year because times are hard, and saying that we will come back to it in five or ten years' time. We know that children have one chance. They experience some critical times in their education as they go through lower school and enter middle school, so they must have the right environment. That is why the Opposition were right to call for this debate today, and to hold the Government to account for what has gone so very badly wrong this year. We do so in the hope that there will be no repetition in future years of what has happened this year, for the sake of all our children.
I shall return to a point that I have made twice already during this debate, because Labour Members seem to be experiencing some amnesia about what happened in previous years. They seem to think that everything was always terrible during the Conservative years, but many people have reinforced the comment by Michael Clapham, who represents heads in East Yorkshire, that this is the worst budget that he has had to deal with for 12 years. [Interruption.] I make that point a third time so that perhaps it might be heard. In my constituency, experienced governors of long standing who are incredibly committed to education have told me the same thing. Indeed, one governor actually put his own house on the line to protect his school's budget.
James Purnell rose—
Andrew Selous: I give way to my former Select Committee colleague.
James Purnell: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has made the same point three times now, but does he recognise that in 1997, funding in education as a proportion of gross domestic product was more than 20 per cent. lower than the current level? Does he think that results in his constituency would be better or worse if funding were cut by 20 per cent., which I believe is his party's intention?
Andrew Selous: That is something of a cheap shot, I am afraid. I stood on a manifesto pledge of increased education spending, to which I am personally committed. The hon. Gentleman can trade statistics, but I have told him what heads are saying about their current funding difficulties. We are talking about
276
children in education today turning up at their schools at the start of this term and finding that there is a shortage of teachers.
James Purnell rose—
Andrew Selous: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once and if he does not mind, I shall make a little progress and develop my remarks.
Mr. Roy Beggs: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Andrew Selous: I will certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Beggs: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me. Will he accept that this is also the first year ever that there has been universal discontent among head teachers in Northern Ireland? Their discontent is such that they actually sent a delegation here to make representations to all parties, because of their concern at the shortfall in funding available to be spent for the benefit of pupils in Northern Ireland schools.
Andrew Selous: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for providing the perspective from his part of the United Kingdom; indeed, he reinforces the point that I was making.
A look at the figures reveals the national picture. A survey undertaken by the Secondary Heads Association, in conjunction with The Times Educational Supplement, shows a reduction nationally of some 3,400 posts in English comprehensives. Of those, 730 were made redundant and a further 2,789 teachers and 1,152 support staff were simply not replaced. Furthermore, 75 per cent. of the lost posts were in schools where the roll had either remained static or had risen—a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), a former Secretary of State for Education.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Stephen Twigg): The hon. Gentleman is correct to identify concern about schools where teaching posts have been lost and teachers made redundant, but will he respond to the point made by my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards earlier—that the figure for schools that have taken on extra teaching staff exceeded the loss figure that the hon. Gentleman just quoted? The net figure is in fact an increase in the number of teaching staff in those schools.
Andrew Selous: I am not sure that I entirely understand the Minister's point. He is looking at the national picture, but I have quoted figures from the national picture that do not seem to back up what he said. I agree with the Minister for School Standards that more people are coming into the teaching profession. That is excellent, but nationally we are talking about a loss.
I should like to talk specifically about my own constituency, which I obviously know well. On 8 July I asked my local education authority about the number of teachers either made redundant or not replaced in the

277
constituency. The list I received from the local authority showed the following. Cedars upper school in Leighton Buzzard lost five teachers and one administrative officer was not replaced. St. George's lower school, also in Leighton Buzzard, lost two teachers. At Priory middle school in Dunstable, four learning support assistants were not present this September. Greenleas lower school, also at Leighton Buzzard, lost one teacher and one non-teaching member of staff and Dunstable Icknield lower school lost one teacher. The Thomas Whitehead lower school in Houghton Regis lost the equivalent of half a nursery nurse.
I know from correspondence with many other schools in my constituency that those figures do not supply the complete picture. I can think of a lower school in Dunstable whose deputy head teacher has not been replaced this September, and the school managed its deficit only by its head taking on an extremely heavy teaching commitment. That worries me because when a head has such a commitment, along with all the extra work in running the school, it amounts to an intolerable burden.
Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me how the schools in his constituency are tackling the problem of falling rolls? Are the losses, either in the shorter or longer term, associated with falling rolls in any of the schools that he mentioned?
Andrew Selous: No, Bedfordshire is an area of great population growth. Currently the population of our towns and country areas is growing, though none of the schools that I mentioned is in a rural area. It is not an area of population decline. That may be the hon. Lady's experience, but it does not apply to Bedfordshire.
The spectacle that we witnessed earlier this year—of the Government trying to blame everyone other than themselves—was not attractive. Local education authorities were first singled out for blame, but when the figures were examined, it was found that few had behaved improperly. My own authority of Bedfordshire was proved to have passed on all the money that it should have done—and, indeed, more.
I am extremely concerned about the governors and head teachers who have to set school budgets at the start of every year. In common with many other hon. Members, I would like to see an increase in the core mainstream funding of schools from around the present 70 per cent. to a much higher figure of perhaps 80, 85 or even 90 per cent; and a reduction in the 30 per cent. that schools have either to bid for or are allocated later in the year. There a number of very good reasons why we should do that.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, proceedings on the Motions in the name of the Leader of the Opposition may be proceeded with, though opposed, until Eight o'clock.—[Mr. Kemp.]
Question agreed to.
Andrew Selous: It is incredibly difficult to set a school budget if one is not clear about exactly what moneys will be allocated at the start of the year. The person who sets a school budget will probably be the chair of the finance committee. That person will be a school governor with a full-time job and a family, who probably undertakes other activities in the community as well. It is extremely difficult for such people to plan properly in respect of staff and major capital programmes if they are not sure what money they will get during the year.
I take the point made earlier by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) that some money does have to be retained at the centre, for special needs. He gave the interesting example of New Zealand, where they got rid of LEAs and then had to reinstate them. If that fact was unearthed by the Select Committee, it shows the value of those Committees looking at what is happening around the world. I therefore do not advocate the abolition of LEAs, but I believe that the balance between direct funding to schools and the money retained by either central Government or the LEA is wrong. I should like to increase the 70 per cent. figure by a large amount.
Mention has been made in the debate of new teachers coming into the profession. I acknowledge that the figures are healthy, and show that more people are going into teacher training college than was the case last year. I suspect that that is partly the result of the golden hellos that have been introduced, which will go some way towards paying off student loans. That is all well and good, and the measure was a sensible one for the Government to take.
However, I am very worried about retention in the teaching profession. It is a real issue. All hon. Members know that, in any great public profession—such as teaching, medicine or the police—there are huge advantages to be gained from continuity and experience. Teachers who have been in the profession for many years will have coped with many difficult situations, and they therefore bring great wisdom and depth of experience to the job. It is extremely worrying that so many teachers leave the profession after only three or four years.
I was very interested in the research mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) into the reasons why teachers are leaving the profession. About six months ago, I went into an upper school in my constituency as part of a citizenship education programme. The day's activity went extremely well, but I found myself in sole charge of a class. I do not think that it was supposed to happen: the children were about 15 or 16 years of age and quite lively. The class was fairly large, and I found getting the children's attention and saying what I wanted to say quite exhausting. The exercise had to do with setting a local authority budget, and I wanted to look at the children's priorities for the community. That was not something that they had considered before, but I hasten to say that it was the school's idea, not mine. It was a very good exercise, and I was trying to get them to think about the different needs of the community.
Mr. Bailey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the exercise would have been considerably more difficult if it had been held eight years ago?
Andrew Selous: I might say that that makes it 15-all, but the intervention was not relevant to my point.

279
I found it personally draining to have to keep the pupils' attention, to keep order and to stop conversations going on at the back of the class as I got pupils to focus on what we were trying to do. I did that three or four times in a couple of different classes one morning. As I left, I said that that was indeed fairly draining work which gave me a good insight into the problems that teachers have day in and day out. 1 understand from the survey undertaken by the General Teaching Council in January that the main reasons why teachers leave the profession are badly behaved pupils and the constant struggle of having to keep discipline when they want to impart knowledge and teach their subjects. How much that saps morale is difficult to know for anyone who has not done it.
That is why I will see the Secretary of State at 11 am tomorrow to raise the issue of antisocial behaviour and parenting in relation to schools. I am going with the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) who shares my concerns. It is no surprise that we are joining together to do that—Members on both sides of the House are concerned. It is time that we came together across the country to agree that the situation is intolerable. The problem was highlighted recently by the chief inspector of schools, David Bell, for whom I have great respect, and whom I know reasonably well because he is a former chief executive of Bedfordshire county council and I have travelled to London with him by train from time to time. He made some interesting comments two or three weeks ago about the extreme difficulties that primary and lower schools have when children arrive lacking any sort of the social skills that would have been taken for granted 10, 15 or 20 years ago.
Jonathan Shaw: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his comments about the chief inspector endorse the work of the sure start programme in the most deprived areas? He has said time and again that he welcomes extra money for teacher recruitment and various initiatives, but when it comes down to it, he votes against that money.
Andrew Selous: The hon. Gentleman keeps resorting to relatively cheap attacks. I was trying to engage in discussion about a matter that I think is of important cross-party interest. There is a national problem, whether we are Labour, Liberal, Conservative or anything else. That is why I am joining a Labour Member tomorrow in seeing the Secretary of State.
We can argue about the mechanisms by which we deal with the problem. Sure start will have its advocates but since that initiative does not apply to my area—even though we have extreme pockets of deprivation—I cannot speak of it from first-hand experience. I can say that the work done by home start, which is to be expanded and of which there are examples in my constituency, is excellent. I myself would try to empower parents more, perhaps helping those who have not had the benefit of being well parented themselves to improve the way in which they parent their own children. There are different ways to approach the problem, but I am convinced that we must recognise that there is a national problem. We cannot expect teachers in lower and primary schools to do that work as well as teaching
280
children. We need a national agreement, and the challenge for the Government and the country is to do something about the social skills of young children in the same way that we have tried to make improvements in other areas.
I agree that more male teachers in primary and lower schools are needed. In all the lower schools that I have visited in my constituency over the past few years, I have seen probably only one or two male teachers. The presence of such teachers is important, particularly for those children who do not have a father at home or a male role model in the household. We all know of wonderful examples of male teachers in lower and primary schools who are excellent role models to whom children relate well, which is important for their development. We need to take that seriously.
7.9 pm
James Purnell: What is this debate really about? It is really about spreading cynicism about education in this country. The Opposition cannot stand the facts that education results are improving and extra money is going into our schools—and they cannot promise to match it, so they are trying to erect a smokescreen and distract people's attention from the real improvements on the ground.
Teacher shortages are an issue. Some schools have experienced quite severe problems, which was acknowledged by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench. However, may I draw people's memory back to the days when the Conservatives adjusted the education funding formula? There were no floors and ceilings and local authorities had to make cuts of millions of pounds overnight.
Andrew Selous: No one in the Opposition believes that the Government set out to bring about the loss of hundreds, or probably thousands, of teacher and learning support assistant places. Does the hon. Gentleman accept, however, that the means whereby the Government have chosen to fund education mean that they have given with one hand and taken away from school budgets with the other? It is sheer incompetence and a failure to understand both education funding and the effects of increases for pensions and national insurance that have brought us to the current problem.
James Purnell: I do not accept that at all. As the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg), has just explained to the hon. Gentleman, the overall number of teachers has risen. There is a big change in the funding formula, with associated transition costs, but my point to Opposition Members is that a severe contrast is offered by the days when millions of pounds were cut from local authorities such as mine to gerrymander the funding formula to allow Wandsworth and Westminster to set extremely low taxes. We all remember exactly why that was done.
The change was justified. When I was selected for Stalybridge and Hyde, in every school that I visited, I was asked to make my first priority a change in the funding formula. The borough was one of the most deprived in the country, yet it received thousands of pounds less than neighbouring authorities because the

281
funding formula at the time reflected only ethnic diversity and geographic scarcity. The Labour Government have changed the formula so that it properly reflects deprivation.
At last, having suffered for between 10 and 15 years due to the gerrymandered funding formula, we are receiving an amount of money that properly reflects the deprivation in our schools. Despite the degree of deprivation in my area, we achieve excellent results. That is what I want to highlight. In contrast to the Opposition's attempt to spread cynicism, we should be optimistic about the results in our schools.
Why do the Opposition want to spread cynicism? They have to convince people that the state cannot achieve what we are setting out to achieve. They have to convince people that things are hopeless, that people might as well not invest in public services and that, if they can afford it, they should use their money to send their children to private school, or perhaps their children will get into a selective school.
We are saying that the state can work; we can invest in public services and it will make a real difference. The Tories try to distract people from that, but the evidence is clear—from looking at local papers or from people talking to their neighbours. That may be why the opinion poll results covered by The Times earlier this week were much less bad than people may have expected.
We must continue to listen to people and deal with their concerns, but perhaps rather than looking at the flim-flam inside the beltway around Westminster—the media hype—people are actually looking at their schools and hospitals and thinking that, yes, they are starting to get better.
In contrast to the Opposition's cynicism, I want to draw the House's attention to a few results in my area this summer.
Mr. Andrew Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
James Purnell: No, I have limited time and the hon. Gentleman was not in the debate, so I shall try to bring my—
Mr. Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
James Purnell: I have already—
Mr. Turner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell) is not giving way.
James Purnell rose—
Mr. Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? He accused—
Mr. Speaker: Order.
James Purnell: I have already referred to the incredible results for higher technology where there was an improvement from 50 to 63 per cent. That includes 71
282
per cent. gaining five A to C grades among the Bangladeshi community, which is nearly three times the achievement nationally. That is a great credit to Denise Spence and her colleagues, and I hope that the House will join me in congratulating that school on its results. All Saints Catholic college, which has just applied for specialist status, has improved its results from 43 to 45 per cent. of pupils achieving five A to C grades.
The results at Dukinfield Astley—another school that the Minister for School Standards has visited—have increased from 26 per cent. last year to 43 per cent.—an improvement of nearly 20 percentage points in a year. West Hill has just reached an agreement with a local company, Atofina, to invest thousands of pounds in the new school and its specialist status. West Hill's result—62 per cent.—is up on last year, and I hope that the House will also join me in congratulating that school on its results. Longdendale, which achieved specialist language status last year and an outstanding result this year—44 per cent.—in what is, in some cases, a very deprived catchment area. Mossley Hollins's result was 24 per cent. last year, but it has gone up to 41 per cent., so I congratulate Drew Duncan and his team on achieving those results.
New school buildings have been built at Alder secondary school, under Bob Wakefield, and there are new primary schools at Pinfold and Arundale on an estate where not one new school building was built during the entire time that the Conservatives were in power. I visited the old buildings several times. Frankly, it was a disgrace that people were being taught in prefabs in the school grounds and squeezed into corridors and other spaces because the classrooms were not in a proper state to be used for teaching. The library was even closed down.
When the Opposition talk about school funding, they should ask themselves whether they could pledge to match our education results. They say that they will match our spending on defence and international development, but they also say that they want to make savings. They cannot say that they will match our education results. The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) says that he stood on a platform of increasing education spending, but he has had to vote several times against spending increases. If the Opposition ever did get into government, they would have to make cuts.
Andrew Selous: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
James Purnell: No. I am afraid that I have limited time.
Copley school is proud of being a comprehensive—it is far from being a bog standard one—and it has managed to improve its results from 41 to 57 per cent. this year. That concludes the roundtrip of the secondary schools in my constituency.
Finally, I congratulate the staff of those schools, as well as their pupils and governors and not least the local education authority, which has played a crucial role in improving schools in my area. Overall, our results went from 42 to 47 per cent. last year. That fantastic achievement is a testament to the effect of spending more money in schools, while having proper challenge

283
and support from the LEA and central Government. I congratulate them, and I hope that the House will do so as well.
7.18 pm
Mr. Andrew Turner: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in the debate. I do not intend to reiterate the arguments that have been developed so well by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) and my other right hon. and hon. Friends today. I want to consider some of the other issues that may have given rise to the problem—I will not call it a crisis—of teacher recruitment and retention, and I wish to try to distinguish between the two because all too frequently they are combined and they need to be taken apart, although the phrase, "teacher shortage" may represent convenient shorthand.
The first symptom of the problem is that many schools have an unbalanced age profile of teachers. In schools such as those in London, there are far too many young and inexperienced teachers, many of whom come from overseas. They need a great deal of support. In other schools, there is perhaps a disproportionate number of more senior teachers. I speak of the schools in my constituency. Such a disproportion is greatly to their advantage in some ways because those teachers bring experience and maturity, but they do not necessarily bring novelty and vigour of the kind that might be expected of younger teachers.
There are problems with turnover. Some schools suffer turbulence—too much turnover—while others suffer stagnation because too few teachers are sufficiently ambitious to want to move on and some might be perceived to be coasting toward retirement. Both situations are unhealthy for teachers, schools and pupils and, I dare say, the future of pupils. It is difficult to get the right balance between recruitment and retention and we cannot always blame the Government or the Opposition for failing to achieve it. The problem is not necessarily related to funding.
My colleagues have made the case on funding but I shall point out other symptoms: the shortage of subject specialism and the movement of teachers to the private sector, which was recognised by the Teacher Training Agency's survey. I shall examine several causes of those symptoms that have nothing to do with money. 1 congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on pointing out one during the closing minutes of his speech. The great difficulty associated with teaching pupils with few or inadequately developed social skills should be recognised. We need to tackle the problem at the root. Although I recognise that home start and sure start are part of the Government's prescription for tackling the problem, they are not tackling it at the root by asking why such children were so badly parented. I fear that one reason is the breakdown of families. I know that it is unfashionable to talk about the damage caused by the breakdown of families but it is time that we recognised the dramatic problems that serial parenting causes to the self-image of pupils and youngsters.
The second great problem for teachers is lack of support from parents, which is associated with a sort of rights culture. The party of which I am proud to be a
284
member has promoted the rights culture in education. It has promoted choice and what are considered to be market mechanisms but it has not necessarily always been successful at promoting a responsibilities culture to accompany the rights culture, although I accept that it is more difficult to do that. A rights culture without a responsibilities culture means that parents sometimes do not accept that their child can do wrong or that a teacher has not only the right but the duty to discipline a child or put him back on the right track if he goes wrong. If one fails to provide teachers with support and effective sanctions, they will fail to maintain discipline, which is one of the key factors that is causing teachers to leave the public sector and, in many cases, teaching altogether.
A third element of the problem is the inadequately supported integration of pupils who sometimes have profound special educational needs. The Government are capping the money that local education authorities may hold back. I associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) and hope that the Minister will be able to guarantee that that will not lead to artificial capping of the amount spent on special educational needs because support for pupils with SEN represents support for every child and teacher in the schools that such pupils attend. There is too much inappropriate treatment of such pupils, and there are sometimes inappropriate attempts to integrate them when they, their parents and their teachers do not think that that can work. So that is a third problem that has nothing to do with money.
The fourth problem that has nothing to do with money is bureaucracy, work load and initiative overload, as identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess). The Government recognise those problems, but they have not been sufficiently effective at reducing teacher work load, although I know that the work load agreement is designed to have that effect and if it is right for teachers., heads and governors, it will be implemented.
The last problem is that of the allegations, sometimes unfounded, against people in the teaching profession. I refer to that principally because of a situation that arose in my constituency in the past few weeks, but the issue is of general concern. I know that teacher unions in particular are gravely concerned about the consequence for teachers of losing their professional, if not their literal, lives as a result of allegations that might not stand up in a court of law. I hope that the Government will examine that problem with the greatest possible care to discover whether there is a way to ensure that teachers get through that heart-rending time in their lives without necessarily losing their professional standing. It may be that after conviction it is right that they lose their professional standing, but currently, they lose it the moment that they are accused and suspended. We need to recognise that problem and tackle it.
7.26 pm
Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: Like many hon. Members, I meet head teachers on a regular basis. Last year I met a number of heads in my constituency to talk about their ongoing needs. Like many other local authorities, my authority has many schools that face

285
significant pupil shortages, a situation that will become more acute over the next four years before the trend is reversed. We all know that staffing numbers are primarily based on pupil numbers. Moreover, the shortage of pupils this year will only be acknowledged by the local authority the following year.
Despite a huge effort by some of my schools, they will have no choice but to make teachers redundant because there will be an insufficient number of pupils to support existing posts. No one likes to make anyone redundant under any circumstances. We should all like to keep teachers on indefinitely, hopeful that things turn around. Head teachers have rightly pleaded for funds in the hope that that transient set of affairs will pass quickly.
The situation is not new. It has been occurring on a regular basis for the past 30 years. However, the previous Government did not respond to the problem. There was nothing: no extra money and no promises. Head teachers had no choice but continually to increase the number of pupils in each class in an attempt to balance the books while squeezing every other budget they controlled. The only growing budget in schools before 1997 was under the control of the parent teacher association. Like millions of other parents who sent their children to school in the dark years, I sent a regular sum to the school to pay for fundamental things such as paper, pens and text books. Every year the request for extra money grew as budgets shrank. It was utterly depressing and totally indicative of what we could expect from a Tory Administration.
I was elected to serve the people of Crosby in 1997 when many children were being educated in buildings that should have been condemned. As an engineer, I think that I can make that evaluation accurately. There was a conspiracy of silence on the extent of the problem. There was an absolute acceptance by head teachers and teachers alike that there was no point complaining or asking for money to repair leaking roofs or defective buildings because it would not result in a response. Indeed, the head teachers in my constituency were right. When I asked how much funding was available for emergency repairs, the local authority told me that £40,000 was available for 23 schools, but the money had not been allocated because there had been no emergency to warrant the funds. I found that an appalling statistic.
When I visited one school to watch an assembly and wondered why the children were sitting in an extraordinary geometric configuration, I was told by the head teacher that they had to sit like that because bulbs had dropped from the ceiling the previous year, and the school had been told by the local authority that no funding was available to solve the problem, so teachers had better move the children out of the way just in case one dropped on their heads. I then went to another school where children were educated in portakabins, and even those were delineated because if the children had been sitting in certain parts of the portakabin they would have fallen through the floor. That was considered to be an acceptable place to educate our children.
The situation has changed radically under this Government. The £40,000 has been replaced by over £8 million. I have visited head teachers in my constituency
286
who have been begging for a new school for 25 years, and who, when I told them that their request had been granted, burst into tears. Some of those teachers have spent their entire lives striving to improve the lot of their pupils, and it was a particularly futile exercise under the previous Conservative Administration.
The most damning indictment of that Administration was the type of facility that they afforded children with learning difficulties. I have a daughter with a learning difficulty; I know just how bad it has been. The schools allocated to the children in my constituency were disgusting. This year, 1 broke into tears when I visited two schools, one for children with severe learning difficulties and one for my child. Finally, we have schools that tell us as a society that we have a respect and regard for the most vulnerable among us. That cost money, and that money was made available by this Government. It is an asset, and that facility was totally ignored by the Conservative Administration.
A significant amount of money has been poured into every school in my constituency, not just for building, but for huge programmes such as sure start which have made an enormous difference by bringing children in deprived areas into the school system at age three and four. Extra teaching assistants and extra teachers in classes have made a difference.
I want the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) to be able to speak, so I shall conclude my remarks by quoting a fantastic teacher in my constituency, who had to wait the length of her career to get extra money that recognises her ability and her desire to stay on teaching children. She said, "It's been a bit of a bad year, but I'd have this year each and every year in preference to another year under the Tories when it was absolute mean misery."
7.32 pm
Mr. Nigel Waterson: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) because she spoke with great passion, even if, at times, she was defending the indefensible.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell) accused Opposition Members, of all people, of spreading cynicism. I have to tell him that there are only two possible conclusions to be reached, and both have been canvassed in this excellent debate, about the situation in many parts of the country. Either the Ministers involved are innocent but incompetent clowns, or they are indeed cynical manipulators. All this talk about education, education, education, which is now heard only on the Opposition Benches, may have got the Government into power in the first place, but those chickens are coming home to roost in no uncertain fashion, particularly in my constituency. It is difficult not to see all that. If one gives Ministers the benefit of the doubt and assumes that they are not incompetent, it is easy to view the situation as part of a cynical attempt to divert resources away from the south-east, which we have seen happening in many areas.
I have categorically to assure the Minister, with I hope at least as much passion as the hon. Member for Crosby, that there are real problems in my constituency, as there are elsewhere. When they began to emerge, Ministers followed plan A, which was to try to blame the situation on the LEAs. East Sussex made a robust

287
rebuttal, which was eventually accepted by Ministers and officials. It was then suggested, as a temporary get-out, that the capital budgets could be raided. I pointed out earlier in the debate that that was met with laughter and disbelief in some of our schools, because any major works are normally done in the school summer holidays, and the builders had already long been commissioned do the work, so that simply was not feasible.
All our primary and secondary school head teachers in Eastbourne got together and issued a joint press release in the summer which said:
"Headteachers in the Eastbourne area are having to make dramatic cuts within their budgets, arising from the underfunding of schools from central government. All schools in the area have been affected by the funding crisis, with many going into debt, and all having to reduce spending significantly."
It went on to say:
"Pupil:teacher ratios will rise across the town."
The head teachers estimated that £2 million has been taken out of school budgets across Eastbourne in one year. Mr. Ian Jungius, head teacher of the excellent Willingdon community school, just two minutes' walk from my home, said that his school was looking at an approximate shortfall in this year's budget of £130,000, which was based, he said,
"on just repeating what we did last year".
He referred to issues such as the increase in national insurance, the 5 per cent. increase in employers' contribution to pensions and the impact of changes in the area cost adjustment. He said:
"I do believe East Sussex has passed on the money it should and is not holding back anything at the centre."
That view is supported by all the other head teachers in my area. Mr. Jungius talked about the particular problems faced by schools such as his, where the formula is based on the pay of an average teacher on point 5 of the main pay scale. However, in his case, 87 per cent. of his teachers are above that nominal average. He has missed his vocation as a politician, because he put the problem very succinctly:
"Charles Clarke's announcement allowing us to use Formula Capital as we wish for one year only, is in itself an admission on his part that they have got the funding wrong."
Of the Opposition, perhaps unfairly, he said:
"I am amazed that there has not been more of a furore on this."
Well, the furore is happening now. Mr. Jungius went on to say that he was losing two members of his teaching staff and two support staff, and expected to lose two more teachers next year.
The head teacher of Eastbourne technology college—the sort of school, I should have thought, that the Government were trying to support—said:
"I have had to increase class sizes as I am not able to replace teachers who are leaving."
The head teacher of Bishop Bell Church of England school, an excellent secondary school, said that they were £70,000 short compared with last year's budget. Ratton school, a specialist college in the performing arts, talked about
"cuts in building maintenance, staff training, and the money … for books and equipment."
288
Cavendish school, another excellent secondary school, has been looking at how it can reduce the number of teaching staff by natural wastage, a reduction of investment in information and communications technology and the abandonment of plans to staff an inclusion unit—another pet project that the Government say they favour. The Downs school says that it has
"decided to cover one class with a temporary teacher for one term."
However, next year, it may have to disband that class altogether. Motcombe school talked about reducing non-contact time for its teaching staff and its special educational needs co-ordinator and so on. Ocklynge school, the largest junior school in Europe, has had to make savings, partly by reducing teaching assistant hours. The head, Mr. Trott, said:
"On average each teaching assistant has seen a 13 per cent. reduction in their hours."
A quote from a letter from West Rise junior school in a challenging part of my constituency says it all about what is happening in the real world rather than on Planet Clarke. The head teacher, Mr. Kent, said:
"We are also writing to the parents to ask if they can provide replacement pens and pencils as we cannot continue to replace stock."
We have heard from hon. Members about a lot of schools across the country that require contributions from parents, who are often already hard-pressed. The truth is that out there in the schools there are major problems of underfunding and natural wastage, as it is called, of teachers—teachers are simply not being replaced. We have seen the overall figures, and have been given many examples of schools in Members' constituencies. Will Ministers stop staring the truth in the face and pretending that the reality is different? Will they accept the reality and apologise if they feel up to it. However, they should at least move on and try to tackle those problems in my constituency and elsewhere.
7.40 pm
Mr. Charles Hendry: This has been an interesting and excellent debate. There have been some powerful contributions, particularly from my hon. Friends who have recognised fully the extent of the problems in schools in their constituencies. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) spoke with his customary passion and enthusiasm for Southend and the issues that are there. He gave real demonstrations of the effects of the budgetary cuts within his constituency. He highlighted subjects that are being cut and physically being removed from the curriculum. He spoke of schools having to borrow money from the local education authority and of excellent new facilities that are kept closed because there is not the money to clean and maintain them. The description of one of the heads, which we should have ringing in our ears, is that this is the worst situation that he has ever had to manage.
My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) reminded us that primarily the debate is about children's education and said that their interests should be the focus of our attention. He gave detailed figures to show the extent of the problems both locally and nationwide, and made a

289
strong case for moving more funds through directly to schools. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), as ever, made a powerful case and showed why he is such an excellent member of the Select Committee. He effectively highlighted the range of issues that are not related to funding but determine the quality of education in our schools.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), my parliamentary neighbour, gave a realistic assessment of the real problems facing us in east Sussex, which I wholly endorse. Heads have been universal, in my experience, in sensing that the county council has done its very best in passing on funds to schools, and that it has been the Government who have been the villain of the piece.
It is disappointing that in responding to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), who opened the debate, the Minister for School Standards ignored virtually every one of the key points that my hon. Friend had highlighted. He did not refer to the increase in national insurance contributions or in pension contributions, which have caused so many of the problems. He did not highlight the fact that so many schools are having to put deficit budgets in place or are having to raise their capital budgets to keep going. He did not talk about the scrapping of the school achievements award. He did not refer to the appalling fact that one school in five is now asking parents to make contributions simply to meet their bills.
If the situation is as good as the Minister makes it out to be, why is it that people like the head of the Secondary Heads Association, Ann Welsh, are saying that this year's cash crisis will have repercussions for many years to come. Why is it that the leader of the heads in east Yorkshire, as brought out on so many occasions by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire, is saying that these are the worst figures that he has had to deal with for 12 years?
The Minister questioned our position on the work load agreement. We have always supported that agreement in principle, but we have questioned whether it would work. The Government should be cutting the red tape, cutting the number of targets and cutting the plethora of new initiatives, which would do much more to reduce teachers' work loads than anything else that the Government could do.
The Minister has been going to great lengths to tell us why this is not the Government's fault. Of course, nothing is ever the fault of this Government. It is the same old strategy. First, deny that anything is wrong; then insist that the facts are not as they really are and that the statistics and surveys are flawed. If that does not work, question the principles of those who are criticising the Government. Above all, find someone else to blame, preferably somebody who does not have access to a media machine to help them put their case. Alastair Campbell may have moved on but his spirit lives there still.
The Minister is doing what Ministers have done through the ages when they have lost the argument: he has gone into denial. He is pretending that the reality is other than it is. He believes only the press stories that support his side of the argument. He believes that the teachers and governors who call out for help are only a small minority. But Ministers have lost the plot and,
290
much more importantly, the trust of students, parents and teachers. When we consider the contributions made by Labour Back Benchers, it is easy to see why.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) made an astonishing speech. He spoke for 10 minutes, but spent five minutes on the last Tory Government, three minutes telling us that everything was improving and two minutes saying that the problems were all due to the old funding system. He did not utter a single sentence about the problems facing a single school in his constituency. There was not a word about the shocking growth of red tape, which takes up too much of teachers' time, nor a mention of falling teacher morale. I hope that he will send that speech to every head teacher in his constituency and ask them if it represents their views as well.
Mr. Bailey: I took the trouble to check the situation in my constituency. Teacher numbers are rising and morale, educational standards and funding are high. That is precisely why I did not see any cause to complain about the funding arrangement for local authorities such as Sandwell.
Mr. Hendry: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also send that contribution to every head teacher in his constituency. I would like to see every letter that he gets in return accepting that the situation is as he describes.
The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) spoke for 17 minutes. He spent three minutes saying how standards were rising and six minutes making important points about teachers—we all agree with his concerns about the age profile of teachers. Indeed, we agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) about the problem of a lack of male teachers in primary schools. The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford spent five minutes speaking about the future of LEAs and three ritual minutes attacking the Tories. However, he spoke not one word about a single school facing problems in his constituency. I hope that he sends his speech to his head teachers.
Then we come to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell), who really is the hon. Member for Planet Zog. He spent most of his nine minutes attacking the Tories and the rest of that time saying that everything was going well. He told us that everybody outside Westminster was down at their local saying how good the schools and hospitals were in their constituencies. Where does he live?
James Purnell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hendry: There is no time, and the hon. Gentleman wasted his.
James Purnell rose—
Mr. Hendry: Oh, go on then.
James Purnell: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that GCSE results have improved in this country?
Mr. Hendry: I celebrate the fact that GCSE results are improving. I want them to continue doing so; as parents,

291
we are delighted about that. [HON. MEMBERS: "The students are leaving the Gallery."] That is because they know that I have won the argument. Again, I hope that the hon. Member for Planet Zog will send his speech to all the head teachers, including those at Longdendale and the other schools to which he referred, and say "Can you reassure me that I am right that there is not a single problem in these schools?"
This issue is not merely about politics and semantics, but about teachers' livelihoods and children's one chance of success in education. Frankly, they do not care whose fault the funding crisis is; they simply want it sorted out—and quickly. This is 21st century Britain and we are six years into a Labour Government who promised to put education at the top of their priorities. However, that is not the way in which those in education see the situation. At the start of a new school year, they are feeling the strains more than ever. Their budgets are under pressure and they are being forced to put on hold projects that they have been working on for years, and maybe even cancel them, in order to use their reserves to pay the bills.
It does not have to be like that, however, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford said. What we need is a simple formula without the mirrors, clawbacks and tricks, so that head teachers know how much they will be getting, so that there is no confusion about whether money has been passed to the LEA and whether it has passed the money to the individual schools, and so that they can look ahead with certainty and confidence. The Government must act to ensure that this crisis is not repeated in future years.
I hope that those who vote with the Government tonight will not visit schools in their constituencies this weekend, on Friday—[Interruption.] They will obviously not visit at the weekend, but they might do so on a Friday. If they do so, I hope that they will have the courage to tell those schools what they have done today. They had the chance to say that schools are suffering, but they did not. They had the chance to say that they understand that teachers' morale is low, but they walked away. They had the chance to call for a better system of school funding in future, but they sat on their hands. Above all, they had the chance to stand up for the students, parents, teachers and governors in their constituencies, but looked the other way when they were most needed.
We have drawn attention to a crisis in schools the length and breadth of this country—a crisis that explains why morale is so low and why so many outstanding teachers are looking to get out of education altogether. The Conservative party has drawn attention to those problems, while the Government insist that they are not worthy of debate. I urge the House to support the motion.
7.50 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Stephen Twigg): I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for their contributions to an interesting and wide-ranging debate. I shall respond briefly to the specific points that they made on behalf of their constituents or more generally.
292
In a reasoned speech from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) raised several issues. I should like to respond to one in particular. He expressed his support for the principles of the work load agreement, but suggested that we might ring-fence the money for that agreement to ensure that it is spent. That is precisely the wrong way for us to go. We want schools to be able to exercise their own judgment to ensure that the money is spent in a way that is relevant to their own particular needs.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) put a powerful case, which he just had a chance to reiterate, for the excellent progress that has been made in his constituency.
The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) criticised Liberal Democrats and Labour Members for talking about the previous Conservative Government and its record. That is a bit rich coming from someone who still reminds us about the winter of discontent. Nevertheless, he raised some important issues, particularly on the regulation of private tutors in relation to the sex offenders register. I promise to write to him about that.
In an important and interesting speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) reminded us that Ofsted says that we have the best teaching work force ever. He also talked about the importance of attracting more ethnic minorities into teaching and, beyond that, into leading positions within our schools. The debate suggests that that enjoys widespread support across the House.
The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) made a thoughtful speech in which he focused on the retention of good quality teachers. That is clearly an important question that we need to address.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell) made one of the best speeches of the debate in which he reminded us of the motivation of some Conservative Members in spreading cynicism about our public services. He praised the evidence of improvements that he has seen in his constituency; I join him in praising the excellent progress at Hyde technology college, particularly the results achieved by Bangladeshi pupils.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) made an interesting speech in which he focused on some of the issues beyond funding. Hon. Members of all parties have a duty to address the balance of rights and responsibilities of which he spoke. He said that we should talk not about a crisis, but about problems. I accept that, and it is reflected in the Government amendment. There are problems, but the situation is not a crisis. The hon. Gentleman's thoughtful contribution bore that out.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) reminded us of the legacy that we inherited from the Conservatives in 1997. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) explained some of the challenges in his constituency.
We recognise that there are difficulties and we accept our share of the responsibility for them. We want to work to ensure that we get it right in future, as my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards said at the start of the debate.
David Taylor: My hon. Friend probably agrees with me that Conservative education policy is vacuous, innumerate, dishonest and self-serving. However, this year's settlement has caused genuine difficulties in Leicestershire, which has the worst-funded local education authority. Will he agree to receive a delegation from Leicestershire when the pattern for next year's expenditure is known so that we can reassure heads in North-West Leicestershire and elsewhere that their difficulties will be resolved by the change in direction?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. That was rather long for an intervention.
Mr. Twigg: I am happy to give my hon. Friend the commitment that he seeks to receive such a delegation.
The hon. Member for Southport set out some of the additional costs that have formed part of the picture of this year's funding, including £568 million extra to secure the teachers' pension scheme. Do the Opposition believe that it is wrong to provide that extra money to secure the teachers' pension scheme for the future? What about the extra money for national insurance costs that schools throughout the country face and that will support improvements in the national health service and better pay for teachers? Do they oppose better pay for teachers, for which teachers have argued for years? For 18 years, the Conservative party ignored teachers when they said that they wanted better pay. The Government have listened, acted and got the extra pay for teachers. That is part of the picture of school budgets.
Mr. Andrew Tyrie: Will the Under-Secretary give way?
Mr. Twigg: No, I have only three minutes.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West talked about the official Opposition's collective amnesia. Let us compare the past six years with the previous 18 years. In 1979 to 1997, the number of teachers fell by 50,000. Between 1997 and today, there has been an increase of 25,000. That shows their record and our record. Spending on education as a proportion of gross domestic product was 5.3 per cent. in 1979–80. Yet in 1997–98, it was 4.5 per cent. If the Conservatives had maintained spending as a proportion of GDP at the level that they inherited from us in 1979, almost £50 billion extra would have been spent on education when they were in government. It has taken six years of a Labour Government to restore education spending to 5.3 per cent. We should be proud of that record.
Several hon. Members mentioned the importance of investing in school buildings. For decades, we failed to do that and we have seen crumbling buildings in communities throughout the country. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, we inherited a position whereby capital spending on schools in 1996–97 was less than £700 million for the entire country. This year, the figure is £3.8 billion—a fivefold increase in capital in vestment in our schools. That makes a genuine difference to the life chances of children in communities throughout the country.
294
As my hon. Friend the Minister said earlier, last year's Conservative policy guide stated:
"Conservatives do not support the tax and spending increases this Government have announced."
In December, the Leader of the Opposition told The Daily Telegraph:
"We will not match Government spending plans."
Let us judge the Conservative party on its record—its voting record since 1997 and, more important, its record in government before 1997.
We acknowledge this year's difficulties. We are not saying that everything in the garden is rosy. We are working with local government, with schools and with head teachers to ensure that we get this right for this year, next year and the long-term future. That is because our commitment is to education. On this side of the House, we put investment in schools and hospitals first; that is our priority. It is not the priority of the Conservative party. That is why I commend the Government's amendment to the House.
Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 171, Noes 277.

Division No. 300]

[7:59 pm

AYES

Amess, David

Doughty, Sue

Arbuthnot, rh James

Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

Bacon, Richard

Duncan Smith, rh lain

Baron, John (Billericay)

Fabricant, Michael

Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

Fallon, Michael

Beith, rh A. J.

Flight, Howard

Bellingham, Henry

Flook, Adrian

Beresford, Sir Paul

Forth, rh Eric

Boswell, Tim

Foster, Don (Bath)

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Francois, Mark

Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW

Garnier, Edward

Surrey)

George, Andrew (St. Ives)

Brazier, Julian

Gidley, Sandra

Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Browning, Mrs Angela

Goodman, Paul

Burnett, John

Grayling, Chris

Burns, Simon

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Burnside, David

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Burstow, Paul

Greenway, John

Burt, Alistair

Grieve, Dominic

Butterfill, John

Hague, rh William

Cable, Dr. Vincent

Hawkins, Nick

Cameron, David

Hayes, John (S Holland)

Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

Heald, Oliver

Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

Heath, David

Cash, William

Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

Hendry, Charles

Barnet)

Hermon, Lady

Chope, Christopher

Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

Clappison, James

Horam, John (Orpington)

Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Howard, rh Michael

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Collins, Tim

Jack, rh Michael

Conway, Derek

Jenkin, Bernard

Cotter, Brian

Johnson, Boris (Henley)

Curry, rh David

Keetch, Paul

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

Inverness)

Howden)

Key, Robert (Salisbury)

Djanogly, Jonathan

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Dodds, Nigel

Kirkwood, Sir Archy

Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

295

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Sanders, Adrian

Lansley, Andrew

Selous, Andrew

Laws, David (Yeovil)

Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

Letwin, rh Oliver

Shepherd, Richard

Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

Simmonds, Mark

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

Lidington, David

Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns &

Lilley, rh Peter

Kincardine)

Loughton, Tim

Soames, Nicholas

Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Spicer, Sir Michael

Mackay, rh Andrew

Spring, Richard

Maclean, rh David

Stanley, rh Sir John

McLoughlin, Patrick

Steen, Anthony

Malins, Humfrey

Streeter, Gary

Maples, John

Stunell, Andrew

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury &

Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

Atcham)

Syms, Robert

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Tapsell, Sir Peter

May, Mrs Theresa

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Coldfield)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Moore, Michael

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Moss, Malcolm

Thurso, John

Tonge, Dr. Jenny

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Trend, Michael

Norman, Archie

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

Tyler Paul (N Cornwall)

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Tyrie Andrew

Öpik, Lembit

Walter, Robert

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Waterson, Nigel

Ottaway, Richard

Webb, Steve (Northavon)

Paice, James

Whittingdale, John

Paisley, Rev. Ian

Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

Paterson, Owen

Wiggin, Bill

Pickles, Eric

Wilkinson, John

Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Pugh, Dr. John

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Randall, John

Willis, Phil

Redwood, rh John

Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

Winterton, Sir Nicholas

Rendel, David

(Macclesfield)

Robathan, Andrew

Young, rh Sir George

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Younger-Ross, Richard

Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Roe, Mrs Marion

Mr. David Wilshire and

Ruffley, David

Mr. Mark Field

NOES

Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

Buck, Ms Karen

Ainger, Nick

Burden, Richard

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Burgon, Colin

Allen, Graham

Burnham, Andy

Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

Byers, rh Stephen

Atherton, Ms Candy

Cairns, David

Atkins, Charlotte

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Austin, John

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Bailey, Adrian

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Baird, Vera

Caton, Martin

Barron, rh Kevin

Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

Battle, John

Challen, Colin

Bayley, Hugh

Clapham, Michael

Begg, Miss Anne

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Benn, Hilary

Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

Bennett, Andrew

Pentlands)

Berry, Roger

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Betts, Clive

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Blackman, Liz

Clelland, David

Borrow, David

Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

Coffey, Ms Ann

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Cohen, Harry

Brennan, Kevin

Connarty, Michael

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

Bryant, Chris

Cooper, Yvette

296

Corbyn, Jeremy,

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

Corston, Jean

Hatfield)

Cox, Tom (Tooting)

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Crausby, David

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Cruddas, Jon

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

Cummings, John

Keeble, Ms Sally

Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Khabra, Piara S.

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Bow)

Davidson, Ian

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Lammy, David

Dawson, Hilton

Lazarowicz, Mark

Dean, Mrs Janet

Lepper, David

Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

Leslie, Christopher

Dobson, rh Frank

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

Donohoe, Brian H.

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Drew, David (Stroud)

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Linton, Martin

Edwards, Huw

Llwyd, Elfyn

Efford, Clive

Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

Etherington, Bill

McAvoy, Thomas

Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

McCabe, Stephen

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

McCafferty, Chris

Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

McDonagh, Siobhain

Follett, Barbara

MacDonald, Calum

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

MacDougall, John

& Rye)

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Foulkes, rh George

McIsaac, Shona

Francis, Dr. Hywel

McKenna, Rosemary

Gapes, Mike (IIford S)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Gerrard, Neil

McNulty, Tony

Gibson, Dr. Ian

McWalter, Tony

Gilroy, Linda

McWilliam, John

Godsiff, Roger

Mahmood, Khalid

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Grogan, John

Mandelson, rh Peter

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Hanson, David

Marshall, David (Glasgow

Harman, rh Ms Harriet

Shettleston)

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Rhymney)

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Healey, John

Martlew, Eric

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Meacher, rh Michael

Hendrick, Mark

Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

Hepburn, Stephen

Merron, Gillian

Heppell, John

Miliband, David

Hesford, Stephen

Miller, Andrew

Heyes, David

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Moffatt, Laura

Hinchliffe, David

Mole, Chris

Hodge, Margaret

Moran, Margaret

Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

Morgan, Julie

Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

Morley, Elliot

Hope, Phil (Corby)

Mountford, Kali

Hopkins, Kelvin

Mudie, George

Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

Mullin, Chris

Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Sefton E)

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Howells, Dr. Kim

Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Humble, Mrs Joan

Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Olner, Bill

Illsley, Eric

Organ, Diana

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Owen, Albert

Jamieson, David

Pearson, Ian

Jenkins, Brian

Perham, Linda

297

Picking, Anne

Steinberg, Gerry

Pickthall, Colin

Stewart, David (Inverness E &

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Lochaber)

Plaskitt, James

Stinchcombe, Paul

Pollard, Kerry

Stoate, Dr. Howard

Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

Tami, Mark (Alyn)

Pound, Stephen

Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

E)

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Dinefwr)

Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

Prosser, Gwyn

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Purchase, Ken

Tipping, Paddy

Purnell, James

Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

Quin, rh Joyce

Trickett, Jon

Quinn, Lawrie

Truswell, Paul

Rammell, Bill

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Raynsford, rh Nick

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

Vis, Dr. Rudi

Bellshill)

Walley, Ms Joan

Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

Ward, Claire

NW)

Wareing, Robert N.

Rooney, Terry

Watts, David

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

White, Brian

Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Ruane, Chris

Wicks, Malcolm

Ruddock, Joan

Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

Salter, Martin

Williams, Betty (Conwy)

Sarwar, Mohammad

Winnick, David

Savidge, Malcolm

Wood, Mike (Batley)

Sawford, Phil

Woodward, Shaun

Sedgemore, Brian

Woolas, Phil

Shaw, Jonathan

Worthington, Tony

Sheerman, Barry

Wray, James (Glasgow

Sheridan, Jim

Baillieston)

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

Skinner, Dennis

Yarmouth)

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Wright, David (Telford)

Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Finsbury)

Wyatt, Derek

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Tellers for the Noes:

Squire, Rachel

Vernon Coaker and

Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

Mr. Fraser Kemp

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
The House divided: Ayes 269, Noes 169.

Division No. 301]

[8:13 pm

AYES

Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

Blackman, Liz

Ainger, Nick

Borrow, David

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

Allen, Graham

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

Brennan, Kevin

Atherton, Ms Candy

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Atkins, Charlotte

Bryant, Chris

Austin, John

Buck, Ms Karen

Bailey, Adrian

Burden, Richard

Baird, Vera

Burgon, Colin

Barron, rh Kevin

Burnham, Andy

Battle, John

Byers, rh Stephen

Bayley, Hugh

Cairns, David

Begg, Miss Anne

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Benn, Hilary

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Bennett, Andrew

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Berry, Roger

Caton, Martin

Betts, Clive

Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

298

Challen, Colin

Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

Clapham, Michael

Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Sefton E)

Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

Howells, Dr. Kim

Pentlands)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Humble, Mrs Joan

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

Clelland, David

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

Illsley, Eric

Coffey, Ms Ann

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Cohen, Harry

Jamieson, David

Connarty, Michael

Jenkins, Brian

Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

Cooper, Yvette

Hatfield)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Corston, Jean

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Cox, Tom (Tooting)

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Crausby, David

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Cruddas, Jon

Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

Keeble, Ms Sally

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Cummings, John

Khabra, Piara S.

Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Bow)

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

Davidson, Ian

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

Lammy, David

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Lazarowicz, Mark

Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Lepper, David

Dawson, Hilton

Leslie, Christopher

Dean, Mrs Janet

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Dobson, rh Frank

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Donohoe, Brian H.

Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

Drew, David (Stroud)

Linton, Martin

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

Edwards, Huw

Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

Efford, Clive

McAvoy, Thomas

Ellman, Mrs Louise

McCabe, Stephen

Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

McCafferty, Chris

Etherington, Bill

McDonagh, Siobhain

Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

MacDonald, Calum

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

MacDougall, John

Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Follett, Barbara

McIsaac, Shona

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

McKenna, Rosemary

& Rye)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Foulkes, rh George

McNulty, Tony

Francis, Dr. Hywel

McWalter, Tony

Gapes, Mike (llford S)

McWilliam, John

Gerrard, Neil

Mahmood, Khalid

Gilroy, Linda

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Godsiff, Roger

Mandelson, rh Peter

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

Grogan, John

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Marshall, David (Glasgow

Hanson, David

Shettleston)

Harman, rh Ms Harriet

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Rhymney)

Martlew, Eric

Healey, John

Meacher, rh Michael

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

Hendrick, Mark

Merron, Gillian

Hepburn, Stephen

Miliband, David

Heppell, John

Miller, Andrew

Hesford, Stephen

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Heyes, David

Moffatt, Laura

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Mole, Chris

Hinchliffe, David

Moran, Margaret

Hodge, Margaret

Morgan, Julie

Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

Morley, Elliot

Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

Mountford, Kali

Hope, Phil (Corby)

Mullin, Chris

Hopkins, Kelvin

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

299

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

Finsbury)

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Squire, Rachel

Olner, Bill

Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

Organ, Diana

Steinberg, Gerry

Owen, Albert

Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

Pearson, Ian

Stinchcombe, Paul

Perham, Linda

Tami, Mark (Alyn)

Picking, Anne

Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

Pickthall, Colin

Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Plaskitt, James

Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

Pollard, Kerry

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

Pound, Stephen

Tipping, Paddy

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

E)

Trickett, Jon

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Truswell, Paul

Prosser, Gwyn

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Purchase, Ken

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Purnell, James

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Quin, rh Joyce

Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

Quinn, Lawrie

Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

Rammell, Bill

Vis Dr Rudi

Ward, Claire

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

Wareing, Robert N.

Raynsford, rh Nick

Watts, David

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

White, Brian

Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Bellshill)

Wicks, Malcolm

Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

NW)

Williams, Betty (Conwy)

Rooney, Terry

Winnick, David

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Wood, Mike (Batley)

Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

Woodward, Shaun

Ruane, Chris

Woolas, Phil

Ruddock, Joan

Worthington, Tony

Salter, Martin

Wray, James (Glasgow

Sarwar, Mohammad

Baillieston)

Savidge, Malcolm

Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

Sawford, Phil

Wright, David (Telford)

Sedgemore, Brian

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Shaw, Jonathan

Wyatt, Derek

Sheridan, Jim

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Skinner, Dennis

Mr. Fraser Kemp and

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Vernon Coaker

NOES

Amess, David

Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

Arbuthnot, rh James

Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Cash, William

Bacon, Richard

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

Baron, John (Billericay)

Barnet)

Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

Chope, Christopher

Beith, rh A. J.

Clappison, James

Bellingham, Henry

Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Boswell, Tim

Collins, Tim

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Conway, Derek

Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW

Cotter, Brian

Surrey)

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Brazier, Julian

Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

Howden)

Browning, Mrs Angela

Djanogly, Jonathan

Burnett, John

Dodds, Nigel

Burns, Simon

Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

Burnside, David

Doughty, Sue

Burstow, Paul

Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

Burt, Alistair

Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

Butterfill, John

Duncan Smith, rh lain

Cable, Dr. Vincent

Fabricant, Michael

Cameron, David

Fallon, Michael

300

Flight, Howard

Ottaway, Richard

Flook, Adrian

Paice, James

Forth, rh Eric

Paisley, Rev. Ian

Foster, Don (Bath)

Paterson, Owen

Francois, Mark

Pickles, Eric

Garnier, Edward

Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

George, Andrew (St. Ives)

Dinefwr)

Gidley, Sandra

Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Pugh, Dr. John

Goodman, Paul

Randall, John

Grayling, Chris

Redwood, rh John

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Rendel, David

Greenway, John

Robathan, Andrew

Grieve, Dominic

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Hague, rh William

Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

Hawkins, Nick

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Hayes, John (S Holland)

Roe, Mrs Marion

Heald, Oliver

Ruffley, David

Heath, David

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

Sanders, Adrian

Hendry, Charles

Selous, Andrew

Hermon, Lady

Shepherd, Richard

Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

Simmonds, Mark

Horam, John (Orpington)

Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

Howard, rh Michael

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

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Kincardine)

Jack, rh Michael

Soames, Nicholas

Jenkin, Bernard

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Johnson, Boris (Henley)

Spicer, Sir Michael

Keetch, Paul

Spring, Richard

Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

Stanley, rh Sir John

Inverness)

Steen, Anthony

Key, Robert (Salisbury)

Streeter, Gary

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Stunell, Andrew

Kirkwood, Sir Archy

Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Lansley, Andrew

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Laws, David (Yeovil)

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Letwin, rh Oliver

Thurso, John

Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

Tonge, Dr. Jenny

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Trend, Michael

Lidington, David

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Lilley, rh Peter

Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

Llwyd, Elfyn

Tyrie, Andrew

Loughton, Tim

Walter, Robert

Luff, Peter (M- Worcs)

Waterson, Nigel

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Webb, Steve (Northavon)

Mackay, rh Andrew

Whittingdale, John

Maclean, rh David

Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

McLoughlin, Patrick

Wiggin, Bill

Malins, Humfrey

Wilkinson, John

Maples, John

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury &

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Atcham)

Willis, Phil

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Wilshire, David

May, Mrs Theresa

Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

Winterton, Sir Nicholas

Coldfield)

(Macclesfield)

Moore, Michael

Young, rh Sir George

Moss, Malcolm

Younger-Ross, Richard

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Tellers for the Noes:

Öpik, Lembit

Mr. Robert Syms and

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Mr. Mark Field

Question accordingly agreed to.
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House applauds the significant increase in funding made available by the Government to schools since 1997 and the increase in standards schools have achieved; recognises that

301
schools have had extra costs as well as extra investment this year; welcomes the statement to the House on 17th July by the Secretary of State for Education and Skills announcing measures to bring stability to school funding in 2004–05 and 2005–06, including a guarantee of a minimum per pupil increase in funding for schools, and maintaining and inflation-proofing the income that schools will receive from the Standards Fund; supports the consultation his Department is undertaking with representatives of head teachers and local education authorities; welcomes the fact that there are around 25,000 more teachers in schools and over 80,000 more support staff than there were in 1997 and more teachers with Qualified Teacher Status in schools than at any time since 1984; acknowledges three years of rising recruitment to teacher training and the 3,000 more graduates who have accepted training places than this time last year; and welcomes a 25 per cent. fall in the number of unfilled teacher vacancies between 2002 and 2003.

ADJOURNMENT (CONFERENCE RECESS)
Ordered,
That this House, at its rising on Thursday 18th September, do adjourn till Tuesday 14th October 2003.—[Derek Twiggl.]

MACHINERY OF GOVERNMENT CHANGES: AMENDMENTS TO STANDING ORDERS
Motion made,
That—

(1) Standing Order No. 94 (Scottish Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)) be amended in line 2 by leaving out the second 'Scottish' and inserting 'Scotland':

(2) Standing Order No. 103 (Welsh Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)) be amended in line 2 by leaving out the second 'Welsh' and inserting 'Wales';

(3) Standing Order No. 119 (European Standing Committees) be amended in the table in paragraph (6), as follows:

(a) in line 5, by leaving out 'Transport, Local Government and the Regions' and inserting 'Transport; Office of the Deputy Prime Minister';

302

(b) in line 12, by leaving out 'Lord Chancellor's Department' and inserting 'Department for Constitutional Affairs (excluding those responsibilities of the Scotland and Wales Offices which fall to European Standing Committee A)';

(4) Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended in the Table in paragraph (2), as follows:

(a) before item 1 insert

'1 Constitutional Affairs

Department for Constitutional 11'; Affairs (including the work of staff provided for the administrative work of courts and tribunals, but excluding consideration of individual cases and appointments, and excluding the work of the Scotland and Wales Offices and of the Advocate General for Scotland)

(b) leave out the item relating to the Lord Chancellor's Department inserted on 27th January;

(c) in item 16, leave out 'Welsh Office (Office of the Secretary of State for Wales (including relations with the National Assembly for Wales))' and insert 'Wales Office (including relations with the National Assembly for Wales)'; and

(5) the Order of 5th November 2001 relating to Liaison Committee (Membership) be amended, in paragraph (2), by leaving out 'Lord Chancellor's Department' and inserting 'Constitutional Affairs'.—[Derek Twigg.]
Hon. Members: Object.

ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT
Motion made,
That Mr Michael Meacher be discharged from the Environmental Audit Committee and Mr Elliot Morley be added.—[Derek Twigg.]
Hon. Members: Object.

Housing (Easington)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Derek Twigg.]
8.26 pm
Mr. John Cummings: I am pleased to have this opportunity to raise housing investment in my constituency, which is a vital element in the overall regeneration strategy of Easington district. A large proportion of housing in former mining settlements, including Dawdon, Blackhall, Easington colliery and Hordon, were directly associated with the mining industry. Consisting mainly of terraced properties, the housing was largely built by private coal companies in the late 19th century and the early part of the 20th century. After nationalisation of the mines in 1947, the colliery housing, as it was then known, was taken over by the National Coal Board and passed into the ownership of British Coal.
Demand for traditional terraced housing for families in the former mining villages has declined as new estates have been built, providing off-street parking and gardens where children can play in safety. With the gradual closure of the pits, colliery housing has been sold off, in some cases in lots consisting of dozens of properties to housing associations, and in others to private landlords in large blocks. Properties were also sold individually.
The main issues for the private rented sector of housing stock in Easington are oversupply, the large number of vacant or void properties, the growing prevalence of antisocial behaviour and lack of investment. Local residents, many of whom were formerly tenants of British Coal, find their quality of life and the value of their properties in a spiral of decline that mirrors the decline of their physical environment. The communities are deteriorating, and people who own their own houses find it difficult to sell them in a declining market.
Private landlords are buying the properties, renting them out with scant regard to tenancy conditions and further compounding the problems. Many private rented properties, often offered for short-term lets, are poorly maintained, further contributing to deterioration of the area. In parts of Easington colliery, landlords appear simply to have abandoned properties and boarded them up. Particular properties have been empty for several years, again adding to the appearance of neglect and dereliction in villages. Antisocial behaviour, often drug related, is prevalent in the private rented properties, in spite of the best efforts of the community safety partnership, the police and local authorities.
Once vibrant mining communities with a strong sense of identity are under immense pressure. The problems of antisocial behaviour, crime, generational unemployment, low skill levels, poor health, lack of disposable income and physical deterioration are eroding the very foundations of those communities. The local chamber of trade in Easington colliery is extremely concerned about the deterioration in its business and the increase in crime and vandalism that seem to go hand in hand with the general dereliction self-evident in many parts of Easington Colliery. Intervention is required from central and local government to address those issues strategically.
304
The district of Easington, with its sub-regional partners, commissioned a housing market study to help to quantify the problem and to assist in determining future policy. Following a comprehensive study, a housing needs survey was completed by the district council in 2003. It revealed some startling figures about the current needs and circumstances of people living in the district of Easington, to which I shall return in a moment.
The report points to a number of actions that the Government can take to alleviate many of the problems in the private housing sector. Proposals for the licensing of private landlords, linking registration to housing benefit applications, are certainly long overdue. The Government should also support moves to make regeneration quicker and easier, speeding up the compulsory purchase order process, especially where there are difficulties in tracing ownership. Planning and land use powers should be exercised in a sensible and appropriate, but not over-bureaucratic, manner. It is essential that we protect our countryside, our heritage and our award-winning coastline. It is equally vital that we create increased opportunities for investment in newly emerging business sectors to allow greater exploitation of market opportunities. It is essential, in rebalancing the economy of east Durham, to provide opportunities to arrest any further decline in our population and communities.
Additional funding must be made available to tackle private sector decline in former coalfield areas such as Easington, which are outside the Government's nine pathfinder market renewal areas.
Mr. Denis Murphy: The problems that my hon. Friend describes in his constituency mirror almost exactly those that we face in Wansbeck, which is not surprising as the constituencies have similar profiles. Does he agree that the best way to tackle the problems is through a multi-agency approach, with the local authority, the Housing Corporation, the private sector and the residents working together? If he agrees, will he accept an invitation to visit Newbiggin-by-the-Sea, where such a partnership exists? I am sure that it would have many advantages for his constituency. If my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has the opportunity, would she, too, like to visit my constituency?
Mr. Cummings: It is always a pleasure to visit my hon. Friend's constituency and I look forward to doing so, perhaps in the not too distant future. I thank him for that helpful contribution.
I was referring to the nine pathfinder market renewal areas. Resources need to reflect the long-term approach that is required to address the problems comprehensively. Funds must be long term and more flexible but targeted on achieving fundamental and agreed outcomes for many areas in the Durham coalfields. That is essential to effect change in a private housing market that is fast spiralling downwards. When the results of the housing needs and stock condition surveys were linked together and analysed, they indicated a special case of multiple deprivation, high housing needs and extremely poor housing conditions in both the public and private rented sectors in the Easington district.

305
I should like to take this opportunity to record some interesting figures on housing in Easington. Seventeen per cent. of residents in the district, which equates to about 6,400, say that their current accommodation is inadequate. Almost 5,000 homes require repair or improvement.
Single adults make up 34 per cent. of all households in Easington; 57 per cent. of householders are couples and 9 per cent. are single parents. Forty-two per cent. of households have incomes of less than £10,000 a year; 80 per cent. have incomes of less than the national average of £23,000. Over 51 per cent. of households were in receipt of financial support, of which 48 per cent. were in receipt of housing benefit. Those statistics give some indication of the scale of deprivation and need in the Easington constituency.
In assessing future housing requirements, the survey reveals that about 1,500 households plan to leave Easington in the next five years—45 per cent. owing to employment, 31 per cent. for family reasons and 22 per cent. owing to poor quality neighbourhood. However, to try to balance that, 1,280 new households will be forming, of which 50 per cent. would prefer owner occupation.
The most significant anticipated change is the major decrease—3,521—in the number of people aged 30 to 44. That is the biggest decrease in all age groups, and it involves the main economically active group. The over-65 age group shows a constant rise over the same period, with a total of 820 more people in that age group expected in the district by 2011.
The stock condition survey indicates a total stock of 11,974 council dwellings in all tenure groups. Work on the survey took place in January and February 2002, with the report being produced in June 2002. The survey was carried out on a sample basis, covering 1,205 dwellings, and was supplemented by information provided by the local authority. The survey identified 7,900 dwellings—66 per cent. of the stock—currently failing the decent homes standard, with that figure increasing to 8,122, or 67 per cent. of the total housing stock, likely to fail decent homes standards by 2004. The cost of rectifying those defects is estimated at almost £44 million for current and £30 million for potential failures.
Improvement works to enhance the council's stock of houses and bring it up to current, modern standards have been identified, costing £43 million. Work to non-traditional properties is currently assessed at more than £3.5 million, with further work required in 16 to 20 years' time. The incidence of structural defects in the council's housing stock is higher than average, with outstanding structural repairs amounting to more than £3 million. The district council has received a recommendation that £31.14 million be allocated to major repairs over the next 30 years, mainly to cover anticipated structural problems.
In the public sector, the council has taken the positive step of establishing an arm's length management organisation to deliver its housing service, subject to formal consultation with its tenants, as its preferred delivery option. I am delighted that Easington is one of the 13 local authorities that were successful in gaining ALMO status. Provided that the council achieves the required two-star rating for its housing maintenance
306
service, £23.6 million will be invested in the council housing stock. The programme will be spread over 15 months, from January 2004.
Under the £1.5 billion national programme, Easington will continue to own its housing stock. It will retain strategic responsibilities for overall housing policies, while the ALMO will take over the day-to-day management of the properties, leaving the local authority to focus on major improvements and repairs.
The Minister for Housing and Planning said in announcing the results of ALMO round 3:
"This extra funding will help improve tenants' quality of life and make substantial progress to ensuring all homes in the Easington District are in a good state of repair with modern facilities and services suitable for the 21st century."
That offer of substantial new investment was conditional on the council improving its performance and achieving a two or three-star rating for housing maintenance. However, I have every confidence that the housing management and maintenance delivery service is being improved and will be brought up to an appropriate standard. The feedback that I have received from council tenants in Easington, which might well be similar to that in other constituencies, shows that they would prefer the council to retain ownership and control of its housing stock rather than having their homes transferred to a housing association or independent company.
All is not doom and gloom in terms of private investment in Easington. Following the principle of comprehensive performance assessment, it is necessary to find a balance between the public and private housing markets. The district council is working on several key strategic targets, including reducing its housing stock by 400 properties a year, reconfiguring maintenance to give a 60:40 ratio of planned to responsive repairs, and maximising all available funds to achieve the decent homes standard that has been set by central Government to be achieved by 2010.
There has been significant private sector investment in Easington. Not least, £50 million of private sector capital has recently been invested in the new Dalton park outlet shopping centre, which is located next to the A19 at Murton. Northumbrian Water has invested more than £60 million on new treatment works. Peterlee has attracted substantial investment to its industrial estates and enterprise zones. Thanks to substantial private investment at Seaham Hall, we have one of the most prestigious hotels and conference facilities in the region. New infrastructure and industrial estates have been completed at Seaham to compliment the work already carried out to relocate the Seaham Harbour Dock Company and its associated distribution centre and warehousing. Incidentally, we also have some impressive call centres and traditional industrial units in Peterlee, should my right hon. Friend the Chancellor wish to follow up his suggestion of relocating civil service jobs from the capital. I have written to him separately on that issue.
I acknowledge the commitment of the present Government, especially my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, to coalfield regeneration. Much has been achieved since 1997. The difference is clear from new infrastructure and public and private sector investment. However, sadly, there is still much more to

307
be done. In view of the success of the market renewal pathfinders, I appeal to the Minister to consider the introduction of some sort of special delivery vehicle that would extend the benefits of successful pilot schemes into areas such as Easington, which have a desperate need for additional private sector investment as part of a co-ordinated and strategic approach to housing renewal. The problem of private sector decline and multiple deprivation is not restricted purely to urban areas and conurbations. In many respects, the problem is much more acute in coalfield areas such as Easington, in which rapid industrial decline and demographic change have highlighted the need for private sector renewal.
I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to raise these extremely important issues. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response, and perhaps she would pass on my thanks to the Minister for Housing and Planning who visited my constituency last week and saw at first hand the areas to which I have referred.
8.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Yvette Cooper): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings) on securing the debate and using it to raise a series of extremely important issues relating to housing in his constituency. I know that he is passionate and extremely knowledgeable about that. He is right that my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning saw at first hand several of the problems that face Easington during his visit there last week.
Easington is fourth in the index of multiple deprivation rankings, so in addition to the housing challenges that it faces, there are considerable economic challenges to tackle as well. As a consequence, Easington has benefited from a range of targeted regeneration and neighbourhood renewal programmes. The mainstream housing funding allocations to Easington have increased to reflect its position in the index. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend is right. Like other coalfield areas, Easington faces a series of problems, including low demand. Estates were often built within a walking distance of pits so that the community could walk to work. The infrastructure was frequently of a low quality. When the pits closed, the populations slowly and gradually moved away. Estates in my constituency also reflect those problems. It, too, is a coalfield area, with a high level of voids and a low level of local jobs, as my hon. Friend described. There is also the problem of antisocial behaviour.
The stable communities plan is not simply about tackling areas of high housing demand, but about tackling areas with low housing demand; it is also about the necessary link between economic regeneration and housing renewal. Too often programmes have concentrated on housing renewal and not on getting jobs to the area. Alternatively, they have concentrated on getting jobs to the area and encouraging economic regeneration, but not on housing renewal. As a consequence, local people who got a job moved out, contributing to the further decline of those estates and communities. We need to approach that problem by
308
taking a full strategic look at the entire local housing market, both public and private sector, as my hon. Friend said.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy) was right to describe the need for a partnership between the Housing Corporation and the private sector. I was interested to hear of the partnership in his constituency and I would be happy to visit it to see the work that is taking place. Many hon. Members have raised that issue, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington, East (Mr. Kemp) listened to much of the debate.
The problems facing communities such as Easington are deep seated and will take time to turn around. We need to deal with the legacy of the past, but also build communities that will thrive in the future. We need to link housing and economic regeneration while also considering the other factors that are important for sustainable communities. As well as needing decent homes, people need jobs, good schools, shops, excellent health services and co-ordinated transport. The Durham beaches are returning to their former beauty, so the quality of the environment is also a factor. The Government office for the north-east is working with partners, including the regional development agency, to ensure that all those factors are taken into account.
My hon. Friend the Member for Easington raised some particular issues that I shall try to address in turn. He pleaded for us to consider how the market renewal pathfinder programme could support areas such as Easington. The nine market renewal pathfinders were chosen in areas where the problems of low demand are most acute. We do not have plans for further pathfinders. The intention is to share with non-pathfinder local authorities the lessons learned from the pathfinder programme so that they, too, can tackle problems of low demand.
Today I spoke at the annual conference of the coalfield communities campaign in Wales. Many delegates raised the problem of low demand outside the pathfinder areas but within coalfield communities. The campaign and English Partnerships are working together to assess the problem of low demand in coalfield areas and to determine where the hot spots are located. They have contacted local authorities across the country. My hon. Friend might want to ensure that Easington has contributed to the survey and their work.
Officials from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will be discussing the position with English Partnerships and the coalfield communities campaign, and they will be considering what approach to take to many of those areas, which, as my hon. Friend rightly says, are outside the current pathfinder areas but nevertheless face many similar problems and could benefit from the same approach. We need to look, too, at the role that regional housing boards can play in that regard and at the relationship with local strategic partnerships and neighbourhood renewal programmes.
My hon. Friend raised the issue of the number of homes in Easington that are below the decent homes standard and will continue to be for the next few years. The decent homes standard is particularly important because it is simply unfair in the modern world that some families should be living in houses that are damp, cold or inadequate in some way or another.

309
Considerable progress is already being made towards the decent homes standard, but we all have to recognise that considerable extra investment is needed. We have set out a series of ways in which local authorities and social housing providers can benefit from extra investment.
My hon. Friend is right to say that Easington was one of the successful candidates for the third round of the ALMO programme, which is welcome news for the area. That should allow the authority to bring the 8,000 properties that do not meet the decent homes standard up to that standard by 2010. It is one of 13 authorities allocated a share of £1.5 billion of funding, announced in July, which should mean that more than 185,000 homes benefit from increased investment over the next seven years. Easington needs to do more work with the Government office and the community housing taskforce to proceed with its plans, but if it is successful, there will be an immediate allocation of £23.6 million, and potentially up to £117 million for the whole of the programme.
My hon. Friend also mentioned some of the difficulties that can arise with private landlords. That is an extremely serious problem, and local councils can find that their hands are tied in tackling antisocial behaviour or poor housing in an area where a minority of private landlords simply do not recognise their responsibilities to maintain their properties at a decent standard and tackle such behaviour.
The problems that my hon. Friend described often arise in areas where there is low demand for housing, but we have to take action to prevent the damage and disruption that can be caused by unscrupulous and sometimes even criminal landlords. They not only harm their tenants but can undermine the whole community. It is totally unacceptable for private landlords to opt out of their responsibilities and to benefit from the problems of already disadvantaged communities such as Easington. There are landlords who acquire properties at very low prices and show scant regard for their responsibilities or the behaviour of tenants. There are even some who seek to hide their identity behind anonymous holding companies.
310
The Housing Bill is particularly important because it will introduce discretionary powers for local authorities to license all private landlords in parts of their area with low housing demand and problems in the private rented sector. Those powers will be available elsewhere to tackle serious antisocial behaviour in that sector. We hope that those powers will allow local authorities to control rogue landlords, who are a minority but can, nevertheless, cause problems that affect an entire community.
Where landlords fail to meet the requirements of a licensing scheme, local authorities will have the power to issue management orders against the landlords and assume control of the properties and the rental income. We cannot allow such antisocial behaviour to continue. We recognise of course that not all private landlords operate irresponsibly. There are significant opportunities for them to contribute to the objectives of the sustainable communities plan, and the private housing sector has a critical role in partnerships to address housing market problems in coalfield communities and low income areas. Local authorities will now have extra powers to do more to support improving homes in the private sector for vulnerable households who currently live in non-decent homes. They will also have wider powers to provide assistance to help owners and tenants to repair and improve their homes.
I agree with my hon. Friend about the need to support moves to make regeneration easier and quicker. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill contains measures to help in that respect. A considerable programme of action and investment is underway to provide social housing and to tackle problems with private housing and the housing market in general. In the end, we all recognise that the coalfield communities in areas that have suffered from a legacy of under-investment and a failure to address economic—
The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at four minutes to Nine o' clock.

Preamble
[SIR NICHOLAS WINTERTON in the Chair]

Diabetes
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Margaret Moran.]
9.30 am
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before we begin our proceedings, I welcome hon. Members back from the summer recess, which I hope was enjoyable and relaxing for them all. We now proceed to the first debate in Westminster Hall since the House rose for the recess.
Dr. Ian Gibson: Thank you for your kind words of welcome, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which we extend to you. We hope that you will have a pleasant two weeks, recuperate and then come back again. I am sure that that will do marvels for your health.
Diabetes is a serious problem, as was underlined recently by a distinguished academic scholar and medical adviser to Governments, Professor Sir George Alberti. He said that we are heading for one of the biggest health catastrophes that the world has seen. He was referring not only to diabetes in this country, but to the spread of diabetes across the globe. He warned that the financial and social burden of the disease will be intolerable if Governments do not sit up, take notice and act now, not tomorrow.
More than 300 million people throughout the world have impaired glucose tolerance. That is a condition that precedes diabetes in which our bodies struggle against the increasing amount of sugar in the calorific foods that we are now subjected to and consume.
There are two types of diabetes. Type 1 generally strikes young people without warning and leads to lifelong dependency on insulin. Type 2 is strongly linked to diet and inactivity. It is estimated that that applies to about 90 per cent. of cases. It used to afflict people from middle age as they put on excess weight—we do not want anyone to be terrified or feel guilty, so let us keep the guilt out of this—but it is increasingly diagnosed in younger age groups, which has rung alarm bells. The couch potato lifestyle, TV viewing, lack of activity and junk food consumption fuel the obesity crisis that is sweeping the US, the United Kingdom and, indeed, the world. In Britain, 1.7 million people have diabetes. A further 2.1 million have impaired glucose tolerance and are at serious risk of diabetes, which eventually, in the worst cases, can cause blindness, kidney failure, nerve damage and be fatal.
As Alberti pointed out, the number of people in the world with glucose intolerance problems is expected to rise from 314 million to 472 million by 2025. He reckons that about 70 per cent. of them will develop diabetes. About 194 million people—roughly 5 per cent. of the world's population—have diabetes. Alberti estimates that the number will soar in developing countries as the unhealthy diet and urban lifestyles of our affluent world are exported to the developing world. In some of our
2WH
ethnic minority groups, diabetes is running at close to 20 per cent. and it is estimated that that will increase to 30 per cent.
Enough of statistics—the severity of the problem is clear to people here. We are increasingly seeing a nation that is overweight and less active and there is no doubt that a correlation has been established between increasing plumpness, less activity and an increase in the risk of developing diabetes. About half the adults in Britain are recognised to be overweight and obese. Diabetes is a diet-related disorder and in a place such as this, one does not need to look far to see the possibility of obesity creeping in as the five-star restaurants increase in number. We should feel guilty about that. Westminster is a place where red fatties mingle with yellow fatties and blue fatties and they seem to enjoy the lifestyle. We do not set much of an example.
The cost of diabetes is estimated to be 9 per cent. of the national health service budget. In 2000, that was £6 billion. There are regional differences, of course, but huge sums have been estimated for the diagnosis and treatment of the problems that diabetes brings.
Yesterday, the head of nutrition at the Institute of Food Research in Norwich made a statement on Radio 4. I have to declare an interest, as I am a non-executive director of the institute. Professor Sue Fairweather-Tait said:
"The British population could miss out on opportunities arising from the current exciting era in nutritional science, including new tools for preventive health because there is no unifying champion for nutrition in the UK."
We certainly need social and political actions in this country to tackle the problem of the increase in diabetes. We need to think about how good the scientific evidence is and how to handle it. We do not handle scientific information in the best way politically—there was a debate last night in the House about fluoride. We reject some things and we talk about dissidents, but good, proper analysis and the use of research help to establish good policies and social actions. It is known that there is a correlation between the onset and continuation of diabetes and obesity. There should be policies on the nature of the foods that we eat. I do not want to be negative because the Government have addressed the problem in many ways, but a strategic approach across Departments is needed. The purpose of the debate is to ask whether we are playing at it or whether we are serious about tackling the problem now.
We must start with children. Children's commissioners were discussed in the House yesterday as well as the problems of the abuse of children and of the system ignoring them. What children eat is equally important because their health is at stake. For example, sweet drink machines are allowed in schools. The companies that make sweet drinks are clever: they give schools money and install the machines in the school, and that may correlate with the instance of diabetes. There are alternatives such as fizzy and natural water.
The Government have introduced their five fruit policy and are looking at all the other issues such as those involving the NHS. Nutritionists are giving people non-Atkins diets. There is now a national debate about the type of foods that people eat, but it is always conducted in a disjointed way. That is why some of us are now keen on the idea of a new commissioner. Sue

3WH
Fairweather-Tait was urged on the subject on Radio 4—I do not know whether it was Humphrys or one of the other nasty people that we all learn to love on Radio 4. It may be a bad day to have a commissioner, given that we have just had a debate about a new commissioner for children. I prefer to think of a food tsar or a fatty tsar—somebody who would co-ordinate all the activities across Departments, as has been done in cancer services, to ensure that every voice was heard and that our health would not be affected by the diets to which we are subjected.
Sue Fairweather-Tait has discussed the controversial area of the responsibility that lies with the food industry, the manufacturers, retailers and caterers, bearing in mind that their primary business is to sell food to consumers and to generate profit, rather than to improve the health of the nation. When the Government attempted to recommend a reduction in the amount of salt in diets, the food industry resisted that move. We may have to consider legislation and incentives to encourage the industry to become more proactive. It would be unfair to say that it is doing nothing. McDonald's is offering portions of fruit in a pack, which contrasts with the burgers and so forth. At least an attempt is being made by some parts of the industry to look at the problem.
I said something about the cost to the NHS, which is serious. We need a nationally co-ordinated policy across the health service, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and so on. We should ensure that everything fits together. It is not impossible to induce people to eat differently and think differently about their bodies. It can be done. We go through phases ourselves as adults, but young people are particularly vulnerable to advertising. They need activity that does not simply involve putting shorts on once a week or bringing in a sick note from their parents to excuse them from running around the playing fields.
Sport should be made enjoyable and should build team spirit. It should also make young people think about their bodies, and how they can live well, exercise well and enjoy life to the full. We must ensure that the facilities are there. We need leadership here and I look to the Government for that as they started the process. I want them to recognise that a national nutritional strategy must be more than just a talking shop. It should bring all the parties and stakeholders together. It must have strong objectives, accountability, good leadership and an appropriate level of resources.
Mr. John Randall: I suppose that I must declare an interest as someone who will not win the slimmer of the year award. The hon. Gentleman is a well known and distinguished scientist. Does he recognise that one of the problems for the layperson is that we get so much conflicting evidence, which can be almost sensational? We might hear on the "Today" programme, for example, that salt is good. The next minute it is bad. One minute red wine is good, the next it is bad. The public have become cynical about the information that they are given.
Dr. Gibson: That is true and it is not just about food that we get that kind of information. People get
4WH
confused. Scientists cannot see things as black and white, yet the public are made to believe by the media that things are black and white. I am pretty sure that the sun will rise tomorrow morning in the place that it usually does, but a little part of me says that something might happen to change that. I do not want to make people panic, but who knows what can happen? The most difficult thing for scientists to say is, "We do not know. There is evidence for and evidence against."
At the end of the day people will judge for themselves. People live in a world where there are risks and they can make their own judgments on the balance of the evidence. Scientists must say, "We know this, we don't know that, but this is how we will find out." That is the purpose of this debate. The hon. Gentleman is dead right. In many areas of food science we do not know the answers. Not enough research is going on. Few research institutes in this country and the rest of the world are getting the funding to answer the questions. I will come to that in a moment when I talk about vitamins and the sort of research that we should be funding.
I said something about the joining up of Departments and the need to have some individual who pulls it all together—a tsar or tsarina—who takes the initiatives and brings the heads together to make it work. It has worked in other areas such as heart disease and mental health. When everyone from the patient groups right up to the consultants is brought together, they learn respect for each other and what they are trying to do.
I want to talk about vitamins and vitamin D in particular. I will do so in relation to type 1 diabetes in young children, because the subject correlates with many of the policies that we are trying to address in this country. Vitamin D is an important factor. It may not be the major cause of diabetes or many other illnesses, but it is a component in the chain that leads to it. Type 1 diabetes is becoming more frequent in every country—the incidence of such diabetes has doubled in 20 years. The annual rate, which is averaged over 44 centres in Europe, is now estimated at 3 to 4 per cent, and the rate for the zero-to-four-years age group is 6.3 per cent.
A recent editorial in The Lancet asked burning questions. It suggested that the coming together of several public health initiatives may have reduced children's vitamin D intake. Many of us will recall being battered successfully with vitamin D to prevent rickets, and we also remember that, after the war, cod liver oil and orange juice—renowned in many music hall songs—were given to people, including the young, to prevent the development of illnesses. There is a history of supplying vitamin D, and I believe that it would decrease the risk of diabetes.
We are advised to keep babies and toddlers out of the sun to prevent skin melanomas, and that is right. However, we should consider the other part of the argument, which is that people receive most of their vitamin D through an indirect process involving the sun's rays—from a certain wavelength of UV. It is essential that people get sun. It is ironic that, although we have just had one of the best summers for a long time and been battered by the sun, many people in this country do not get much sunlight between October and March. If we are encouraged to remain out of the sun, the vitamins that the body produces by a complex process—the vitamin D pathway—will be suppressed

5WH
and we will not receive enough. Some evidence now suggests that diabetes is associated with such a phenomenon.
There are also biological and biochemical explanations of the effects of vitamin D on pancreatic cells. A mechanism involving the immune response, which is too detailed to address today, provides a basis for further research, and if there is a mechanism worth exploring, the public may want to know about it. Therefore, we must advise people on how long to be in the sun—it is simply part of the pattern of life and what we take into our bodies.
There is excellent evidence that a lack of vitamin D is associated with type 1 diabetes in young people. Ten thousand Finnish mothers and children took part in a study spanning 30 years, and diabetes development reduced by 80 per cent. for those given vitamin D in the form of cod liver oil in the first year of life. One isolated study is never enough but others have come to bear as well.
Tim Loughton: I am fascinated by what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and he is approaching the matter with his usual scientific expertise. If there is a correlation with access to the sun, is there evidence that in countries that have shorter days and do not have hot, sunny climates, there is a higher incidence of diabetes in children? That would support the prognosis that he is putting forward.
Dr. Gibson: The hon. Gentleman has predicted the next study. There is very good evidence that in Europe, China and other countries, the incidence of type 1 diabetes is higher at higher latitudes where there are fewer hours of sunlight. A series of papers has been published on that subject and although that is not in itself proof, it shows that the hypothesis has merit.
Iceland has an incidence of diabetes type 1 less than half that of Norway—which may be because of the high fish diet. A mixture of factors mingles together and must be addressed for each particular disease. It is impossible to say simply that there is just one factor—there are several factors and correlations. The research that has been done is the best possible without human trials, for which I argue that we must induce the Medical Research Council to consider investment.
Studies in Norway have shown that when mothers received cod liver oil during pregnancy, there was a marked reduction in diabetes in their children. There has been another study across Europe—a Eurodiab study—so there have been three different studies. As well as the correlation with latitude, another interesting fact is that of the children who develop diabetes, more are born in spring and summer than at other times of the year. That is because they are going through the "dark ages" during their development, as they emerge in the spring and summer, and have had less vitamin D induction in their bodies. Those results were found in studies in Scotland, England, Wales, Slovakia and Sardinia.
Alternative explanations have been proposed, such as viral infections. However, I propose the vitamin D hypothesis and say, "Prove me wrong." Let us do the work to establish whether viral infections cause the difference in different countries in relation to the time of
6WH
year. Viruses tend to be used to explain anything. That argument is used, for example, to explain the incidence of leukaemia near Sellafield; it is said that people arriving from other parts of the country have brought in viruses. That is a reasonable hypothesis, which should not be dismissed, but it requires proper investigation.
It seems that we should be taking action on vitamins. I am in favour of undertaking medical research into that area. The Institute of Food Research in Norwich is examining the correlation between type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. The immune response involved in that condition affects the development of the heart, and the institute is examining in detail the mechanisms that may be involved. Good research is being carried out in the UK on the correlation between diabetes and other illnesses, but in a piecemeal way.
Research could be undertaken on the levels of vitamins in the blood, on the effect of larger doses, and a trial could be carried out in which supplements were promoted in various parts of the UK. We could consider addressing the question of vitamin deficiencies in a similar way to that in which rickets was eliminated—by increasing the vitamin D content of margarine. Supplementation of milk and cereals could be encouraged through the partnerships that I discussed earlier. We should ask the chief medical officer—Sir Liam Donaldson—about the research that is being carried out on vitamin D supplements for pregnant women. Such research is being undertaken in the UK, but it is not focused on the correlation with diabetes.
Hon. Members will know that a welfare food scheme operates in the UK. I understand that that scheme is under review and I look forward to the results of that review. The Food Standards Agency is also examining those issues. The scheme is intended to provide vitamin D to pregnant women and infants, but the figures that I have seen in the preliminary report from the FSA show that such provision seems to be decreasing, because only those people on income support receive it. Therefore, a large swathe of young people do not have access to supplements of those vitamins, because of their social conditions.
I said that the welfare food scheme began in 1940—with the provision of concentrated orange juice and milk to pregnant and nursing mothers, infants and children under five. The scheme was universal, but has gradually been whittled down to people on income support. Those supplements—vitamins A, D and C—are now given as drops, not as cod liver oil and orange juice, which I miss dearly. People can buy such supplements at mother and baby clinics—and at chemists, if they think of it—but they need encouragement to do so. Resources must be made available for people to access those supplements, and to provide evidence that they are necessary. We must develop our strategy on vitamins and try to relate it to diseases such as diabetes.
I understand that the welfare food scheme is to be rationalised, and I hope that the Minister will comment on that. There have been reports that vitamin D supplements for certain groups of infants have been recommended as official policy but, at present, it seems that not all infants are receiving them. Will the Minister tell me what the Department will do to promote the provision of vitamin D supplements to mothers and infants, and whether it believes that that will be of benefit in terms of elimination of disease?

7WH
There is also the problem of breastfeeding. Generally, breast milk is deficient in vitamin D, and so supplementation needs to be examined in that area. I do not know whether we will reach the same stage as the United States, where milk is supplemented with vitamin D. I believe that in the UK in the 1950s there was evidence of some sort of toxic effects and outbreaks of disease in infants. The data that I looked at were flaky and dodgy, but they again raise the question of the way science is handled. We need to penetrate the area more radically and consider thoughtfully how good the evidence is. That has not been done for some time and if the Food Standards Agency is doing it now, I beg it to get a move on. The increase in the incidence of diabetes needs tackling now.
We face tremendous challenges with food, obesity and exercise, including on the elements that we put into our foods and generating interest in food. Young people do not always know much about food; it is just what they get stuffed into them. Many hon. Members will have seen how much fast food constituents and their children eat, because of its convenience and the speed of their lives. At the other end of the scale, we have my friend Delia and her mates doing all the celebrity cooking as if everyone in their busy lives has time to use sun-dried tomatoes.
I almost said "sun-fried tomatoes", and some people do fry tomatoes, but when I visit Cromer on the north Norfolk coast for Sunday lunch in some exquisite little pub, they are not eating sun-dried tomatoes. As my wife said the other day, there is not one in sight. It is fish and chips that are being stuffed into everyone's mouths, and there are some wonderful fish and chip shops. They are not necessarily good for the diet, but they provide quick food. I am as guilty as anybody of grabbing a fish supper now and again. I was brought up on them, and they are pleasant.
Prevention is the way forward, particularly with diabetes. We must examine what is in our food and conduct research into vitamins and so on, and we need an organised strategy, with one individual at the helm. That would be a real contribution that would pull together many of our separate debates, as there are all-party groups on every different subject, but nothing pulls them together. When has the all-party food group ever talked to the all-party diabetes group? Members are also interested in vitamins, and we should institutionalise such all-party interaction. It would be important in co-ordinating people's thoughts and working with the Government to influence the food industry to take the problem seriously. People in the industry say that they are doing that, but when I meet them I sometimes think that they are just playing at it.
The explosion in diabetes that I mentioned earlier can be handled. Prevention is possible, and we should rise to the challenge.
9.57 am
Mr. Adrian Sanders: First, I declare an interest as an insulin-dependent diabetic, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) on securing today's debate. For my sins, I am also the chairman of the all-party group on diabetes and
8WH
the idea of a joint meeting with the all-party food group is a good one that we can perhaps develop. We have had some joint meetings with the all-party group on eye health and visual impairment, which was perhaps a more obvious connection, but the idea of another joint meeting is food for thought.
The Government have done some good work on diabetes in the past six years. The first move was to allow type 1 diabetics who use the pen injection system to have the needles on prescription instead of making them buy them. That has meant that many diabetics—about 350,000 nationwide—do not have to worry about getting needles. Government Departments tend to be resistant to change and one argument was that users would use a fresh needle every time that they injected themselves. That was probably true for children, because as skin develops, it should not be punctured with a needle that is not as finely sharpened as a fresh one. However, the costings that were made, and which delayed the decision, were based on the fact that everyone would use a new needle every time that they injected. Figures now show that the costs were far less than the Government originally predicted.
There is always a danger when talking about any disease of arguing that a new treatment or a new drug can save costs later. People certainly believe that there are cost implications. The money must, of course, be provided up front. In this instance, however, the Government provided a figure that was far higher than the final cost, which delayed the decision. That was not necessarily the Government's fault, but they did the right thing in the end by allowing prescriptions for pen needles.
Secondly, the Government took action to tackle discrimination against diabetic drivers. As usual, the European directive was interpreted differently by different member states. The United Kingdom recommended that there should be a complete ban on C1 and C2 driving licences for insulin-dependent diabetics. I am very glad that the all-party group on diabetes and other bodies and individuals managed to persuade the Government to reconsider that ban and to remove some restrictions from some categories of driver. A blanket ban could have had an enormous impact on people and threatened their jobs and livelihoods.
Tim Loughton: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned driving. One of my constituents drives vehicles for a living and was greatly affected by the ban. His diabetes was under control: he took all the medication required of him. He has benefited from the relaxation of the restrictions, but is still required to have regular medical checks, at his own expense, for something with which he has had no problem. We still have some way to go if we are to provide people who suffer from diabetes with a level playing field, given certain restrictions to which they are still subject.
Mr. Sanders: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I cannot comment on any individual case, but we wanted an annual assessment of each individual rather than a blanket ban, and we achieved that. I am not sure that one can argue that we should do away with that annual medical now that we have it, although it could be altered to take account of age. Younger people

9WH
may have more control and may need to be assessed only every five years, but I do not believe that one can argue against an annual assessment for middle-aged people in their mid-40s and beyond. Incidentally, insulin-dependent diabetics are probably among the safest drivers on the road because their eyesight is tested every year and any problems can be detected annually.
The third good thing that the Government did was to produce the NHS framework for diabetes, on which I shall comment in a moment. There are, however, many outstanding issues, such as screening. It has long been argued that an enormous number of people have this condition. Diabetes UK estimates that probably up to 1 million people have diabetes but are yet to be diagnosed. They are therefore still to be put in a position where they must make some lifestyle changes to change their behaviour, or must adopt a regime that will help them with their diabetes and reduce chronic symptoms and the risk of complications later. There are pilot screening programmes, to which I am sure the Minister will refer. I hope that the results will show the benefits of having a screening system. The hon. Member for Norwich, North talked a great deal about the statistics, which are interesting. Several European countries have a much higher incidence of diabetes per 1,000 of the population than the UK. One reason is that people in those countries have been screened and the disease diagnosed, but the people in the UK have not. Direct comparisons between countries can therefore lead to the wrong conclusion.
Screening programmes present a danger that returns us to the argument about cost: if we screen people and find our missing million, there will be an enormous increase in the demands made not only on resources devoted directly to treating diabetes but on other NHS services such as the provision of nutritional advice, chiropody, eye tests and so on. The Government need to think that through, but costs should not be the reason for putting off screening, as the complications of diabetes are so much greater than the costs of helping a person to control the condition.
Another outstanding issue is employment discrimination. A study was conducted last year into employment practices and the fact that some diabetics still face discrimination in the labour market. There have been changes of policy in some emergency services, to the benefit of diabetics in the police force and the fire service who can now be accommodated in those services rather than losing their jobs. There are many examples outside those two professions of people facing discrimination in the workplace. A submission has been made to the appropriate Department, which we hope will be incorporated in future employment discrimination legislation.
Although I praise the framework, I am worried that, according to the Government's statistics, the number of type 1 diabetics will rise from 1.37 million to 1.759 million by 2010 and the figure may well be higher than that as it was obtained without screening. If nearly 2 million people have type I diabetes, the money that is being put into the national health service framework will not be enough. There is a danger that in trying to do what is right, resources will be overstretched. The service for diabetics has been patchy, and the great thing about the framework is that it tries to ratchet up the standard to provide a uniform level of service across the
10WH
country. However, unless there are sufficient resources, something else will suffer. The number of diabetics requiring help therefore needs to be kept under constant review.
A worrying sign that has come to my attention is that general practitioners are rationing testing strips. In addition to having injections, diabetics are encouraged to test their blood sugar four or five times a day, for which they use the strips. Some type 2 diabetics, who are non-insulin dependent and control their condition with diet and tablets, are not being allowed as many test strips as they have had in the past. I suspect that some work has been done that suggests that people are testing too often, but a principle established by organisations such as Diabetes UK, other patient groups, and especially those in the medical profession who deal with diabetes, is that patients know best when they need to test and how often they need to monitor what is happening to them. A Minister to whom I wrote on the matter replied that what was being complained about should not be happening, and a copy of his letter was sent to Plymouth health authority, which is the one involved. I have not had any further feedback but I would be worried if there were similar restrictions elsewhere.
The hon. Member for Norwich, North cited the case for prevention. The future for treatment is more technological than pharmaceutical for type 1 diabetics—it is the development of the insulin pump, which the National Institute for Clinical Excellence says will help. The device is no bigger than a pager—I am not wearing a pump, it is a pager—and infuses insulin at small doses set by the patient throughout the day, giving a high degree of control. When someone's pancreas is working it is pumping insulin into them all the time. When they eat, it produces more insulin. The type 1 diabetic, whose pancreas does not work, must take it externally, twice or four times a day, and that clearly cannot be as effective.
The little pumps hold a prospect of much greater control. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence has concluded that they should be used only if everything else has failed: if the patient has trouble in using injection systems and the other regimes that can be brought together to help someone who has poor control. Very few people will be given insulin pumps on prescription.
I raise this matter now as a warning, because the pump will develop into a device that will not only infuse insulin but test blood sugar at the same time: it will function as an external pancreas. Such devices have been trialled in Europe and when they have been perfected, or when they satisfy everybody, the demand for them will be enormous. The Department should prepare for that, because it will have a big cost implication, but a corollary is that no testing strips or needles will be needed—although some devices will still be required. Insulin will still be needed. The pump itself will be an expensive piece of kit, but it could wipe out many concerns, problems and complications, if it proves successful.
I am grateful to the Minister, who is shortly to meet some diabetic nurses with me. One small point concerns the disposal of needles and lancets used for blood sugar monitoring. There is not very good information on this. Having been a diabetic for 10 years I suddenly learned

11WH
that I should be putting my lancets in sharps waste disposal and not wrapping them and putting them in the bin. No one had told me that, and I had not picked up the information anywhere, although I consider myself fairly well informed about these issues. Some local authorities provide very sketchy services. Some local authorities are very good at collecting sharps bins from the homes of diabetics and taking the needles and other paraphernalia away, but others are not. I am glad that the Minister is prepared to talk to us about trying to obtain a consistent service across the country.
I want finally to pay tribute to Diabetes UK, the longest-standing patient group in diabetes. It does an enormous amount of good work on awareness and information. Its lobbying role is important too. Other organisations, such as the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, are concerned about type 1 diabetes and finding a cure. They are always trying to raise more money for that objective.
I thank the hon. Member for Norwich, North for initiating the debate. It is important to discuss the subject periodically, to assess developments. As I have said, the Government have done some good things, but enormous challenges and major outstanding issues remain to be dealt with.
10.13 am
Mr. David Drew: I thank you for your warm welcome, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I presume that in the coming two weeks we shall play pre-season friendlies, as we have not quite started the season yet. In that spirit, we can have a good kick around and see who the best players are.
I welcome the lead given by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) in the debate. No better person could be found to talk about the scientific rationale. What a pleasure it is, too, to follow the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders), who speaks from his own experiences and who is the leading light in the all-party group on diabetes. Although I do not want to take up much time this morning, I want to reinforce what both hon. Members have said.
We should congratulate the Government on the national health service framework, which has not featured as much as it could have done. That is unfortunate, because one of the criticisms that diabetes sufferers have always made, in my experience, concerns the extent of the postcode lottery affecting what support they receive. That point came out well in the remarks of the hon. Member for Torbay about insulin pens, which are a long overdue consolidation of what should be available to people. We also need to talk about moving towards using pumps and what we need to do to ensure that they are more widely available. That will be possible only if we understand that people should have access to them regardless of where they live, and certainly regardless of their means. That is what the national service framework should try to do, not just in this area but in other areas where we have embarked on this important venture to try to pull services together.
I speak from the experience of talking to members of an active diabetes support group local to Stonehouse, where I live, which is led by Liz Shipman and others. I
12WH
have come to understand that a key aspect of diabetes, more than many other diseases, is the degree to which people can support each other and show that they can live perfectly normal lives as long as they take their medication and seek urgent medical help where necessary.
The support group always makes the point that the medical profession does not make the best use of it. It is worrying for anybody to be diagnosed with diabetes, but especially for young people and their parents and friends. Members of the support group feel strongly that it could be a valuable addition to the inevitable medical support, yet more often than not, people have found it difficult to access that support mechanism through general practitioner's surgeries. That is rather sad because the best person to help someone through the processes involved with such a life-changing experience is another diabetic. I am sure that the Minister will take that on board in her discussions with GPs and organisations. Such support is valuable, but there are few support groups around the country. If the need is there and is highlighted, more support groups may appear, which could be locked in through GPs' surgeries.
In preparation for the debate, I was pleased to receive a press notice from the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee about the help that it could provide to people suffering from diabetes, such as advice and monitoring, which it believes to be an important part of its negotiations with the Government in readiness for the new contract, which is estimated to begin in April 2004.
Pharmacists see themselves as playing a valuable role in helping with diagnosis and monitoring. Another criticism made by my local support group was that, for a time, it offered to test the general public on behalf of pharmacists to see who was at risk of suffering from diabetes. However, it all went wrong because of the usual problems of insurance against wrong diagnosis. We all know that early diagnosis and intervention are crucial whatever the age of the diabetic, but as the hon. Member for Torbay said, we must recognise that there are cost benefits and should not pretend that we can avoid the issue. We must have a mechanism for testing in the wider community, perhaps on a voluntary basis. I suspect that GPs are unlikely to want to do it because they are inundated with other tasks, but pharmacists may do it, with, I hope, the involvement of lay people. Obviously, one cannot just test people, give them the results and, if they are suffering from diabetes, pretend that they will be anything other than very worried. We must ensure that it is done properly. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take up that point, as it has been clearly highlighted in my area.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North went on to discuss the wider context: why the number of cases of diabetes is growing and what we should do about that. That wider context is important. Diabetes is, of course, related to what we eat and to our lifestyle. The Government are clearly right to emphasise the importance of fitness as part of lifestyle, and to try to prevent the sale of school playing fields and so on. The danger is that lifestyle and fitness are, unfortunately, areas that are stratified somewhat by class. If people can afford it, they will belong to a health club, but that would be the last thing that those with a lower income

13WH
would ever budget for. We have to ensure that where the state is involved, it does things properly, for example in schools and by providing recreational facilities in the community. We should be predisposed not to sell playing fields; we should encourage people to use them.
On the positive side, initiatives such as sure start, our work towards a co-ordinated policy ensuring that children have opportunities when they are young, breakfast clubs and after-school clubs can all come together to help. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North talked about the huge area of lost opportunity from the scientific point of view. I want to discuss the practical point of view. We still have only one professor of food policy in this country. I initiated a debate more than two years ago to find out whether the Government were moving towards co-ordinating some response to that matter.
The professor is the well known Tim Lang, who is not everyone's cup of tea, but who speaks his mind and has pointed out that for a long time we have not been progressing towards greater cohesion. He introduced me to the idea of functional food, which my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North mentioned. Last week in Gloucester, I was at Unilever, which I used to call Wall's, where they are talking about introducing an ice cream that is full of energy and health-giving products. If ice cream can be made healthy, presumably anything can. The industry is beginning to pay attention to the idea of functional food, and the Government need to do more.
Local food, organic food, and an intake of five portions of fruit and vegetables a day are not fads. They are a matter of genuinely trying to change mindsets and making people aware that what they eat will have an impact on their quality of life, if not immediately, then in later years. Those ideas will be the greatest way in which we can prevent a huge explosion in diseases such as diabetes. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say how we can move towards greater co-ordination in that area, if not towards a full-blown food policy, which—talk about tsars—seems somewhat state led. We have to get across the message that the issue is important and is one that we ignore at our peril. The debate has been very useful.
10.24 am
Mrs. Patsy Calton: May I welcome all of us back? It feels very much like a new term. I congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) on his continuing success in obtaining timely Adjournment debates.
I am particularly pleased to be here because I did not know anything about vitamin D and its possible association with type 1 diabetes. I feel as though I have learned quite a lot this morning, so I should like to thank the hon. Gentleman very much. It would be especially interesting to follow up that area of research—the hon. Gentleman did not mention this, but Asian and Afro-Caribbean groups are particularly susceptible to type 1 diabetes and there may be a positive link, which chimes with what he was saying.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the fact that the diabetes time bomb that we seem to be sitting on is a worldwide phenomenon that is gradually coming to affect everyone everywhere and not only us. The issue
14WH
might need to be explored from the angle of increasingly global food production and the role of the multinational food companies. They obviously have a part to play and it is important that companies such as Unilever—I hasten to declare that I have a sort of interest as my daughter works for Unilever—have a role to play in ensuring that the wider health issues are explored, not only for this country but for other countries.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) has more than adequately expressed his concern about the treatment of diabetics. He and others have referred to the discrimination that diabetics can suffer in both employment and social matters such as driving. The Government and the medical profession need to explore issues associated with undiagnosed diabetes, or we shall store up problems for ourselves and the public in terms of the extra costs that will result from late treatment. However, other hon. Members have more than adequately dealt with that subject.
The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) mentioned support groups, which have an application beyond diabetes—for example, for sufferers of ME and other illnesses or conditions. Support groups give far more necessary information than the medical profession do. For instance, I was on tamoxifen for about two years before I found out from a support group that some of the side effects that I was experiencing were normal and that everybody else has them as well, so I thought, "I should have come to the support group sooner." Support groups have a role to play across a range of conditions. When primary care trusts are dealing with their very stretched budgets it is important that they do not remove the funding for support groups, as a few thousand pounds can have a great impact. I would therefore certainly support the hon. Gentleman in his view that support groups are often the best way for people who are experiencing a disease to get new information.
I want to focus on prevention and the wider issues involved with it. Although I was particularly interested in the vitamin D and type 1 discussion of the hon. Member for Norwich, North, it is important both to consider the wider lifestyle issues—exposure to sunlight, and so on—and to avoid a medical and pill-popping culture in which every illness is to be cured by popping another pill rather than by changing lifestyle.
I guess that it is received wisdom now that diabetes and other medical conditions such as coronary heart disease, stroke and some cancers are linked to over-high body mass. We are in danger of causing difficulties when we try to get over messages if we constantly refer to obesity, which has become a stigmatised expression and one that is not good to use when we are trying to create a no-fault, no-blame culture and to change behaviour without making people feel guilty about the way they are or the way they have been. Guilt will not change behaviour in the long term; it is a wish to experience a different lifestyle that will make people change. Obesity is not a particularly useful term. Over-high or excessive body mass may be better.
We know that poor nutrition—high fat and high sugar—and too little exercise from an early age are linked to excessive weight gain from infancy onwards. A number of nutrition and education factors have been explored today. We need a continuing programme of education and awareness-raising for the public as well as

15WH
schoolchildren. We always say, "Start with the children", but they do not often control the family's buying habits. They may well control their buying habits at school, but they do not control the wider buying habits of the family. We must raise the awareness of the public as a whole on this issue, and the Government are doing some good things to raise awareness.
It is not enough to talk about raising public awareness alone. A number of initiatives from successive Governments and, indeed, local government have done nothing to reduce our couch potato characteristics. I think of the junk food machines in schools. I remember being appalled as a schoolteacher that a school should have chocolate and other junk foods in a machine in the main corridor and the fizzy drinks machines to which the hon. Member for Norwich, North referred. Schools are the last places where those machines should be put. Too many children are tempted to use the money that their parents give them for food at lunchtime to eat junk foods at break, lunchtime and mid-afternoon. They are getting a very different diet from the one that their parents think they are getting.
I have been asking questions about junk food machines in schools since I arrived in the House. The Department for Education and Skills regards that as a matter for local authorities and school governors. The problem is that with the funding for schools as it is, the profits from such machines are often paying for dinner ladies, so schools and local authorities face a very difficult decision. If they do away with junk food machines, they have to do away with one or more dinner ladies at the same time. We also need to worry about those issues.
Some schools still offer poor variety and poor-quality food. Superstore shopping has caused a change in buying habits towards more pre-prepared foods, which do not necessarily have the benefits of food that has not been pre-processed and packaged. That in itself has made a big change.
I realise that this may seem a little far-fetched, but I think that school league tables have played a part. Many parents believe that they have to get the very best education that they can for their children and that that includes putting them in a 4x4 in the morning and driving them to the school with the best standard assessment tests results. It is now rare for children to walk or cycle to school, which is one bit of daily exercise that they need.
The issue clearly goes wider than the Department of Health. We are talking about joined-up government, so that the Government realise, when they produce a particular policy, that it may have implications that they had never thought about. It is right that parents should be able to get the best possible education for their children, but the children could end up dying at 45 from a heart attack because they never walked anywhere. We have to obtain a better balance. I worry about how many children never see daylight. They go from home to school in the car and engage in practically no sport or physical activity.
With the demands of the national curriculum, many schools have reduced considerably the time spent on sport. When we talk of sport, most people think of team
16WH
games, but they are not necessarily the way forward. Many young people do not want to take part in team games and prefer to be engaged in physical activity that they can pursue individually. I have occasionally covered for absent PE teachers and found that a third or half of the girls did not take part in lessons. They stood to one side, having not brought their kit. We may think that all children are getting an hour a week of sport, but even in good schools, not all of them are. There are some issues to be addressed about the lack of physical exercise that young people are engaged in and the policies that must be explored.
There has been much talk about congestion charging, especially in my local papers in the past few weeks. I wonder whether a half-mile exclusion zone around schools should be considered for each morning and afternoon to ensure that young people walk or cycle at least a mile each day. It would certainly please those people who find 4x4s parked in their driveways when they are trying get out in the morning. I am thinking especially about my own constituency, which has a real problem with the traffic that builds up around schools. The people who live in those areas simply cannot move in the morning because of the numbers of children being brought to school by car. It is a backward step, and I am concerned for the young people who engage in practically no activity, including getting to school in the morning.
A further issue is the low take-up of breastfeeding, which has suffered from the tolerance of the activities of baby milk manufacturers over the years. I remember being shown a breastfeeding film that was obviously designed to make a mother-to-be squirm, as the breast was exposed in various situations that, as a potential new mother, I was nervous about. I then found out that Nestlé was behind the film, and I thought that it was just possible that I was supposed to feel uncomfortable about breastfeeding. Some baby milk manufacturers have a lot to answer for, and in the past there has been poor Government support for breastfeeding. There are initiatives, which I would like to see rolled out across the country, but I believe that this House has ambivalent attitudes to that most natural and healthy of activities.
When the Government make new policy or take decisions on planning matters, they should take lifestyle issues into account. To be fair, the Department of Health has produced several documents and initiatives that have highlighted the importance of lifestyle choices and better treatment for diseases associated with excessive body mass and too little exercise. I think of "Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation", the NHS plan for investment and reform, the NHS cancer plan and the national standards frameworks for coronary heart disease and diabetes.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Lady to bring her remarks to an end soon. There are two further speakers—the official Opposition spokesman and the Minister—and she has only peripherally been talking about diabetes, which is the subject of this debate.
Mrs. Calton: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I apologise for having overstayed my welcome.

17WH
I have been grateful to visit the fruit-for-schools initiative in two primary schools in my constituency. That has been a good initiative and the children enjoy it. I hope that I have not been treating diabetes peripherally. The lifestyle choices and culture changes that need to be made affect areas beyond the Department of Health. I will draw my remarks to a close as I have taken up more time than I should.
10.40 am
Tim Loughton: May I echo your warm welcome, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to everyone in Westminster Hall? It was certainly warmer than the temperature here today.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), who is a frequent initiator of debates. As usual, it has been most informative because he takes a scientific approach rather than coming up with the usual platitudes. Most of his speech was not directly about diabetes, but it was very relevant because it covered all those situations and conditions relating to its onset and proliferation—subjects that were mentioned in other speeches too. If the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) started to organise all-party meetings he would have to take in more than just the diabetes group, the food group, the sports group and the schools physical education group because diabetes affects so many different aspects of our lives. The hon. Member for Norwich, North encapsulated it all when he asked whether we are simply playing at it or whether we are really serious. His fatty tsar suggestion may not be taken quite so seriously, although the sentiment behind it was correct.
This is an important subject. The ticking time bomb of diabetes, as it has been called, is one of the biggest problems facing the health of our nation and the health service over the short, medium and longer term. It affects so many of our constituents. We have heard the figures: 1.4 million cases have been diagnosed but probably an equal number are still undiagnosed, which is perhaps more worrying. It is the fastest growing disease in the United Kingdom and is predicted to involve up to 3 million in types 1 and 2 diabetes by 2010. It carries serious complications such as amputation, blindness, kidney failure, strokes, and coronary heart disease. Diabetes sufferers are five times more likely to suffer from coronary heart disease. Most type 2 sufferers find out that they have diabetes only when they are treated for one of those complications. On average, they have had the disease for nine to 12 years before they are diagnosed. Diabetes sufferers can live, on average, 10 years less than non-sufferers.
As hon. Members have mentioned, there is a big ethnic impact. Around one in four Asian men over 60 suffers from diabetes. There is a much higher incidence among the Asian, African, Afro-Caribbean communities and, of course, among socially disadvantaged groups. Can the Minister tell us what has been done to help those groups? Internationally, more than 300 million people are at risk of developing diabetes, according to the International Diabetes Federation. As the hon. Member for Norwich, North mentioned, Professor Sir George Alberti recently said:
"We are heading for one of the biggest health catastrophes that the world has ever seen…The financial and social burden of the disease will be intolerable if governments do not sit up and take notice now."
18WH
That is right.
The cost to the NHS is more than £5 billion—more than the £3 billion spent on alcohol or the £1.5 billion spent on smoking. Moreover, 40 per cent. of that expenditure goes on hospital care and at any time between 6 and 16 per cent. of hospital beds are occupied by people with diabetes. Particularly worrying is the impact on young children, as hon. Members have mentioned. Part of the problem lies in the confusing information about what is healthy eating and what is not. Is it healthy to stay out in the sun more? We are always told that it is not. Being in the sun may have a link with vitamin D, which has a link with diabetes, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out. We recently heard that it is not healthy to drink too much water, yet we were always told that we should drink more.
Yet more problems face the average punter. It is no wonder that everybody is confused as to what is and is not healthy. That is why a third of British children are overweight and we are heading towards the catastrophic figures that they have in the United States. One in 10 four-year-olds is diagnosed as obese, particularly young girls. The first cases of adult onset diabetes have recently been recorded in British teenagers, for reasons that hon. Members have mentioned. It is difficult to identify, as children often do not feel unwell on diagnosis of diabetes and do not feel that they have a medical problem. That emphasises the need for better education as to how diabetes can be controlled. It is crucial to tackle the subject urgently and early. It would be financial folly not to do so, and it would have an impact on the health of individuals that could be prevented by better education, better diagnostic testing and adapting lifestyles.
Diabetes is relatively easy to diagnose: a simple blood test has been developed in the US to detect it for up to 12 years. It is a simple procedure that can identify up to 75 per cent. of cases and can be used on patients believed to be at high risk. Will the Minister comment on the lessons that have been learned from America, and how such tests may be rolled out early in this country?
There are other problems. At present, 90 per cent. of hospitals do not have the recommended number of diabetes consultants or specialist nurses, more than a third of hospitals do not prioritise diabetes in their health improvement plans, and 30 per cent. of GP practices do not have a specific clinic for people with diabetes.
We welcome the national service framework—although it was introduced late in the day, in December 2001, and it was not until January 2003 that the delivery strategy was published. Many shortcomings in the framework remain and the Government have failed to match their good intentions with meaningful action, although the NSF is a step in the right direction.
There are particular problems with the NSF. Many patients feel let down that it does not include national priorities and doctors have accused the Government of shifting the buck by passing targets on to primary care trusts. Many doctors will not meet NSF targets, as many practices do not even conduct basic monitoring. Fewer than half of diabetes patients have had their cholesterol measured in the last year; 25 per cent. have not even had their blood pressure checked; and 60 per cent. have not had their HbA levels measured. Many diabetes patients

19WH
are wandering around with uncontrolled hyperlipidaemia—that is, high cholesterol, the biggest contributory factor to myocardial infarctions—and unchecked hypertension, despite the fact that there are simple tests that could be used, relatively inexpensively.
Diabetes UK has criticised the failure immediately to find funding for the estimated 1 million people who have diabetes but are unaware of it. There is a failure to provide ring-fenced funding to deal with that, a lack of performance indicators and a failure to deal with staffing and training problems.
The move to create expert patients is a positive one but there are many questions to be asked. The Government's expert patients programme receives just £2 million per year, yet the costs of treating the UK's 1.4 million diabetes patients is £5.2 billion per year. Major investment is needed at the preventive stage.
The NSF is certainly not a panacea, but it goes some way to raising the profile of the problem and flagging up some methods of dealing with it. As it stands it is undeliverable, not least because much of the funding was left to primary care trusts, many of which are already in debt. The cost of treating sufferers is likely to double within the next eight years. According to Stefanie Amiel, an academic and clinician who specialises in diabetes at King's college London, although the NSF is a move in the right direction, there are many unanswered questions. For example, how is the service to existing patients to be improved while the numbers of those presenting with the disease continue to rise? What about the huge number of undiagnosed patients? Stefanie Amiel doubts the "prevention endeavour", saying that
"it's a long way from treating the illness".
How are we to bring about a national lifestyle change? The NSF needs to factor in the increase in the number of those with diabetes and the related costs. We will not lower hospital costs by strengthening diabetes care in the community, at least not in the medium term.
There are many other questions that the Minister may like to answer, although there is no time for that now, but I think that we all agree that diabetes is a public health disaster, and we need an early and detailed programme of meaningful measures to tackle the crisis. Spending money now on preventing and managing diabetes will save a lot of money in the long term, let alone a lot of angst and ill health for the increasing number of people who are being afflicted—at an increasingly early age—by type 2 diabetes. I hope that the Minister will deal with many of the questions and accept that the debate is an exercise not just in presentation, but in grasping the problem early and providing solutions to it.
10.50 am
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Ms Rosie Winterton): As always, it is a great pleasure to be in your hands, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that all hon. Members will agree about that, particularly in this first Adjournment debate after the recess.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) on securing the debate. While looking through some of the background papers
20WH
I noticed some interesting initiatives on diabetes in the area of my hon. Friend's constituency. Perhaps I may invite myself there, as I should like to see some of them, and to discuss the subject more. In the light of what my hon. Friend has demonstrated he knows about the subject, I should find that extremely useful. I pay tribute, also, to his contribution in the associate parliamentary food and health forum.
I listened carefully to comments about the possibility of a joint meeting with the all-party diabetes group. I am meeting the group soon, and want to consider ways in which we could work together to raise awareness of the effectiveness of early screening for diabetes, among other things. I hope that we shall be able to work together at that meeting and discuss issues that have been raised here, as well as ways of working with Members of Parliament to raise the issue in their constituencies.
As the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) said, this has been a very informative debate. We are obviously in a Chamber full of experts, and House of Commons debates are always at their best when that is so. I do not have time to reiterate the figures that were given earlier, and I would rather deal with the action that we are taking, but we know that, as has been said, diabetes is becoming more common not only in the UK but throughout the world.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North referred to research on diabetes. Sadly, there are gaps in the research, particularly for type 1 diabetes. I should like to send my hon. Friend some of the research that has been conducted by the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition. Perhaps we can pursue the debate about some of the relevant ideas.
The extent of the problems of diabetes and, indeed, obesity was the reason we developed the national framework for diabetes. We involved clinicians, experts and people from Diabetes UK—which, again, I join the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) in praising—because we wanted to put together a framework that would set high standards which, with our delivery strategy, would bring about a consistent approach throughout the country. We believe that that can be done. We want high standards to deal with prevention, provide better care for people with diabetes, and help such people to manage their condition.
We know that to stay healthy and well, everyone with diabetes needs good and regular health care as good control of blood sugar levels can reduce the risk of serious complications and lengthen lives. That means prompt diagnosis, regular checks to identify serious complications at an early stage and treatment to control blood glucose and blood pressure levels.
The hon. Member for Torbay and others mentioned insulin and testing, which we can discuss with the all-party committee. To ensure that the NSF is delivered properly, in April we appointed a national clinical director for diabetes. Her task is to fulfil two early and important national targets: by 2006 a minimum of 80 per cent. of people with diabetes are to be offered eye screening for the early detection and treatment, if needed, of diabetic retinopathy. That will rise to 100 per cent. by the end of 2007 and to meet that target, we are putting an extra £27 million into digital cameras over the next three years. By March 2006, there should be a

21WH
register of patients with diabetes in all GP practices so that they can be offered the appropriate advice on diet, physical activity and smoking, and systematic treatment in education.
I will certainly consider the important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) about support groups and how they can interact with GPs. To take up the matter raised by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, we will put into the NHS an average annual increase of 7.4 per cent. above inflation over the next five years and three quarters of that budget will go into the hands of primary care trusts. It is important that primary care trusts have the ability to decide what are the local priorities, but by matching national standards with the local priorities we can address some of the problems of shortages in the work force. Extra consultants are being recruited but there are other ways, for example, nurses having an increased role in the treatment of diabetes, and some important projects and pilots are being carried out to look into such matters.
Dr. Gibson: Will my hon. Friend say what investment is being put into the prevention of diabetes?
Ms Winterton: I was about to come to that matter. First, we want to foster healthier lifestyles and the Department of Health is leading on the development of a cross-government food and health action plan, which will pull together all the issues that influence what we eat: it will address food production, manufacture and preparation, access to healthier food choice and providing more information. The welfare food scheme is being reformed and the healthy start proposals will mean that we look at providing vitamins for low-income groups and also consider how we can give access to other foods such as vegetables, fruit and so on. With the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, we are also looking at encouraging increased physical activity through local exercise action pilots—LEAP—and other initiatives. Some of the results of the proposals will be published in spring next year; we are working on the plans at the moment.
I assure my hon. Friend that action is being taken on these matters. I was particularly interested in his comments about a food tsar. What we want is a good plan that addresses prevention, diet and the important issue of physical activity. We have a long-term plan to tackle the issue, particularly through the NSF, but also through healthy eating and other initiatives.
I hope that what I have said gives hon. Members some idea of the progress we are making on this important matter. We have some way to go but we are well on the way.

Packaging Regulations
11 am
Dr. Alan Whitehead: Last summer, we had a debate in this Chamber on packaging and waste, initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), whom I am delighted to see here today.
In this debate, I want to concentrate more specifically on the workings of the packaging regulations. Since the previous debate, we have received the report of the Advisory Committee on Packaging, which examined the future of the regulations. In July, a consultation paper was issued by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which largely endorsed the opinions of the advisory committee. The EU directive targets up to 2008 have also been clarified, and the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill, which was a partial response to the EU landfill directive, has been published. It is therefore appropriate to examine this issue now. It is also appropriate to examine it because the questions raised by the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill and the packaging regulations are connected, but the point that we have reached in considering those questions seems to prevent that connection being made.
The packaging regulations deal essentially with commercial waste—in this instance, packaging—but the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill deals with domestic waste, which may substantially include packaging. A good proportion of what is put into rubbish bins by domestic consumers is packaging brought into their houses as part of their consumption of goods.
The packaging regulations have been a substantial success in their own right. Since 1997, the rate of recovery of packaging in the UK has risen from 30 per cent. in 1998 to 48 per cent. in 2001, and the rate of packaging recycling from 27 per cent. in 1998 to 42 per cent. in 2001. In the context of that improvement, we should note that both the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill and the packaging regulations deal with targets. The current consultation paper sets out the next targets that should be reached for packaging. The new targets in the EU directive would require us to raise our game substantially, because 1.3 million more tonnes of packaging would need to be recovered by 2008. Moreover, we would need to meet sub-targets for categories of materials, as opposed to just a general target.
The consultation document also recommends that the increase must include more recovery of reusable commercial materials from domestic waste, but there is no mechanism for reaching targets for particular types of packaging in the domestic waste area, as required by the directive. British Glass, in a recent communication, says that local authorities can reach their targets for recycling and recovery of domestic waste without collecting any glass.
Mr. Bill O'Brien: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. May I draw his attention to a note from British Glass, which states:
"Under the UK's free market PRN system we are likely to witness a significant rise in the price of the glass PRN in relation to prices for other materials. This, in turn, will lead to a massive increase in obligation costs for our customers, the packers/fillers and the retailers."

23WH
I wanted to make that point to my hon. Friend, because the matter is important to the glass industry, and the Minister should take note of what the industry is appealing for.
Dr. Whitehead: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. It is important as a by-product of the targets for separate types of packaging that are being suggested for the future. The suggestion that packaging recovery notes for certain types of waste will increase considerably in price should be a proper concern when determining how the mechanism will work over the next few years. The point made by British Glass is therefore important.
The consultative document also addresses the issue of incineration. As a result of the European Court of Justice judgments and an EU position statement of 27 May on whether incineration constitutes recovery, incineration will have to make up a reducing component of those increased targets. However, the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill envisages an increase in the incineration of domestic waste. It is difficult to see how both could be achieved at the same time.
More is to come. The Waste and Emissions Trading Bill and the Government's waste strategy explicitly accept the hierarchy of waste; that is, the highest purpose is the minimisation of waste, then reuse and then recovery. The relevant packaging regulations, on the other hand, do not do so. They require companies that produce more than 50 tonnes of packaging at various stages in the packaging process and have a turnover of more than £2 million either to recover the packaging, which is to follow through their processes, or to purchase packaging recovery notes from whomsoever is recovering packaging to make up the difference.
I shall now make a bold claim: I have not done the two-year advanced course on the theory and practice of packaging recovery notes. However, I believe that I understand roughly how the PRN system works. Essentially, it is, or should be, a self-balancing market process. PRNs are tradable and vary in price according to the relative recovery performance of obligated companies; that is, if those companies are doing well, the price will be low because there will not be many takers, but if they are doing badly, the price will be high. That price hike benefits the registered recoverers, which are the organisations that take packaging and undertake recovery, because, at least in theory, they will have the proceeds from the sale of PRNs at higher prices to invest in better and more effective recovery processes. That in turn should aid the efficiency of the recovery process, which should theoretically drive PRN prices down over a period. I shall not go into the detail of consortium purchases and the obligations that are entailed, which is an entire sub-study course, but I have described the essential mechanism.
However, that is where the problems between theory and reality kick in. First, in order to assess liability, an apportionment of responsibility must be set out at each stage of the packaging process. There are four stages of liability in the system. A percentage of the liability must be allocated, sometimes somewhat arbitrarily. That may create problems for those who are involved in several
24WH
stages and thereby seem to be repeatedly liable for the same processes, while on the other hand other organisations are let off free.
Secondly, there is some incentive to minimise. Retailers should theoretically put pressure on their suppliers to minimise packaging so that their liability for the purchase of PRN certificates reduces, but in reality that pressure exists only when the price of PRNs is high and, because of consortium arrangements, high over a long period of time. When PRN prices are low, as they are and have been over a period, no such incentive exists—one simply purchases a PRN and has done with it. Similarly, there is no pool of funding to improve recycling at the end of the process, so the system fails to encourage minimisation. In any event, PRN income does not go as far as to help develop markets for what is recovered.
Thirdly, there is a reverse incentive, which is to inflate the success of the obligated organisation in recovering its packaging, thereby evading the need to buy PRNs, even though the waste has not been recovered. There is some evidence that the low price is due to that inflation—a press release from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs this summer showed the results of an investigation into the recovery of wood. That is not necessarily due solely to the fact that fraud is taking place, but because the science of measuring is so inexact in a number of categories that higher claims of recovery are difficult to rebut and are, in effect, almost condoned by the system. It is fair to say that the resources that are available for policing the system—to measure, to prevent fraud and to chase up non-registered free riders—fall way short of the levels sufficient to deal fully with such issues.
The danger is that confidence in the scheme will evaporate: people will go through the motions rather than really work it, because they know that elements of it are not real. If they do take a free ride or inflate their contributions, they may well not be troubled at all.
Despite those problems, the system has made remarkable progress. My concern is not that the system does not work at all, but that because of its perceived inequities, the gap between theory and reality makes enemies of those companies that want to co-operate. I am also concerned that after the consultative document has been produced we will almost certainly proceed with a system that recovers but does not minimise, even though, according to Government policy, we live in a world in which minimisation is a priority and an imperative in waste management. In essence, I am not suggesting that we should have no scheme, but that we could have a much better scheme that embedded minimisation if we worked towards it.
One example encapsulates many of these contradictions. Pallets are ubiquitous in UK manufacturing and bulk retailing. They are literally the base on which almost everything is transported at various stages of manufacture, but especially to retail distribution centres. They are usually made of wood, but need not be. Some pallets entering the UK carry imported goods, but a sizeable proportion is moved internally on so-called blue pallets, which are leased pallets owned by companies such as CHEP and others.
Before the summer recess, I asked a parliamentary question about whether packaging regulations should cover pallets in particular. The Department's short

25WH
answer was that they already did. That answer is only partly true. It is true that in the case of pallets that are owned, an assumption is made that the first use is recoverable. An obligation is therefore incurred that amounts to one tenth of the waste arising from pallets because it is assumed that they will make repeated journeys. By and large, however, they do not. They probably last half as long as estimated, but the company can obtain credit by sending broken pallets to be chipped. As far as I can see, that recovery mechanism is inflated to start with. However, those companies whose processing involves packaging do not own blue pallets. Therefore, they incur no obligation at all. It is assumed that the pallets are returned to the lease company and in principle are infinitely reused. Proposals advanced as part of the consultation suggest that blue pallets should be treated similarly and incur a one-tenth obligation. However, blue pallets return to the company only in aggregate. Many are lost, damaged, informally reused or sent for chipping with other pallets.
A good symbiosis of recovery and reuse could be achieved by using recovered plastic to make pallets. Such pallets would reliably last much longer—perhaps 10 times as long—than wooden pallets. There is, however, a capital cost in making them, and since pallets carry almost no obligation under the regulations and will not incur any significant obligation in the future, nothing much will change, even if the consultative document recommendations are accepted. We will have a very leaky system with an inbuilt inflation mechanism, as DEFRA's July press release acknowledged. It may work well despite its shortcomings, but it could work so much better.
My plea is that we take the opportunity presented by the consultative document and adopt its proposals that elements of the system need to be placed on the statute book to develop modifications to the system, but bring it into line with the ambitions of "Waste Not, Want Not" and the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill. That could truly set us on the road to the practical achievement of the waste hierarchy that I believe we all agree is essential for future waste management.
11.13 am
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) on securing the debate. He made some important points on packaging, reuse and recycling, and responded to points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien). The Government have set themselves very ambitious targets. We also have obligations under various directives, as was carefully pointed out.
My hon. Friend made several points. He referred to the waste packaging directive and how it applies to the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill. That is a fair point to make. We acknowledge that our approach to household waste, which involves reducing the amount going into waste streams and reaching local authority targets, is important in moving towards our targets.
We accept that we need to do more work to relate the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill to the directive. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test will know, that Bill is going through Parliament now, and we must align those measures properly to get the best
26WH
benefits from them. He is probably also aware that we have an Advisory Committee on Packaging. It is aware of the role of the Bill and I can assure my hon. Friend that it is currently considering how we can best achieve synchronisation between the two measures.
I appreciate my hon. Friend's points about separation of waste. He is right that there are individual targets for individual waste streams. Again, we take those seriously. The waste and resources action programme—WRAP—is charged with developing new markets and providing support for the development of recycling.
I take my hon. Friend's point about PRN notes, which have a value in the way in which they operate. I also understand his point about concerns in the glass sector about the high value of the PRN system. However, that can have advantages as well as disadvantages. Of course there is a disadvantage to the glass industry, in that there is a cost in relation to the value of PRNs, but the idea is that when there are limited recycling facilities, the value of the PRN notes will go up. That value then helps to develop the infrastructure for recycling through the inducements that it gives. We are seeing those benefits in relation to the glass sector, but I understand its concerns. I had a meeting fairly recently to talk about some of the sector's worries and ideas. There has been much good work in the glass sector and important advances have been made, but more needs to be done, on glass and on the separation of a range of other waste streams. My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton made that point.
Mr. Bill O'Brien: I appreciate the Minister giving way. I was making the point that in the present circumstances, the glass industry has one of the best records for recycling material, but in many instances the high price of PRNs, which has to be passed on to consumers, puts glass at a disadvantage on price measures compared with some other container industries. It is against that background that the glass industry wants to raise its concerns about the fact that we do not have a level playing field for those manufacturing containers involving glass and other suppliers.
Mr. Morley: I understand that point, but of course other industries are caught by the waste packaging directive. There is also the landfill tax. There are incentives and costs on competing industries, which they have to face. However, I take the point and we are trying to listen sympathetically to what the glass industry has to say. My hon. Friend is right that it has a good record on recycling glass, but there are weaknesses in the sector. The catering and pub trade, for example, have a very poor record on recyling glass, and there are one or two other sectors where more could be done. Nevertheless, that is not to say that the glass sector has not done a lot. Its commitment and the work that it does should be recognised, and I pay tribute to that.
My hon. Friend referred to incineration and the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill. I am not sure that it is fair to say that the Bill automatically assumes that there will be more incineration. He rightly pointed out that the Government have put in place a waste hierarchy. At the top of the hierarchy, of course, is minimising waste. The next, as we go down, is recycling, and then reuse. Incineration is low down on the

27WH
hierarchy, although it is above landfill. There are certain advantages to incineration. If it is applied properly we can, for example, recover waste. We can have combined cycle, where incinerators produce both heat and power. We can also get gasification. There are a number of methods for the thermal treatment of waste that can be beneficial.
Dr. Whitehead: The point that I was attempting to address, particularly in the consultation document, was that as a result of the EU opinion in May the likelihood of substantial incineration, which is presently being undertaken and counted as recovering waste and as therefore liable for the issue of PRNs, being allowed is diminishing; it will have to be replaced by other methods of recovery, not including incineration. At the same time in the hierarchy in the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill there is an element—arguably a large one—of incineration, which appears to be increasing.
Mr. Morley: It is certainly true that there is an element of incineration. I would like to come back to the point that we have a clear hierarchy of waste treatment and that incineration is low down on that hierarchy. My information shows that very little packaging recovery—if we want to use the term recovery—is carried out through incineration; the figure is something like 500,000 tonnes out of 5 million tonnes. The impact of incineration on packaging is small, and we need to look at the issues of reuse and recycling. It is certainly true that more reuse and recycling will have to take place, and I accept that point.
I accept my hon. Friend's suggestion that there could be a greater use of recycled plastics in things such as pallets. That is a very interesting suggestion. I have seen some technology used for plastics recovery. It was in south Yorkshire, and the company concerned is looking for outlets for the products that it is producing. Pallets could certainly be among them. Through WRAP, we have the facility to give support, encouragement and financial assistance to the development of new markets and new technologies, and one of those technologies is the use of recycled plastics. That is an area that we must address, in terms of separation and collection, as well as reuse, so my hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will also be aware that we are currently consulting on some of these points. There are proposals in the consultation paper to change the way that pallets are handled under the regulations. We are waiting for information on that.
I listened very carefully to the points that my hon. Friend made this morning, and I am sure that we will include his comments in the overall consultation on the proposed changes. Items not covered at the moment are generally excluded, rightly, because of the provisions for reuse. The proposals apply to wood and plastic pallets. He is right that there have been some questions about the figures for the reuse of wood, and we have adjusted those figures. That demonstrates that, with regard to the targets for particular waste streams, we are careful to ensure that the figures and claims and the PRN notes are accurate and reflect the amount of product that goes into separation and recycling. It is important that we
28WH
have a robust scheme that works and stands up to examination, and that is why adjustments have been made to the figures for recycled wood.
Mr. Bill O'Brien: Local government plays a very significant part in achieving targets. Will the Minister indicate what further assistance his Department can give to local government? I know that there has been some funding, but we need to do a lot more if we are going to separate the various cycles of waste, and local government can play a significant part.
I also wrote to my hon. Friend about plastic bags and the situation in Ireland, where the tax on plastic bags has reduced their number significantly. Is he doing anything to emulate that?
Mr. Morley: I shall take the latter point first because I have had a significant amount of correspondence on plastic shopping bags and the tax that was introduced in the Republic of Ireland. I make it very clear that I am interested in that sort of approach.
As a general principle, the Government have applied a range of financial instruments that are designed to be cost neutral overall but to encourage good practice in recycling. The landfill tax is an example of that. Money is recycled by promoting waste minimisation. That tax is designed to encourage the minimisation of waste going into landfill.
The issue of the Irish Republic is an interesting one, and I am currently looking into the figures on that. We are keen to work with supermarkets to encourage the use of reusable bags; there are good examples of that in our country. I am not sure if my hon. Friend knows that although the amount of plastic bags used in supermarkets in the Republic of Ireland has reduced—the tax has some benefits—the sale of black bin bags has increased dramatically. It appears that many people were reusing plastic bags, particularly for waste, and now that they do not have them in the house any more they are simply buying other plastic bags such as black bin bags. That defeats the object in terms of the analysis of the life cycle of plastics.
The figures need to be examined to assess the costs and benefits, and we are doing that. I have an open mind to this approach and if there is evidence that such approaches work and are beneficial, we should consider them, but we also have to look at the whole impact and the life cycle.
My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton also mentioned local authorities. It is certainly true that local authorities are key players in waste collection and waste minimisation, but they are not the only ones. A lot of packaging and waste is generated by industry and retailers, and they have obligations to deal with that.
My hon. Friend asked what help is available. We have the waste implementation programme that has been set up by DEFRA, which is designed to give advice and support to local authorities about good practice and the steps that they can take to minimise waste, and to share good ideas among local authorities. We also have a further two years of the national waste minimisation and recycling fund. That is a challenge fund with a considerable sum of money for which local authorities can bid for major capital investment.

29WH
I have recently been involved in launching several projects in London that have been jointly funded by DEFRA, the office of the Mayor of London and the London recycling fund, which also receives financial support from DEFRA. They have been putting some sophisticated waste separation in place, and there are other investments around the country.
We recognise that local authorities need assistance, which is available for selected projects, but there is wide disparity between the performances of the best and worst local authorities in waste minimisation and recycling. That is not acceptable, and we must focus on those local authorities that are not pulling their weight in meeting targets. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test will share that objective. He has made some very useful suggestions in the debate.
We have made good progress in recycling and in the recovery of package waste. By the end of 2002, we had 44 per cent. recycling and 50 per cent. recovery of packaging waste. That is up from 30 per cent. recovery and 27 per cent. recycling when the regulations came into force in 1997. That is a considerable increase in a comparatively short time. However, we are not complacent and we recognise that there is much more to do. We have a range of challenging targets and must concentrate on the waste separations and the individual targets for different materials: my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test is right about that. I will take his suggestions away, look at them and include them in our consultation. His input this morning has been helpful and constructive and I will respond in a similar vein.
11.30 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

NHS Dentistry
2 pm
Mr. Paul Marsden: I am delighted to have this debate on such an important subject that causes so much angst among my constituents and, I am sure, those of many hon. Members. I have a declaration to make at the outset, which is that I have not seen an NHS dentist as a patient for more than three years. Before eyebrows are raised, I should say that I do not have particularly good teeth to boast about: it is merely that I cannot get an NHS dentist. I have not seen a private dentist either, and I am dreading the day when I shall eventually be faced with having to get one, because it is nigh on impossible in Shropshire.
The problem goes back some 10 years, so before Conservative Members get too excited about a lack of activity by the Labour Government, they should take some of the blame. Back in the early 1990s, changes were made to the contract between the Government, the Department of Health and NHS dentists. Back in 1992, there was an overspend of some £190 million, which resulted in the Department making unilateral fee cuts and a decrease of income of some 7 per cent. That led to a breakdown in the relationship between NHS dentists and the Department, which resulted in the exodus that we have experienced over the past 10 years or so. There are now 5 million fewer people registered with an NHS dentist.
We have now had six years of a Labour Government. The record from when that furore was going on back in 1992 is clear. The Labour party, as I remember quite well having had some inside knowledge of such matters, said in its 1992 manifesto:
"We will make sure every community has access to dentists, with the resources to provide full NHS cover. We will restore the free dental check."
Although we may have seen some changes in attitudes by the new Labour party and, ultimately, the new Labour Government, all the subsequent warm words of support for NHS dentists have belied what has happened.
In 1996, in the run-up to the general election, the Prime Minister said on page 180 of his book "New Britain: My Vision of a Young Country":
"If things continue as at present and more people reach for their cheque books to pay for private insurance I genuinely believe that the NHS will cease to exist as we know it."
He also said that a decade ago people would not have believed it if they had been told that they could not get an NHS dentist, only a private one. Straight after the general election he said:
"We will have a national health service restored to the basic principles of the British NHS—the health service that we founded".—[Official Report, 18 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 304.]
I wholeheartedly agree with him—there should be delivery, at the point of need, of a free service, not one that is charged for. However, we have since had six years of excuses and broken promises.
In September 1997, the then Health Minister, the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), said in relation to NHS dentists that
"inequality and inaccessibility must be tackled head on now as part of the Government's drive to modernise NHS services".

31WH
In 1999, another former Health Minister, the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), said that
"this Government is committed to providing high quality dental care to a greater number of people."
In January 2000, the then Under-Secretary of State for Health, Lord Hunt, said:
"The NHS of the 21st century must be built around the needs of the patient not the system…From next year, we want to see everyone able to access NHS dental services, no matter where they live".
So it goes on. One reply after another has been made to parliamentary questions, and one promise after another has been made, and all have failed. In September 2000, Lord Hunt said that
"the Prime Minister's commitment…to give back dentistry to all who need it by September 2001"
would be met. He added that the Government recognised
"that the traditional system is failing some patients and there are still too many patients who have problems finding an NHS dentist. That will change."
Three years on, we are faced with more promises. Just in the past month, Health Ministers have promised that finally there will be change.
I want to give a taste of the problems that people face in different parts of the country. In October last year, people in Rossendale queued for three hours to try to register when they found out that a new dental surgery was opening. In Blackburn, the primary care trust spokeswoman Janet Ledward recently said:
"We have a serious shortage of dentists offering NHS treatment."
In East Lancashire, the dental health consultant Dr. Gary White said:
"The biggest difficulty is that there simply aren't enough dentists being trained and that's a government problem."
It was widely reported that in July in Carmarthen, south Wales, 600 people queued in the rain around the block when they heard that Brynteg dental surgery was opening. Half were turned away. Surgery staff received abusive phone calls because people were so fed up at not being able to register. London has the worst registration level and some of the worst oral health. In Scarborough, John Renshaw, the chairman of the British Dental Association, said that the situation is "desperate" and is a problem in the south, the north, the west—all over.
Dr. Donald Mackenzie from Lymington in Hampshire recently wrote to The Times, on the basis of his 25 years' experience as an NHS dentist, that he was
"deeply cynical about the Government's sudden 'commitment' to NHS dentistry, after years of a totally obvious policy of deliberately pushing dentistry out."
A final example comes, of course, from Shropshire. My constituency is in the heart of Shropshire. I recently rang NHS Direct, the telephone service that is supposed to be the magic wand to solve all our ills and problems. I asked about NHS dentists. The lady was polite and helped as best she could. She asked for my name, which I gave, and then my address. As soon as I mentioned Shropshire she stopped me in mid-sentence and said, "Particularly bad area for dentists, Shropshire."
32WH
I asked whether I could find a dentist in Shropshire and she said: "You can't find an NHS dentist to register with as an adult in the whole county." I said, "Okay, I'll go further afield. How about south Cheshire?" We were struggling, but we managed to find one in Congleton, a wonderful part of the area, which I know quite well, having been born and bred in Cheshire. It is a lovely part of the world, but in spite of the enticement of travel to Congleton to see an NHS dentist, I do not think that patients in Shrewsbury should have to travel a round trip of 80 miles on rural roads to find one. There was none in north Herefordshire, either.
Matthew Green: As a fellow Shropshire MP I can tell my hon. Friend that until recently I had an NHS dentist—45 minutes' drive away in Worcestershire. Sadly that surgery has now closed its books, owing to the death of one of the dentists. The nearest one at which I could register my family is in Staffordshire. Many of my constituents have had the same problem.
Mr. Marsden: My hon. Friend echoes my comments. We face a massive problem in the west midlands. I heard it said that it is the same in Wales. It is the same all over the country. The lady at NHS Direct told me, "We've had hundreds of calls from people in Shropshire, all trying to register with an NHS dentist." It is an absolute disgrace.
Mr. Russell Brown: I appreciate that on the hon. Gentleman's grand tour of the UK he did not cross the border into Scotland. In view of the great shortage of dentists, what impact does he think the closure of the Edinburgh dental school in 1992 has had on dentistry?
Mr. Marsden: I am no expert on Scotland, but the hon. Gentleman's point shows that this is a deep-rooted problem. It goes back many years. That closure exacerbated a problem that was already quite profound some 10 years ago. I shall speak about dental graduates later.
A few days ago I received an e-mail from a constituent. Mrs. Urquhart and her husband have just returned from the United States. Her husband is serving in the British Army. He has done four years in Germany followed by two years in the United States. She writes:
"I understood that dental care was going to be a problem on our return but I am incensed by the reality of the situation. I was given the name of two dentists in Shrewsbury who are accepting NHS patients. Both are only accepting under 18s—I will have to be treated privately…I believe that private health care should be a choice but I am being told that there is no choice available to me. We have been accepted onto our local NHS Doctor's list so why is the same facility not available for dental treatment?"
I concur with that. She continues:
"After 2 years in the US, I am a big advocate of the NHS. I believe everyone should be entitled to medical and dental treatment, not just those who can afford it—and yet here I am in exactly that situation, dental treatment for those who can pay."
I contacted Shropshire county primary care trust this morning and so this update is hot off the press. It says that
"some routine dental care can be offered to non-registered patients but the waiting time for routine care is 18 weeks at present…The Primary Care Trust has limited funding available for practice

33WH
development grants during 2002–03…It has proved very difficult to attract new dentists into the area for either GDS or Salaried PDS posts. A recent dental workforce review commissioned from the University of Keele"—
an authoritative source—
"found a vacancy factor of 25 per cent. for associate dentists in Shropshire, equivalent to about 20 unfilled posts."
We face a crisis in Shropshire and right across Britain. Registrations have fallen dramatically. The figures speak for themselves. In 1997 when Labour came to power 19,383,000 adults were registered. According to the latest figures, 16,793,000 adults are currently registered. My big worry is children. In 1997, 7,367,000 children were registered, but the figure is now down to 6,784,000. The future generation should be building a relationship with their local dentist, as they do with their local GP, and talking about ways to prevent tooth decay and gum disease, but they cannot do so. They are given a sticking plaster solution of dental access centres to get emergency care. That is not good enough.
Furthermore, since 1997 NHS patients have had to pay an extra £80 million in dental charges. That is a 20 per cent. increase in six years. A basic examination, a couple of X-rays and one filling will now cost £17.80. Most people simply put that off; they cannot afford it, especially those in socially deprived areas. It is not good enough for a Labour Government to say, "Well, we're afraid you will have to pay it; we have little sympathy for those who have to pay dental charges."
On completion of their studies, dental graduates are saddled with an average debt of £13,000, and 49 per cent. have to take part-time jobs during their studies just to make ends meet. Is it any wonder there is no throughput of new blood into the service? That is a ticking time bomb that will have an effect on oral health in the future. Many problems are being created now because of the lack of NHS dentists.
There are no exemptions for pensioners, save reductions for those on income support, although I acknowledge that those charges were railroaded through by the last Tory Government, who made pensioners pay. Likewise, there are a host of other small groups, such as prisoners, who are affected. They may be the forgotten people in society, but the Heath Minister's written reply on 4 July to my question on the matter stated that prisoners are now waiting for routine appointments between one and 55 days. That means that prisoners may have to wait for almost two months just to get an appointment. Many people in prison have been taking drugs, and when they start to come off drugs, one of the first things to hit them is the pain from tooth decay. They may not have been able to feel that pain for years, so they may not realise that they have problems.
We are shoring up enormous problems for children. When the Minister rises she will inevitably say that more money is being spent to tackle the problem, which is true, and I agree that the number of treatments is slightly up. However, people want to build up a relationship and have access to professional advice from someone whom they can get to know and trust because they see them every six or twelve months. At a dental access centre, the patient goes in and tries to describe the problem. Time is limited as the conveyor-belt system is designed to get people in and out quickly. I rang one in Shrewsbury this morning to ask how soon I could have
34WH
a routine dental appointment, and was told that I could not be seen for 10 days. We have some great professionals in the service who do their best, but with the best will in the world, they will not be able to quiz me about my brushing routine or my diet, or talk to me about the problems they may spot in the teeth or gums. All they can do is to say that they have spotted where the problem is, and that they have to take the tooth out or plug the loose filling. They will not be able to build a relationship, which is so important, especially for children.
What do the Government propose to do? Out of a £1.2 billion budget, which will be handed over to the primary care trusts in April 2005, the Government say that they will give an extra £10 million to help out. On the face of it, that sounds like a reasonable sum, but to put it in perspective it is 0.0000008 per cent. of the budget that is currently available to provide NHS dental services. The Department of Heath's blurb sets out what the £10 million is for. It states:
"An NHS team, backed by £9 million, will support PCTs where access is most challenging, providing advice and guidance on best practice in increasing access and modernising dentistry locally to tackle longstanding bottlenecks where it is hard to find an NHS dentist. The remaining £1 million will assist PCTs…in preparing for the change."
That is derisible. It is an insult to say that that £10 million will start to deliver what we need. The British Dental Association says that it needs at least 4,000 dentists to be able to meet demand. The Minister cannot quibble with that. It is what the British people want. When they are given the opportunity, they seize it with both hands. They want to be able to register with an NHS dentist. They will go to the dental access centres for emergency treatment if they have to, but that is not the long-term solution.
There was an article in The Sunday Times last Sunday on the recruitment of 200 dentists from overseas. I am greatly alarmed by that prospect. Will we be plundering reserves of overseas professionals, many of whom come from developing nations that can least afford to give up their health care professionals to this country to service our NHS patients? As Ian Wylie, chief executive of the BDA, said:
"This is really a sticking plaster for dentistry. We should be investing in homegrown undergraduates rather than poaching overseas dentists, especially where there is under-provision of dental care in their home countries."
The outcome of all this is that we are being forced to take out private medical insurance for dental cover. People in deprived areas will not bother to take out insurance because they cannot afford it. For a family of two adults on level B—that is, people with relatively good teeth—the cost is £16.39 a month, which is about £400 a year. Two adults and two grown-up children in one family are expected to find £800 a year for basic cover. That is not good enough. It is a betrayal of Labour principles of many years to say to people, "We are going to force you to go private, because that is the solution to the crisis in NHS dentistry."
On 3 August, John Humphrys wrote in The Sunday Times:
"We have gone down the private road through default and that's not good enough."
We cannot blame the dentists. They have a choice: charging about £50 on average for an appointment in the private sector or receiving only about £18 on average

35WH
in the NHS. Serious money must be invested. We do not need gimmicks from the Government in the form of small handouts, with the claim that they will sort out the problem. They will not.
Mr. A. J. Beith: The problem that dentists most often raise is that they feel unable to complete the treatment that they consider appropriate for the patient under the current NHS financing arrangements.
Mr. Marsden: I agree. I wait to hear from the Minister how the proposed changes through the PCTs will tackle the source of the problems that my right hon. Friend mentioned. There is incredible frustration because the professionals want to do a good job. They want to improve the whole population's health, but the system very often works against them. It is about time that the Government started to give them what they need so that they can deliver that service. The BDA estimates that some 200 new dentists need to come on stream every year.
We have paid our taxes and the increased charges in national insurance, but we have a threadbare system for NHS dentistry. Only emergency treatment is available. NHS dentistry is inefficient, because it doubles up for many treatments, so there is no chance of developing a relationship with a dentist. As a result, people's health, especially that of the poorest and most vulnerable in society, will be affected for the rest of their lives.
NHS dentistry is a broken promise. It now delivers a two-tier system that forces people into the private sector and into paying money for what should be a basic right. Labour should hang its head in shame.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Nicholas Winterton): Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), may I seek the co-operation of hon. Members? It is my intention to begin the winding-up speeches at 3 o'clock. Members will therefore realise how long they may have, if they are courteous enough to assist all those standing to contribute to the debate.
2.25 pm
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I hope to be reasonably brief. In my constituency it is not possible to get an NHS dentist. In July, I raised the matter with the Department of Health, which sent me an encouraging letter saying that not only will NHS dentistry be given a considerable increase in its annual budget, but a working party, led by the chief dental officer, is suggesting field sites. I am not sure what a field site is; the phrase conjures up pictures of things that I do not want to think about in relation to dentistry.
There should be a significant move away from the present system of item of service contracts, but we are in an extraordinary situation where, although a quarter of the population, and many children, can receive NHS dental treatment, the rest of us cannot. That is quite frightening.
36WH
We must be clear. It is not a matter of suggesting that a long-term solution will provide a fully salaried service—that was suggested by the Socialist Health Association more than 30 years ago. We cannot continue to allow a profession such as dentistry to be treated as it is in this country. If it is true that the average dentist earns £60,000 a year without private practice, some would say that dentists are not among the most poorly paid. Some years ago in my constituency, there were no NHS dentists, and I insisted that some should be appointed. All that happened was that a practice ran for a certain time, and then the practitioners looked over at one or two of their colleagues who were extremely well remunerated and decided to accept private patients only.
Indeed, some practices will not accept even children as NHS patients. When I went to that practice in my constituency to discuss what it was doing, the dentist concerned said, "We need exactly the same remuneration as doctors and the same terms and conditions." I pointed out to him that on the door of his practice there was a notice that I thought had some relevance to his rates of pay. It said: "Even if you have received treatment in this practice, if there is an emergency, do not come here. Go to the local accident and emergency service of the NHS." In other words, the practice was not even providing emergency cover.
We must have a little clear thinking about what is going on in the NHS. It is all very well to receive a letter saying, "Of course we are concerned about dentistry in Crewe, but we have had a look at the website, and we understand that there may be some vacancies in Winsford or Northwich for your constituents", but neither area is easily reached by public transport, let alone the kind of transport that would get my constituents to a dentist's surgery when they need care.
It is much more important that we seriously ask the following questions: if primary care trusts are to be responsible for providing health care, who will tell them the terms and conditions on which people will be employed? Will those people be fully salaried? Will the PCTs have enough money to run the service efficiently? If not, what will happen to dentistry in this country?
I do not believe that anyone can run a health or dentistry service—or, indeed, any of the services provided by the professions supplementary to medicine—on the basis that if the going gets rough, people can always be told that they can pay to get the level of care that they deserve. That is not a responsible attitude, it cannot be defended, and it is not what I expect from a Labour Government.
Some of the problems inevitably stem from the fact that we are not training enough dentists. Certainly, we are not thinking clearly enough about what we do with the ones that we have. There is no use in saying that we are going to move away from piecework in dentistry if we do not actually do it. There is no use in saying that in future we want people who provide dental care for the whole population, unless we not only make it worth their while, but insist that the constant development of private care does not leech away the expertise that the NHS requires and leave large numbers of my constituents with no care at all.
There are two people to whom most women cleave with a violence that surprises the male of the species: the first is their hairdresser, and the second is their dentist.

37WH
The reason for that is that they create a relationship of reliability and trust. It is even worse when one's children find it impossible to receive NHS dental care. That is returning to a situation that existed when I was a child, when the level of oral care in this country was appalling. It was regarded as an act of God. If a person did not have the money, they could not receive the sort of dental care that was essential.
I am sympathetic to the difficulties that any Government face, but a number of urgent decisions need to be taken. The sums of money being spent on the dental service are obviously not producing the results or the level of care that we want or, to be frank, the level of expertise that is necessary. It is clear that the profession is concerned about its own terms and conditions, but it still has not succeeded in evolving a working partnership with the NHS that will produce the level of service that we all need.
It is all very well to say that a change, by handing responsibility to another part of the NHS, will alter the situation. That is unrealistic. Primary care trusts cannot create dentists if they do not exist. Dentists will be sucked from other parts of the world, and almost inevitably they will not be trained in this country and will come from countries with a lower standard of living—countries that are even worse served by dentists than we are. That is morally unjustifiable, short-sighted and absurd because it does not work. It did not work in the NHS, and it certainly will not work in dentistry.
In my lifetime the provision of sufficient professionals in health care has always gone through a feast and famine cycle. A Conservative Government decide we have too many doctors, so they cut down the number. We decide that we have to do something about it, so we create another way of training people, and then say that we have too many. That inability to match care needs to the number of people being trained and the rates and conditions of pay that they receive is a failure on the part of successive Governments.
I am concerned about what is happening in Cheshire. I do not know why people do not want to go to Shropshire; I would have thought that that was a rather posh part, as it looks rather nice. Usually, there is no difficulty in attracting health professionals to attractive places, but they are not quite so keen on Liverpool 8. Cheshire is getting into exactly the same situation, and it is not acceptable. Health care cannot be rationed by payment. If it is, we get into a situation that we have already reached in my constituency, where some people in need of long-term care no longer have a dentist. When they were told recently that a salaried dentist had been appointed, they were told not to tell anybody else because there would be such pressure on those facilities that the dentist would not be able to cope.
Politics is a difficult art, but on the whole people do not cast their votes on foreign affairs. I was brought up by a man who said that one can make a speech on foreign affairs for 45 minutes, and the first question that will be asked is, "Why doesn't the light at the end of my road work?" So if there is a little message that the Minister wants to take away from the afternoon's debate, I hope that it will be sensible. We need a salaried service to train people and to get dental care operating now—not in five or 10 years. It is an urgent problem and solving it must be high on the list for a Government who want to be re-elected.
38WH
People have a strange, old-fashioned attitude to their elected representatives. If we cannot provide what they want, they will look elsewhere. I do not intend dentistry to be enunciated as one of the reasons to get rid of a Labour Government—I can think of one or two, but I do not want dentistry to be one of them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I make a plea for short speeches, please?
2.35 pm
Mr. Andrew Turner: I congratulate the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) on securing the debate.
I will start with some basic information. In my constituency, 80,000 people are not registered with an NHS dentist. That is more than the total population of many constituencies represented in the House. That is not because mine is a wealthy constituency—its GDP is less than 75 per cent. of the national average—but because there is a crisis in dental services on the Isle of Wight that extends beyond a shortage of NHS dentists to a shortage of all dentists.
I raised that problem with the Isle of Wight primary care trust not long after I was elected, but the crisis has got worse rather than better. In February I received a letter from the PCT that said:
"We have successfully bid for additional resources to set up a new practice on the Island".
The then Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), wrote:
"I am aware that there are currently no NHS dentists on the Island who are accepting new patients…New patients wishing to access NHS dentistry in the surrounding area can obtain information on practices accepting adult patients from the dental helpline which is operated by the Personal Dental Service, part of the Isle of Wight Healthcare Trust."
Perhaps the hon. Lady did not realise that the surrounding area is not replete with dentists, except when they are sailing. People have had to go to Southsea, Portsmouth, Cosham, Southampton or Lymington to find dentists who are taking patients on to their lists.
In May, the PCT confirmed that it had been successful in opening a new dental practice in Ryde with two dentists, thanks to a grant from the Department of Health. I acknowledge that, but, within a fortnight, it was taking no further patients because it was full. Since then, not one, not two, but three dentists on the island have said that they intend to retire from practice within the next six months. My constituents do not find that satisfactory. One wrote:
"I have been advised by the Dental Helpline that I would need to travel to Portsmouth to see an NHS dentist—which is out of the question, as I have a two year old boy and a five month old baby to take with me."
Another wrote:
"They recommended that I telephoned the Dental Helpline…or NHS Direct…Along with several hundred other NHS patients I found it impossible to get through to the former…Several days later I gave up and tried the NHS Direct number, only to be given, guess what, the Dental Helpline number…Now, what kind of NHS is this?"

39WH
Another writes of her practice in Sandown:
"I received a letter stating that they no longer treated National Health patients."
That is not exactly the position; in fact one dentist has retired and they were unable to fill the place so they are not retaining those NHS patients. She continues:
"On telephoning the number given, I was told that the only dentist available was in Portsmouth or Southampton. I explained that I am disabled and can only go by car, and asked if the fares were refundable"—
those fares are £37 return by car to the mainland—
"I was told no. My husband was born on the Island and cannot work because he cares for me. What am I supposed to do? And what did we pay National Insurance for all our working lives if we cannot now get treatment"?
Alison Holbrook, the assistant social responsibility adviser for the diocese of Portsmouth, took a trip to the mainland with three borrowed young children to see what it was like. She describes it at length. She had to leave at 10.14 am. It cost her £18.75 to get from Freshwater to Ryde. They chose the hovercraft rather than the catamaran, because it is quicker and there is time for the connection. That was a good thing, because the train up Ryde pier from the esplanade left at 11.35 and the bus got in at 11.34. It cost them £19.95 to cross the Solent. They got to Southsea at 12.05 and walked for 25 minutes to the dentist. They had to pay £10 each to register with a new NHS dentist.
After lunch the group went back to the hover terminal for the 14.15 crossing. Alison says:
"Disembarkation from the hovercraft was delayed due to the sheer number of passengers and special equipment being moved into place for a disabled passenger. We had one minute to get the bus, when one of the children said they needed to go to the toilet. We missed the bus so ended up getting on our original intended bus, the 14.45 no. 7A to Freshwater…Arrival at Freshwater was 16.20."
The journey lasted from 10.14 to 16.20, and that would have applied whether the person had three children or one. It took six hours and six minutes—a whole day.
Mollie writes:
"I think the journey is a waste of time, because the bus took us 1 hour and 20 minutes. The Hovercraft took 10 minutes and then a 20 minute walk to the dentist … Going to Southsea is quite annoying because all that journey just to have a 10 minute check up on your teeth."
Harry writes:
"It took more than two hours from Freshwater all the way to Southsea. It was horrible."
They did not even see the dentist. because this was just an experiment.
My constituents do not want to be told that there is a dentist on the mainland. It is impractical to tell a mother with young children, particularly children at school, to take a day off school or a day off work to go to the mainland, particularly for repeat treatment. It is also an insult. It is an insult for the national health service to tell someone that a service is available when it is not available and is totally impractical. It is a particular insult when the Prime Minister said in 1999 that he would provide access to NHS dentists within two years.
I sympathise greatly with the Minister, who has been plunged into this from another Department. She sits here and shakes her head in disbelief at some of the
40WH
points made by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham. I sympathise with her, but she must find an answer.
2.42 pm
Mr. Simon Thomas: I congratulate the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) on initiating the debate, but I am afraid that his experiences in Shrewsbury are reflected across the border in Wales. Like him, I do not have an NHS dentist. I have been unable to register with an NHS dentist in Aberystwyth for more than five years. The sheer misery engendered by poor NHS provision in Ceredigion has been a real eye-opener for me in the last three years.
What I have seen is symptomatic of a much deeper deterioration in NHS dental provision. That is going almost unreported, which is why this debate is important. The Prime Minister's commitment, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), has been forgotten, iced over, glossed over and even spun. "You can phone NHS Direct"—that is what the Government meant by a promise of access to an NHS dentist.
In my constituency, NHS dentistry is already the preserve of the few, not the many. Just 31 per cent. of the population are registered with a dentist. That reflects a wider trend in Wales: just two thirds of Welsh children, for example, are registered with NHS dentists.
I can sense already that the Minister will say that NHS dentistry in Wales is now the responsibility of the National Assembly for Wales, but remuneration and training are the responsibility of this place, and we have heard from hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber that remuneration and training are at the heart of the crisis in NHS dentistry.
The only response that the Assembly has been able to make is to provide grants to dentists to set up in, for example, rural areas, but as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) mentioned, all that happens is that over time those dentists privatise their lists and become, in essence, private dentists with a very small number of NHS patients, if any. That is a complete waste of public money. It is a crying shame that we are throwing good money after bad, trying to support dentists going to rural areas when we know damn well that in two or three years they will be private dentists and we will have to repeat the same process all over again. I have received an immense amount of correspondence on the issue, like many other hon. Members. Last summer, I went out into the streets of my constituency and did a street survey to see what people were experiencing with NHS dentistry. Some of my constituents' comments, like those of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight, illustrate the situation.
A married couple in Cardigan said that they had phoned 20 dentists, who would take patients only if they agreed to be private. NHS Direct could recommend only one dentist in west Wales, and that was in Ammanford. That is a good day's journey away—I hazard to say that it is similar to crossing the Solent. One may only have to cross a river, but that is a long way away in a rural area. Mr. and Mrs. J. in Llanrhystud said that NHS Direct had suggested Barmouth to them. Anyone with any sense of the geography of Wales will

41WH
know that that is a ridiculous distance to ask people from somewhere south of Aberystwyth to travel for treatment. Somebody in New Quay was told that they could not register, and it was suggested that they go to Tenby or Llanelli. Those are distances of seventy or eighty miles that cannot —I checked that fact—be travelled in a day on public transport. One constituent of mine, an old age pensioner who needed to make two trips to have her dentures redone, was told to go to Brecon. That would have involved two overnight stays. Solutions are very slow to emerge.
The National Assembly, together with the Government, have considered access to NHS dentistry. The Health Committee's report of March 2001 holds the key. It said that the current remuneration system in the general dental service
"is at the heart of the access problem".
That was in 2001, and it remains the position today.
The awful situation in dentistry has allowed fluoridation to raise its ugly head once again. I am opposed to that. I made my remarks on the matter last night during the debate on the Water Bill—the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) was also present. It is interesting to note that the National Assembly Government suggested giving free school breakfasts to children. That was the platform of their success in the National Assembly elections last May—they would provide free school breakfasts for children, but there was no mention of cleaning the children's teeth after that school breakfast. That would do a damn sight more to improve dental health than fluoridating the children's water. Taking the coke machines out of schools would also help a great deal.
Like the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich, I feel that only a system of salaried NHS dentists can tackle the huge gap in provision that exists today. We need to consider the introduction of a bulk payment system, and remunerating dentists for the preventive work they undertake and not just the treatment that they carry out. Fluoridation is a cop out, and a tacit acknowledgement by the Government that their provision of NHS dentistry is failing the vast majority of people in this country.
2.47 pm
Mr. David Drew: I start by concurring with the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas). Fluoridation is the wrong approach to a difficult problem. I despair of the BDA. It is a membership organisation, so it could lead its members by persuading them to come back into the NHS. Let us not fool ourselves, the debate is about money.
What worries some of us is that the same debate could happen with respect to doctors and general practice. We must be aware of the problems that my dentist has spoken about to me. I declare an interest, as I am still with an NHS dentist. I shall not quote him, as he would probably be drummed out of the profession. He said to me from the outset that once people see the other side and the benefits offered by private practice—the fact that they can pick and choose their patients, the plans offered to them, and the hours they workthey will not come back again. It defeats the whole purpose of public service.
42WH
I have always believed that those in public service must accept that they have to make sacrifices as well as taking some of the benefits. One benefit is the belief that people still have—whether rightly or not, I do not know—that the public holds a person in greater esteem because they work in public service. That is not compatible with pretending that those in public service can get the rewards and benefits that they want.
I feel most strongly that the Government have a huge problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) always got the tone right. I receive more complaints about this health issue than about any other. Usually, an MP can sympathise and suggest to constituents ways in which they can work round the system, and can help them to tackle what is undoubtedly a very difficult problem. In reality, however, we must say, "I'm sorry, but that's just tough." That is what we get when we have a privatised system working out of the NHS. It is not acceptable.
The Government are not doing enough, and I worry that they are trying to create the illusion that they are doing something about the general dental service with dental access centres and salaried dentists. When dentists see what they can get by going private, they will leave. Only a small, dedicated group of professionals will want to stay in the NHS—or, dare I say it, those professionals who work in areas where they are unlikely to get enough private patients and who may see the benefits of the NHS.
That dilemma is faced not only by the Government but by dentists, who must make those sacrifices if they are to service the population of this country. Negotiations must now take place nationally and locally to try to fix this problem. It has been gestating for too long. We have seen what has gone wrong. I call on my hon. Friend the Minister to tell us what negotiations are taking place, what the cost is and if we are prepared to pay it. We must say to dentists, "This is what the Government are prepared to come up with. What are you prepared to sacrifice to come back to the NHS?" If they are public servants, they must realise that their obligation is to all their patients, not just to children. Concentrating on servicing the needs of children is a nice idea, but when they reach 18 their teeth are no longer of concern. That is unacceptable. We must make progress.
I despair at some of the packages that are presented to patients as though they are what they need. We all know that money is made not in dental care but on hygiene products and all the other things that come with them. They may be important, but they are not the point of a dentist. As my dentist says, a dentist's central concern is pain control. People need a dentist when their teeth are causing them difficulties. We must build prevention into dental care, but let us not fool ourselves that we are getting the icing on the cake. What we want are the ingredients of the cake, and to go back to the basics of good dental care. We are all aware that things will be much worse in the future if there is no preventive approach. I want to know from the Government what negotiations are taking place and what deal needs to be struck, so that we can get on and strike it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I should tell hon. Members that I want to get two more speakers in before 3 pm.
2.53 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) described the situation in Shropshire. I am glad that he raised that issue today, and am grateful to many other hon. Members for describing situations similar to the one in Northumberland in the Berwick-upon-Tweed constituency. The problem began to affect Berwick two to three years ago when dentists started to accept only children on the NHS. The situation has worsened, and it is now very difficult to register a child with an NHS dentist.
The initial argument was that patients could go to another town such as Eyemouth, which is not too far away. However, Eyemouth stopped accepting English patients in its dental practices. Dentists started to say, "You can go to Wooler, which is 16 miles away, or Alnwick, which is 30 miles away." The same situation began to develop there. A practice in Alnwick started to practise purely private dentistry. Indeed, it wrote to patients telling them about the virtues of Denplan and saying, "We should like to emphasise that your next appointment will still be available on the NHS. We look forward to discussing the changes with you." Some of those discussions took a hostile turn, especially those involving the patients who showed me the letter.
When the dentists were no longer available 30 miles away, patients were told, "The only thing you can do is to go to the dental hospital in Newcastle 66 miles away", but only emergency treatment is available there. As several hon. Members have said, the situation is unacceptable. It is like saying to someone in London that if they want to see a dentist, they should go to Rugby or Ipswich—indeed, the train services might be better—and that when they get there, they can receive only emergency treatment.
The method that the Government and the health care trust adopted to provide some immediate relief was to try to install a salaried dentist in the infirmary in Berwick, where there is room, and where accommodation has been made available. However, they had great difficulty in making the appointment. One senior, experienced dentist who thought of taking it on told me that he had been informed that if he were appointed, he could provide only emergency treatment, and not the dental care that he thought a patient needed. It would simply be a question of removing the tooth, or possibly repairing the filling, which, as a professional dentist, was not what he would want to do. He was being asked to make the wrong clinical judgment about what was right for the patient.
The dentist also explained to me that the rate of pay was £70 for a three-hour session. For an experienced professional, that is unreasonable—it is an inadequate rate of pay for someone who can provide a high standard of service and who will be called on in a fairly desperate situation. The health care trust has therefore had considerable difficulty in filling that post. People have been assured that there will be a dentist at the hospital, but they still see advertisements in the local paper seeking to fill the appointment.
When I raised that matter in the House on several occasions, the then Under-Secretary of State for Health, now the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional
44WH
Affairs, the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), said that all would be well with the new legislation, because it would
"give primary care trusts the leverage to ensure local commissioning."—[Official Report, 18 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 758.]
However, the leverage to ensure local commissioning has not solved the problem, which has a number of deep-seated, long-standing causes. One of those is the shortage of qualified dentists, otherwise we would not be seeking them from overseas. Reference was made earlier to past decisions that contributed to that shortage, such as the closure of dental training facilities in Edinburgh.
We cannot rely on long-term solutions for our constituents. It is unacceptable that people cannot register with an NHS dentist or obtain proper dental care. I look to the Minister to resolve the situation in my constituency and the other areas affected.
2.57 p.m.
Mr. Russell Brown: I congratulate the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) on securing the debate. I also thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak, because I realise that this is a devolved issue—responsibility for both the NHS and dentistry has been devolved to the Scottish Parliament.
I should like to make hon. Members aware of the situation in Scotland, because the issue is UK-wide. I indicated earlier the problem that we have had since the closure of the dental school in Edinburgh. There are now two dental schools left in Scotland that produce, on average, 120 graduates per year. However, the demand is such that the system needs to produce 125 to 130 qualified dentists annually. Moreover, some of those who qualify go south of the border, and some go overseas. We tend to focus on the UK's recruitment of professionals from Africa and Asia, but some of our professionals go to north America to ply their trade.
The issue has been brought into focus in my constituency because, in the past couple of weeks, the last NHS practice in Dumfries decided to go private. The letter that it sent to all its patients caused me some concern because it stated that over the past few years there had been a steady erosion of Government funding. Even the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham would probably admit that funding has been provided, although perhaps not as much as people would have liked.
I took exception to that. When I wrote to the local practice to raise the issue, the reply stated that the problem started in 1992, when the Doctors and Dentists Remuneration Review Body recommended an 8.6 per cent. fee increase. That translated to a 7 per cent. fee cut, as it was 15.6 per cent. down. It is a long way back to recover that.
We talk about spin in society, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) that it is the day-to-day things that determine whether the Government are in favour with the electorate. In that context, people may think that solely the present Government are to blame, but hon. Members can see that successive Governments have not delivered the service that we want.

45WH
It has been said that 4,000 extra dentists are required, but what will happen if we manage to secure them without changing our current structure? If we do not change the fee structure, we will lose them too. We are not getting enough dentists through in the first place, but even if we could suddenly magic them up, we would lose them as well. Even if there was an attempt to change the structure, I am not sure whether we could get some of the other people back.
The system is financially driven, which has forced people away. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) made that abundantly clear. Those who have left have seen what happens outside and will not want to come back. We need salaried dentists throughout the United Kingdom, and I want to hear from the Minister how we will tackle this serious problem, which means a great deal not only to hon. Members, but to the general public. We still have 35 NHS dentists in my constituency, but that is half the number that we want, and I worry when I see some of the criteria that must be met. Young people in full employment will get a dentist, but what happens to those who are unemployed? Those are the issues that need to be tackled, and like all hon. Members present today, I want an answer to the problem sooner rather than later.
3.1 pm
Dr. Evan Harris: The fact that we have had a large turnout and an excellent debate is a reflection of how seriously people take this issue and how large they judge the problem to be. In preparing for this debate, I quickly looked up some of the figures, rather like one quickly brushes one's teeth before going to the dentist, even if it is the only time that one does it for several months.
Mr. Simon Burns: Speak for yourself.
Dr. Harris: The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) is probably the only person who does not brush extra hard just before he goes to see his dentist because he is blessed with gorgeous teeth, as he keeps telling everyone.
The problem is that we do not discuss the issue often enough. It is not seen as mainstream NHS, when that is exactly what it is and should be seen as. We owe a great debt to my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) for introducing this debate, and for providing in its scope and detail one of the best introductory speeches that I have heard. He considered the history of the problem: the worsening access, the broken promises and the failure of policy. He then took us on a tour of the country—like the Consumers Association, the health Which?, and the Audit Commission, he has done that. We are grateful to him for giving us the opportunity to discuss some of the problems in such a structured way.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) reflected, as I shall, on how we have got to this position after six years of a Labour Government. The problem of access to what should be basic NHS care has got worse, and continuing initiatives have not tackled the problem. Ministers
46WH
have given the impression that the problem is due to be tackled, but it has not been. The hon. Lady reflected that her party, which has a long and proud history of at least trying to expand access to NHS care and make it free at the point of delivery, may lose support and votes at the next election unless the Government act soon. Recent moves to give power to primary care trusts to provide NHS care are at least coherent with the need to ensure that commissioning for NHS dentistry services and acute and community dental services are considered together. If NHS dentistry access is defined as access and not registration, and people are still charged and therefore deterred from going, the point will have been missed and yet more expectations will be dashed.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) cleverly and amusingly showed what nonsense some of the access pledges are, expecting people to travel with or without public transport, as the crow flies, regardless of natural barriers, to receive NHS care when they are in pain or in an emergency.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) reflected on the problems in Wales and introduced the subject of fluoridation—the debate had been going 46 minutes before he did so. The Government must feel under pressure to make more progress on that issue, given their failure to provide holistic and preventive care in dentistry. Registration would be a means of doing so. The Liberal Democrats wanted to await the outcome of the York report and abide by its findings. Those findings were that fluoridation was safe, but that there was not sufficient, good quality evidence at that time to show that it is adequately effective. That is the authors' interpretation of the York report, although both sides of the debate seem to pray it in aid to support their position.
A fundamental question must be answered. Is it appropriate to fluoridate water, even if it is shown to most people's satisfaction to be effective and safe? Is that adulteration of the water supply going too far? I suspect that that will be left to a free vote, but we will not be in a position even to argue the principle until we see better evidence of the effectiveness of fluoridation. There are other mechanisms for improving dental health—including children's dental health—such as proper access to dental advice and to the best products, which will involve fluoride but not fluoridated water. The Government should allow a proper debate about fluoridation before introducing a Bill that has implications for fluoridation but does not necessarily tackle the principle.
The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) showed that there are problems in a market-based system. Private dentistry is a private business. He is right: there has been a failure in the market. An interesting question is whether it would be possible to bring dentistry back into the NHS.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) demonstrated one of the many sneaky ways in which private practitioners increase their market share under Denplan. Is it appropriate for a dentist to glower over someone in their chair and say, "You are going to switch to this very good, affordable plan that suits me better"? There is a serious question about whether that is the best way to do it. It may be how the Whips in some parties work

47WH
in Westminster, but it is inappropriate for dental care. He also identified the problem of how long one has to wait for emergency treatment and how it is difficult for dentists who just do emergency work to provide effective and holistic treatment.
The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) raised the problem of dental supply, which is critical to the debate. It is not rocket science, but Governments have been unable to provide throughput from dental schools to provide adequate capacity in the system and an adequate market, so that the NHS can compete with private dentistry. If private dentists' lists were only half full, because there were more dentists, they would be more willing to work with the NHS at whatever price was agreed. Can we get private dentists back into the NHS if the fee structure is changed? I believe so, but only by tackling the problems in the labour market.
I want to deal with some of the Government's broken promises, such as the broken promise to tackle health inequality. How can we have greater equality of health care when some people have to go private but cannot afford to, and when even those that can access NHS care have to pay charges that deter them and that they perhaps cannot afford? There are also problems of poor access, particularly for those who rely on public transport, because the Government's approach has been to provide access over distance, which is difficult when there is no public transport.
Another failure of the Government relates to prevention. As I and other hon. Members have said, we do not allow holistic or proper preventive care to be given. That is a significant failure of policy. If we can prevent dental ill health, it will be cost effective in the long run. It has been a failure of the market because of an inadequate labour force. It is a failure of choice for patients who are lucky to get any option at all in an emergency or a routine setting. For a Government who talk so much about choice, it must be very disappointing.
We should have an NHS that is free at the point of delivery, comprehensive and universal. Why should teeth be excluded? How can we have a system in which there are charges even for NHS treatment? The revenue raised from charges has risen by 20 per cent. in six years under this Government? When Ministers attack the Conservatives, they talk about an NHS that is free at the point of delivery. They should look to their own policies and practice, because it is not always free. Charges deter people, especially the poorest.
Are the Conservatives willing to apologise for the imposition of that contract in 1992, which everyone agrees started the problem, and for forcing pensioners to pay for dental checks? We must also ask the Government serious questions about the cost-effectiveness of their dental access scheme, because the cost per treatment is significantly higher by several factors than the cost of NHS dentistry by a GDS dentist. There are questions for both the other parties and for all policy makers? Will we have charges for NHS dentistry? I do not think that we should. We will debate this issue at our conference later this month. I hope that it will be the start of the debate and that other parties will also consider the matter.
3.11 pm
Mr. Simon Burns: One of the most interesting and obvious themes of all the contributions today, particularly those of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) and the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), is the serious problem of access to NHS dentists in this country. Fortunately, my constituents do not suffer to the same extent as those in the Isle of Wight or in Crewe and Nantwich. We still have some good, dedicated NHS practices, and a number of the private practices in Chelmsford see children on NHS terms. Nevertheless, although we do not have the same scale of problem, there is still a significant problem of access to NHS dentists even in areas like Chelmsford.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight reminded us—I suspect that some hon. Members did not want to be reminded—of the great show of spin at the 1999 Labour party conference, when the Prime Minister, that master of spin, announced that within the next two years everyone would be able to see an NHS dentist. As the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) rather cruelly reminded us, we did not read the small print. Apparently, access to an NHS dentist in most cases means ringing NHS Direct and being sent half way round the country to try to find one.
Four years after that bold promise from a Government who are long on giving promises but short on living up to and realising them, where are we? The percentage of adults registered with a dentist in England has declined from 52 per cent. in 1997 to 44 per cent. at present. Fortunately, the decline among children is less; it has fallen from 62 per cent to 60 per cent. In London, which has the largest population concentration in this country, the percentage of adults registered with dentists has declined from 49 per cent. in 1997 to just 37 per cent. The percentage of children registered has declined from 51 per cent. to 50 per cent.
My constituency and others have seen a consistent and steady decline, so that 1.5 million fewer people are now registered with an NHS dentist than were registered in 1998. That does not take into account the vast number of people—millions—who cannot register with an NHS dentist even if they want to. Probably the most absurd and distressing recent example of the consequences of the shortage was that of an NHS dental practice in west Wales that decided to increase its number of NHS patients by 300. Hundreds of people queued in the streets of Carmarthen overnight, rather as they do outside Wimbledon, in an attempt to be one of the lucky 300 able to register with an NHS dentist. There were allegations that bribes of up to 500 per cent. were offered, although not accepted, to try to get that valuable registration. Hon. Members will agree that that is just not acceptable.
What is needed is greater access to dental services. The need for a short-term fix drives individuals to see a dentist when they have an acute dental problem and they are in pain, but there is much more behind the decision to go to the dentist. It is crucial that regular check ups are carried out. Whether they should be every six months or every 12 months is an argument that I leave to clinical practitioners; some people do not have the luxury of taking such decisions because they cannot get access to an NHS dentist.

49WH
A check-up is crucial not simply to check the health of an individual's teeth, but because it may detect other medical problems. Dentists can pick up conditions in a dental check up that are unrelated to dental care, which is an important contribution to preventive medicine. An early intervention in a patient's medical condition might help to cure or to alleviate their problems. That is why it is so important to minimise the inequalities in dental care and do more to enable people to see a dentist.
As the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) said, finance is at the root of the matter. There is also an historical problem: ever since Nye Bevan set up the health service in the late 1940s. dentistry has been an add-on, not an integral part of the NHS as we understand it, with the principle that it is free at the point of use for all. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) wondered aloud about those discrepancies, and that is where they came from.
It is crucial that the money provided is spent cost effectively and efficiently to improve and enhance levels of dental care. If the Minister has time in her closing remarks, I would like her to explain how it will be spent, because there will be a fundamental change in the provision of dental care from April 2005, with commissioning through the PCTs. We still do not know exactly how the commissioning and the provision of services will be carried out, and we need to know. For example, the budgets will be cash limited, but how does the Minister envisage the commissioning being able to meet the requirements and the needs of the population in the local PCTs? How does the Minister think that PCTs will be able positively to encourage and increase the number of people who have access to NHS dentists rather than their having to rely on private dentistry?
There has been a problem with capacity in the dental service in relation to dentists and dental nurses. Will the Minister confirm that part of the problem is historic and is due to decisions taken in the 1970s that were based on then valid opinions and the closure of one of the dental schools. It is now clear that we need more dentists. We can of course seek dentists from overseas, but that is a short-term solution. What can be done and what is going to be done to increase the number of trainees so as to ensure that in the longer term we will have enough dentists and dental nurses to fill the capacity that the service requires in order to meet the needs of the population?
3.20 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson): I thank all Members who have contributed to this useful debate and especially the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) for raising the issue of NHS dentistry.
I stress at the outset that the Government are not complacent about the difficulties in NHS dentistry. We accept that the situation needs to be improved, which is why only yesterday in another place there was the Second Reading of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, which will reform NHS dentistry for the first time since the establishment of the NHS. It is time for change in dentistry. We have recognised that and are taking steps, as a number of hon. Members mentioned, to make those changes.
50WH
The oral health of the population has improved enormously since the NHS was set up, and it continues to improve. However, I entirely accept that the improvement is uneven and that there remain areas in both inner cities and rural England where dental disease remains high. The Government are committed to reducing those health inequalities. Equally challenging is the fact that in some areas, people have difficulties in finding an NHS dentist. All of us are aware of such problems from our constituents, so it might be helpful if I make it clear that the Bill is not about maintaining the status quo, but about changing it. The provisions are designed to widen access to NHS dental services and provide a more up-to-date legal framework that will better allow primary care trusts to develop and plan those services strategically.
Under the new legislation, which provides a framework to take forward the "Options for Change" paper published in August last year, the PCTs are to be given new powers to provide or secure the provision of primary dental services. The existing powers under the National Health Service Act 1977, under which the general dental services are provided, are to be repealed to make way for new general dental service contracts between PCTs and dental practices.
However, the high street dentist—the general dental practitioner—is a self-employed independent contractor providing the services. Dentists can practise wherever they like and there are no restrictions. Provided that they meet the conditions of suitability, they have an automatic right to provide NHS general dental services. They can accept as many or as few NHS patients as they wish, and they can currently alter that commitment at will without reference to the PCT.
The key aim of local commissioning is to provide a greater degree of operational control for the NHS locally, so that planned services can be matched to the financial resources available. That would mean contracts for an agreed level of service over a fixed period to be delivered to agreed quality standards.
Following the publication of "Options for Change", the dental profession was invited to submit ideas for testing the proposals in that report. The response was overwhelming. There was a very positive attitude among members of the profession to the idea of doing things differently, and work goes ahead with dentists on 50 different sites to test the ideas. I fear that those may be some of the field sites referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). Some 20 of those projects will examine different ways of paying for the service.
We already have experience of nearly five years of local commissioning of dentistry under the personal dental services pilot programme, in which resources are devolved to the front line. Those pilot schemes now treat 750,000 people a year, and have shown what works well and less well. The so-called field sites will build on that learning. The proposals in the Bill will underpin a modernised primary dental service, provided through contracts between the primary care trusts and dental practices.
The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham raised the issue under debate, and I believe that it was his local situation that led him to do so. I was pleased to hear that he accepted that it was a long-standing problem.

51WH
However, I also accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich that urgent action is needed.
I shall quickly outline the situation in Shrewsbury. The three-surgery dental access centre has been operational since 1999. Following a recent expansion programme, there are now seven further centres across the county PCT area. At those centres, salaried dentists employed by the trust provide the full range of NHS treatment. The current priority is to meet the demand for urgent treatment, although some routine dental care can be offered to non-registered patients. A number of other steps have been taken in the area, but time and the need to respond to other questions will not allow me to go into detail about them.
The key point concerns the work force, and we should recognise that that issue is difficult to address locally. It has proved difficult to attract new dentists into the Shrewsbury area for either general dental services or salaried posts in the dental access centre, and there are a number of unfilled posts in the county. The issue is therefore not necessarily as simple as hon. Members make out. The money is available to pay for the dentists, if we could only recruit them.
Mr. Marsden: I accept what the Minister says. I agree that the PCT will be in a better position to move things forward. However, the Government and the Shropshire PCT have shown a fundamental lack of urgency, and that lack of urgency is replicated throughout the UK. I am not aware that more money will be made available to begin to solve that fundamental problem. People out there are fed up with yet more promises.
Miss Johnson: Since April 1997, dentists' NHS fees have increased by 26 per cent., in line with the recommendations of the independent review body. Anyone would accept that that is a reasonable increase. This year, dentists have received, in addition, £33 million of commitment payments, under a new scheme that was introduced in 2000. There are, therefore, a number of steps being taken to improve funding. I
52WH
accept that Opposition Members—and some Government Members—may still say that more money needs to be ploughed into the service. However, those Opposition Members who voted against the increases in funding to the NHS have little basis for making that point.
I shall briefly sketch the changes introduced in the Bill, and the effect that they would have. In future, the allocations to PCTs will include funding currently harnessed by their local dentists, and they will be required to spend at least an agreed amount, and more if their local priorities indicate the need. PCTs will be able to take those decisions and employ dentists in the way that I outlined earlier, in order to address the priorities of local provision. At present, the method of payment means that the funds—which, as hon. Members know, are non-cash limited—are spent only to the extent that dentists wish to carry out treatment on the NHS, so that will be a significant change. The reforms have the endorsement of the British Dental Association. I reiterate that a huge amount of extra funding has been provided for NHS dentistry by way of fees and extra money.
Many hon. Members raised the matter of work force planning. A review is under way and we shall report on it by the end of the year. It will include examination of the present age structure, the increasing number of women dentists and the impact of our reforms on contractual and remuneration arrangements. It is intended to make NHS dentistry more attractive to dental practices. Other issues, which no one has touched on, such as the skill mix of different professions in dentistry, are for the future. Many things need to be done, but as of 2002 there are nearly 18,500 dentists in England. That is an increase on the 1997 figure of 16,700-odd.
In response to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), I point out that the matter in question is a devolved one, and apart from the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, I cannot comment on matters in Wales.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister will have to leave her remarks there, although we congratulate her on trying to get so much into them.

Disability Living Allowance
3.30 pm
Mr. Richard Bacon: I am pleased to have the opportunity to introduce this short debate on disability living allowance, a benefit that is of value to many disabled people. Disability living allowance is paid to those who need help to look after themselves. The allowance has a care component, which is paid to someone who needs to be looked after, and a mobility component, which is paid to someone who needs help to get around. It is paid at different rates depending on how someone is affected by his or her disability.
To help answer the question whether one can get disability living allowance, the website of the Department for Work and Pensions asks potential applicants:
"Have you needed help for 3 months because of a severe physical or mental illness or disability, and are you likely to need it for at least another six months?"
That seems clear enough. However, all has not been plain sailing with the allowance and the Social Security Committee has commented on problems caused partly by court decisions changing the basis for eligibility but also by flawed administrative procedures which, it observed, fail
"in terms of simplicity and workability".
That is an understatement, and, what is more, it is not clear that things have improved since the Select Committee made that comment.
I should like to draw attention to the case of my constituent, Mr. Douglas Gowan, who lives in Hethersett in south Norfolk. Unfortunately, his case is complicated. The sequence of events is as follows. Mr. Gowan, who is English, worked in the United States for an American company called Amjet, which planned to buy a division of Vosper Thorneycroft in the UK. The decision to buy the UK business was taken in May 1999. The plan was for Mr. Gowan to return to England and run the newly-acquired UK business. Mr. Gowan duly sold his house in the United States and returned to the UK. By December 1999 he was a UK resident.
On 11 August 2000 Mr. Gowan had a very serious accident at Heathrow terminal 4, when he fell down two flights of steps leading to the Paddington express, sustaining very serious injuries, which led to massive swelling and inflammation. A doctor at the hotel where Mr. Gowan was staying took him in a wheelchair to St. Thomas's hospital, where he was refused treatment. The hospital said, wrongly, as it turned out, that he was not entitled to national health service treatment.
Although Mr. Gowan had a UK address by then, the hospital refused to recognise it because he did not have a current NHS number. Instead, with the help of a friend, Mr. Gowan went to the private Cromwell hospital, but that was cripplingly expensive, costing several thousand pounds a day. Again with the assistance of a friend, Mr. Gowan obtained a wheelchair-assisted flight to Milwaukee in the United States, where he still had some medical insurance. He was in a very serious condition and had to be stretchered off the aircraft. He was taken straight to Columbia hospital in Milwaukee.
54WH
Since the accident, Mr. Gowan has received extensive medical treatment and been seen by various specialists. He has been diagnosed with eosinophilic fasciitis with some variations. It is a rare neuromuscular disorder in which cells are activated to attack the immune system and the muscular control of the body. It is said to affect as few as one in 2 million people. There are periods of intense cramps and extreme pain, and sometimes what would be described in layman's terms as paralysis and total immobilisation. However, it is episodic. Mr. Gowan can lose the use of his legs suddenly, and fall down without warning.
It should be emphasised, since it is important with respect to what happened later in one of the disability living allowance appeal tribunal hearings in Norwich—there have been three such hearings so far—that Mr. Gowan had been habitually resident in the United Kingdom from December 1999 and that that fact is not contested by the Department for Work and Pensions or the Benefits Agency. When Mr. Gowan returned to England, he eventually applied for the DLA on 14 June 2001. The application was not recorded until 9 July 2001, but it is not now contested that he applied in June.
On Friday 17 August, Mr. Gowan was telephoned by a Dr. Alistair Purves, who said that he represented the Government and needed to make a disability assessment. He asked whether he could visit the following Sunday, 19 August. Mr. Gowan found it strange that a doctor should want to visit on a Sunday, but he agreed. When Dr. Purves arrived, he told Mr. Gowan that he did not have the proper forms with him, but he took notes on a plain paper pad. Dr. Purves made no physical examination whatever, but sat in an armchair while Mr. Gowan was on a sofa opposite. Dr. Purves asked questions, made notes and commented at some length on the inadequacies of the US medical system.
On 21 September 2001, Mr. Gowan was informed that he was "not entitled" to the DLA. Dr. Purves's report was enclosed with the letter. For the first time, Mr. Gowan saw what Dr. Purves had written. Let it be remembered that Dr. Purves had not brought the proper forms with him and had said as much to Mr. Gowan when he arrived. Immediately on receiving the form, Mr. Gowan could see that his name was misspelt, the entry for his date of birth was incorrect and the report said that he could walk
"800 metres in 5 minutes",
whereas in fact he had said
"80 metres once a day and it could take 5 to 10 minutes".
There were some 32 factual inaccuracies in the form.
There was a tick in the box that stated that Mr. Gowan had read the form, although of course he had not even seen the form before, let alone ticked any box. Even more seriously, there was a signature purporting to be Mr. Gowan's, although it was in printed, separated letters and was not in fact his signature.
Although I am jumping ahead in the narrative, it may help to explain that following complaints by Mr. Gowan about Dr. Purves's behaviour, including to the General Medical Council, the medical services division of SchlumbergerSema—the contractor that is responsible to the Government for undertaking medical assessments—launched a serious complaint investigation team on the case.

55WH
In a letter to Mr. Gowan on 17 July 2002, SchlumbergerSema stated:
"Medical Services has reviewed the performance of Dr Purves and will now be making a request to the Chief Medical Adviser within the Department for Work and Pensions to remove him from the list of doctors approved to undertake disability assessments".
In short, Dr. Purves was removed for cause.
Dr. Purves does not accept the very serious allegation that he forged Mr. Gowan's signature on the form. However, he does admit ticking the box stating that Mr. Gowan had read the DLA140 form, which of course he had not done.
A letter to the GMC from the Medical Protection Society on behalf of Dr. Purves, dated 18 October 2002, stated:
"Dr. Purves accepts that, while there was no guidance to state he should do otherwise at the time, it was nevertheless an inappropriate shortcut to tick the box indicating that the person under assessment had read DLA140".
That is a fact; it is not in dispute.
It is also not in dispute—I am jumping ahead slightly once again, but it is worth stressing this—that the Appeals Service accepts that Mr. Gowan did not sign the form. The chairman of the tribunal, Mr. McDonald, stated at the most recent hearing, on 14 July 2003:
"You may take it that we accept that you did not sign the DLA 140 form".
To return to the sequence of events, after having been told on 21 September 2001 that he was "not entitled" to the DLA, Mr. Gowan filed for reconsideration on 2 October 2001. His request for reconsideration was denied on 3 November 2001, but no reasons were given.
On 4 December 2001, Mr. Gowan filed an appeal, which was heard in Norwich on 18 February 2002. His appeal was denied. However, at the hearing he was denied a chance to present witnesses or even to offer documentary evidence to the tribunal.
As the right to a fair hearing is one of the most basic rules of natural justice, and the denial of a fair hearing was plainly unjust, Mr. Gowan accordingly applied to the regional chairman of the Appeals Service, Mr. Robert Martin, who is based in Nottingham, for the decision to be set aside.
On 12 April, Mr. Martin set the decision aside, and gave his reasons for doing so. He said:
"It appears to me just to set aside the tribunal decision because of the non-receipt of these documents, which are likely to be relevant to the issues under appeal, especially as much of Mr Gowan's argument in the appeal itself turned upon the question of the adequacy of the medical evidence that was actually given before the tribunal."
A new hearing for the tribunal was arranged. Mr. Gowan was informed in a memo some two months beforehand that it would take place on 18 February 2003, by coincidence a year to the day later than the first hearing. He then received a letter of 29 January 2003, which stated:
"Your appeal has been allocated a hearing date for 18 March 2003."
Mr. Gowan naturally thought that that was slightly odd because he had thought that the appeal was going to be on 18 February. He telephoned the Norwich benefits
56WH
office to check the date as he had his witnesses lined up for the date that he had originally been told. The Norwich office confirmed the date of 18 March 2003, and said that it, too, had received the letter. Mr. Gowan accordingly informed his witnesses, including the medical experts, that the date was now 18 March 2003.
On 3 February 2003, Mr. Gowan received a letter stating that the appeal hearing had been scheduled for 18 February 2003 and not 18 March, as had been stated. The letter concluded:
"I apologise for any inconvenience my error may have caused."
By that time, Mr. Gowan had told his witnesses about the new date and some of them were now unable to attend on 18 February as they had made other plans. The whole point was that the previous year he had not been able to present witnesses at the hearing. That was why the decision was quashed. It now seemed that he would once again be unable to present his witnesses.
Mr. Gowan asked for a postponement. On 12 February 2003, he received a letter that stated:
"The request for a postponement has been refused…The tribunal can decide the appeal even if you are not at the hearing. As you have asked for an oral hearing, you may consider it is important you are there."
At that point I decided, as Mr. Gowan's Member of Parliament, that I should attend the hearing with him, as it was looking alarmingly possible that once again there would be an unfair and unjust hearing.
The tribunal met on 18 February 2003 and adjourned the hearing to a later date, having issued directions regarding further evidence that was needed to enable it to reach a decision. I shall describe the directions from the chairman of the tribunal, which I heard myself as I was at the tribunal. Mr. Gowan was asked to provide within 14 days a list of witnesses and any dates that should be avoided, which he did. The Secretary of State was to report within 14 days whether the report by Dr. Purves containing his original assessment of Mr. Gowan's condition was still relied on and, if so, to what extent. To date, there has still been no report from the Secretary of State on whether that report is to be relied on at all.
Another direction was that there should be a complete bundle of appeal papers, prepared as one bundle. On the Friday evening before the third hearing, which eventually took place on Monday 14 July, Mr. Gowan received an incomplete and out-of-sequence bundle at 5.30 pm, and only then after numerous telephone calls and complaints.
Another direction was that the Secretary of State was to produce all documentary evidence relating to the original DLA claim and the new claim, including a report from Mr. Gowan's treating physician, Dr. Naftalin, which entirely rebutted Dr. Purves's diagnosis. Again, that still has not happened, even now.
The hearing was eventually scheduled for 14 July 2003, when the tribunal met again. I also attended that hearing. Strangely, the chairman raised a new point of law at the hearing as to whether Mr. Gowan actually had the right to receive disability living allowance, as it was possible that he did not meet the residency test. As I stressed earlier, the Department did not contest the fact that Mr. Gowan met the habitual residency test. That point was raised by the chairman at the last minute during the lunch hour. He produced a photocopied page

57WH
of the relevant regulation, but did not produce a second page on which the text continued to state the exceptions to the residency rule. The appeal was again denied and in July Mr. Gowan asked for the reasons to be given. That has also not been done.
Will the Minister explain why my constituent, Mr. Gowan, is being treated like that? As a matter of law, when a tribunal issues a ruling, is it binding on the Government, the Department and the Benefits Agency as well as on the appellants? The Government have failed to do what they were asked: they have failed to report within 14 days on whether Dr. Purves' report is reliable; they have failed to produce a complete bundle of the documents; and they have refused to produce all the documentary evidence relating to the case. Incidentally, the Department admitted at the hearing on 14 July that it knew about the letter of August 2001 from Dr. Naftalin that rebutted Dr. Purves' diagnosis. If the tribunals are binding, and the Government have to abide by their rulings, in the absence of Government compliance with them, can my constituent possibly present a fair case?
The disability living allowance is a valuable benefit for many people. It is possible that it is abused by some people, and as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I understand the Government's concern to ensure that abuse does not occur. However, it seems to me that the system is not working—there is systemic failure. My constituent, who is currently suffering, is a genuine case who has been waiting far too long to receive satisfaction after an accident that took place three years ago.
3.47 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): May I first say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what a pleasure it is to be here before you again so close to the middle of summer? We are not quite used to sitting in Westminster Hall at this time of year.
I also congratulate the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) on bringing the case before the Chamber and setting out the chronology and his understanding of it. He clearly has a close, personal interest in the case and attended some of the hearings and I do not dispute the chronology that he has set out. I will do my utmost to deal with some points that he raised, but I am unsighted on some issues. I have a chronology of the case, but it is not as detailed as his and if I am unable to satisfy him on any points now, I will get back to him later to deal with them.
I concur with the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks about disability living allowance being a valuable benefit that provides for the extra costs faced by almost 2.5 million disabled people in Britain. I remind him that administering the benefit is extremely difficult. That is partly because of the design of the benefit and the fact that it is not totally medicalised; he might find that hard to believe in view of the circumstances that he set out. Its purpose is to establish the impact of the disability on the claimant and the need for extra care and mobility. That is not dependent primarily on the diagnosis of the condition, but on the evaluation of the effect that the condition has on the care and mobility requirements of the individual. That can vary widely between two people with exactly the same condition, which makes it inherently difficult and subjective to administer.
58WH
There is also the curse—although it is disappearing slightly—of dealing with the benefit in an almost totally clerical manner. Unfortunately, there is scope within clerical systems for things to go missing and for the wrong dates to be sent out. That happens far too often and is something that we are trying to tackle by modernising and improving our systems to cope with lots of very individualised information from different parts of the country. Getting that to where it needs to be in clerical form is not always as easy as it sounds. I am the first to accept that things sometimes go wrong.
I know from my past legal practice that once a case starts to go wrong, it quite often gets worse before it is put right. Listening to the sequence of events that the hon. Gentleman has set out, it struck me that this is such a case. Not only did the doctor turn out to be Dr. Purves who has resigned from medical services and is no longer used—
Mr. Bacon: It is true that, through the Medical Protection Society, Dr. Purves gave an undertaking to the General Medical Council that he would no longer undertake that kind of work, but the investigation by the serious complaint investigation team at SchlumbergerSema actually found that
"Medical Services…will now be making a request to the Chief Medical Adviser within the Department for Work and Pensions to remove him from the list of doctors approved to undertake assessments".
It was not merely the case that he resigned; he was removed from the list of those approved and removed for cause.
Maria Eagle: It may be pedantic, but he may have resigned just before he was removed. In any event, I accept that he was removed for cause. I would certainly not have liked that standard of service to represent what is on offer to disabled people who are seeking to obtain the benefit or to explore their entitlement to it. I fully accept that his standard of behaviour was completely unacceptable. It was good that he was removed, given what he had done.
The clerical administration of such a complex benefit has inherent difficulties. The volume of people that we assist with it—almost 2.5 million—and the amount we disburse, almost £7 billion a year, shows its value. To give the hon. Gentleman a sense of the scale of the task of my officials in trying to administer the benefit, there are some 700,000 claims, reviews and appeals a year with which to deal. It is inevitable that problems happen, although I do not seek to justify that.
The hon. Gentleman has set out a bad case that got worse. My understanding is that his constituent now has the higher rate of mobility component and the middle-rate care component, ordered from 14 January 2002. I accept that the application to which he refers has not been determined in favour of his constituent. It will relieve us all to know that Mr. Gowan made a further claim and that my understanding is that he is in receipt of higher-rate mobility, middle-rate care benefit following a later application, which appears to have proceeded smoothly. We are therefore dealing with whether his entitlement extended from when he applied

59WH
on 14 June 2001 to 14 January 2002, so we are considering the value to Mr. Gowan, apart from all the hassle that he has had, which I accept is extensive—
Mr. Bacon: That is absolutely right. Mr. Gowan is now in receipt of DLA. What is specifically at issue is the question of the six or seven months during which he was not receiving it, but should have been, on the basis of a medical assessment made by Dr. Purves that has been shown to be flawed in so many different respects that Dr. Purves was removed for cause from the list of those approved to undertake assessments. In the light of that, it is important that we understand whether the Government are relying on the report of Dr. Purves. One of the orders that the tribunal made to the Secretary of State was to state the extent to which the Government were relying on the report and it, together with various other orders, has not been complied with to date.
Maria Eagle: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's question. Were I able to answer it today I would do so now. However, my chronology of the case is not as detailed as his. I guessed that he might raise this issue today but I was by no means certain and I did not have the entire file sent to me in advance. I will look at it. I am not aware from my preparation for this debate whether directions made by the tribunal have been met by the Department. I will look into that and let him have our view. I do not doubt him. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman's constituent did not want the appeal to go ahead in the form it did at the time it did, but my understanding is that the appeal was heard and the disallowance was maintained and that is where it rests at present.
Mr. Bacon: My constituent was unhappy for the appeal to go ahead on 18 February 2003, because of the mess over the dates, which was not his fault. The Department admitted that it was its fault. He was fearful once again that he would not be able to present his witnesses. Indeed, the tribunal adjourned on that occasion because it found that it did not have the evidence required. I do not think that my constituent objected to the tribunal taking place on 14 July. We are interested in a question of law. If a tribunal makes a direction to Government to comply with certain
60WH
requirements, how, in the absence of such compliance, can my constituent be expected to enter into a tribunal that is fair or just?
Maria Eagle: I am enough of a lawyer not to trade points of law across the Floor with the hon. Gentleman. My opinion about whether it might be legal would be my opinion. I am no longer certificated and so he could not take it as proper legal advice. I will none the less get back to the hon. Gentleman on this point. I hope that he will appreciate that I cannot do so today.
This debate, short though it has been, has been about a particular instance. I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman prefaced his remarks with generalised praise for the benefit and the good that it can do. We do our utmost and strive repeatedly to improve our processes. When one listens to this kind of chronology one could be forgiven for thinking that we do not always do as well as we might, but many customers are content with the way in which they are dealt with by the Department. They often think that we do not deal with them quickly enough.
We are making extensive efforts using new technology to shorten claim forms to try to make them simpler and more workable. We are constrained to a degree by the law, the tests that have developed for establishing whether people are eligible for various care or mobility components and the ever-increasing complexity of the common law surrounding that. We are on quite a drive at present to simplify the applications both for attendance allowance, which is the care component equivalent for those over 65 and DLA, which has the addition of mobility component. We want to make the questions more relevant. We want my staff to talk to customers to trigger the relevant questions to ask, rather to than ask them questions that are irrelevant because they are not applying for one of the components.
As we go forward with this programme I am hopeful that we will be able to design better application forms that will be simpler, more understandable and more workable for those completing them. The overall aim is to get the entitlement to these benefits right quickly and to get the payments as quickly as possible to those who need them. I regret that Mr. Gowan has had a difficult experience with that first claim, and I undertake to write again to the hon. Gentleman about the point of law that I have been unable to answer. We shall see whether my lawyers will allow me to do that in the way that I want, but I undertake to get back to him about that point.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the Minister for dealing with what was clearly a very complicated case. The House is grateful for her offer to write the hon. Gentleman when she has considered the matter further.

Housing (South-West)
4 pm
Jim Knight: I am pleased to have secured today's debate. Affordable housing is the biggest issue for many of my constituents in South Dorset and for many people throughout the south-west.
If, like me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you are lucky enough to have a decent job—I see that you do—and own your own home, albeit with a large mortgage, as I have, you only observe the problem of affordable housing. You may even benefit from it. In the past two years, the value of my property in Weymouth has increased by 50 per cent. That is great for those of us who own our own homes, but what about the rest? Dorset county council recently commissioned MORI to carry out a residents' survey. It found that 30 per cent. of people believed that the lack of affordable housing was the greatest single issue facing Dorset. It also found that almost half of Dorset families had a household income of less than £15,000 a year.
Some 70 per cent. of householders in Weymouth and Portland cannot afford to buy their own home. How can we sustain our communities if our young families cannot live in them? Last week, I carried out my own survey of residents in the village of Studland in my constituency. Affordable housing was the most important issue for 68 per cent. of them. We spoke to Charles Orchard, a 24-year-old who is still living at home with his parents because he cannot find affordable alternative accommodation. People such as Charles inevitably migrate to towns with cheaper housing, but sadly not for better pay. The average wages in Dorset are the same as those in county Durham. Our tourism economy does not pay well, nor does the care sector or agriculture. The high levels of seasonal employment mean that our unemployment statistics are misleading. Unemployment is high in the winter months when, ironically, the housing supply problem is eased slightly as some holiday lets and caravans become available.
Our low-wage economy contrasts completely with the housing market. We are very lucky in that we live in a beautiful environment. Our coast has world heritage status. All that is crucial to our tourist economy and for growing the seaside trade to a higher value. By in creasing the length of the tourist season, we are encouraging more leisure tourism including walking, sailing and diving. However, that precious environment is also driving up the price of houses. The south-west is a very popular place to retire to. I referred to the £15,000 household income, which is accounted to some extent by the larger than average number of retired householders who have relatively low incomes but relatively low outgoings.
Not all pensioners are badly off. It is true that the falls in the stock market have hit most pensioners hard as private pensions have taken a serious blow. Low interest rates mean low income from savings, and inflation and council tax have hit those on fixed incomes very hard. Nevertheless, the relatively high spending power of those retiring to Dorset has combined with those buying holiday homes to create a high demand for our lovely houses in our lovely villages.
Naturally, we want to protect our environment. We have not wanted to build more houses to meet the demand, and prices have rocketed as a consequence. In
62WH
turn, that means that land values for any development have soared. The planning system does not differentiate between land for executive development, residential development and affordable housing development. That lack of distinction becomes a major block in increasing the supply of affordable housing.
Inflation in the private sector then coincides with problems in the supply of social housing. The late 80s and 90s saw the sell-off of council houses under the right to buy, but that was not accompanied by any significant investment in new build. When I visited Church Knowle recently, the chairman of the parish council told me that only three out of 150 houses in the village are owned by social landlords. As we drove around, he pointed out all the other houses that used to be council houses until they were sold. They are lovely houses at lovely prices.
The same story is told throughout my constituency. Today, housing associations produce, at most, only a third of the new homes that the Government have asked them to produce to meet those inevitable regional targets. In my opinion, the proposal from the Tories, who introduced the right to buy for council tenants and who are, sadly, not here to listen to the debate—
Ms Candy Atherton: Nor are the Liberals.
Jim Knight: Nor are the Liberals, for that matter.
The Tories want to extend the same right to buy to housing association tenants, which would only worsen the situation.
The vision must be that people in social housing and low-cost rented housing should have quality and choice. One of the worst things about the housing cases that I deal with in my constituency is that I know that if I can help influence the council to get one individual housed, it is at the expense of the next deserving case. I know that when a young family threatened with eviction come to see me, they are faced with the prospect of bed and breakfast. That is expensive and normally wholly inappropriate, but the council has little choice. Furthermore, once those people are top of the housing list, they must take whatever they are offered, regardless of schooling, work, transport links or the condition of the property. They have no choice, and once they have moved in, the possibility of transfer is slim. If neighbours moved in next to me and I could not get on with them, I might be able to buy somewhere else and move away from the problem. I have a choice; by and large, social housing tenants do not.
A dad in Worth Matravers—another village near Swanage—came to see me about school transport for his daughter to Swanage middle school. He is on working tax credit and his income is therefore marginally too high for the family to qualify for free transport to school. They live just too close to get in on grounds of distance, so they have to walk all the way to and from school, even during winter, for two miles on a perilous, unlit road with no pavement. Most of us would consider moving to Swanage if we could not drive; my constituent does not have that choice as he is a social housing tenant.
We are a long way from delivering the vision of choice and quality in housing. For now, we just need to try to meet the housing need that we perceive in the south-

63WH
west. I was part of a delegation of south-west Labour MPs who had a meeting with my hon. Friend the Minister on this subject in July. He told us that our region has had a 30 per cent. increase in funding in this financial year and assured us that the recent Rowntree report that highlighted the problem for the south-west, and Purbeck in my constituency in particular, was forcing the Government to reconsider their priorities and the south-west in particular.
The sustainable communities plan, which was published in February 2003, set out the Government's vision for housing and the level of public financing for the development of new and refurbished affordable social housing during the next three years. Some £22 billion has been earmarked, but most of it is going to London and the south-east. My hon. Friend assured us that he would look at the situation again in the light of the Rowntree report. As he knows, I will be going back in a fortnight, having secured a second meeting, for him to meet representatives from the Dorset chief housing officers group and discuss Dorset's particular problems. I am grateful to him for his concern.
Mr. David Drew: My hon. Friend took part in the debate last year on affordable housing, on which the rural group of Labour MPs are publishing a paper tomorrow; that was a quick plug. From talking to my rural housing providers, I know that one issue that has gone down particularly badly recently is the proposal, which the Government are consulting on, to offer grants to developers with regard to social and affordable housing provision. Will he comment on the overwhelming view of the affordable and social housing industry that we should not offer any special grant assistance to developers?
Jim Knight: I was speaking earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ), who unfortunately had to go to a Select Committee. Had she been able to come here, she would have made a similar point, as well as commenting on the growth of housing association properties that she has seen in the Forest of Dean in the past six years.
The Government have also legislated to end the 50 per cent. council tax discount for second home owners. There are many second homes in my area, and that significant change was welcomed by my constituents. Councils will soon be able to charge 90 per cent. of the full rate. I hope that that will achieve two things; check the boom in holiday home ownership, which has done so much to inflate house prices, and release money for investment in affordable housing and tackling rural deprivation.
I also pay tribute to the Government's work on planning and how planning can assist in tackling the problem. Increasing the amount of housing development on brownfield sites is important in protecting the countryside. Increasing the proportion of affordable housing within developments is also making a difference, but there is a long way to go. That is why I welcome the consultation by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on changes to planning policy guidance 3, entitled "Influencing the size, type and affordability of
64WH
housing", which recommends allowing planning authorities to designate land in rural areas specifically for affordable housing within their local plans.
However, why stop at villages? Why not include market towns with populations of more than 3,000 and designated development boundaries? Rural towns have few brownfield sites and relatively low land values, so that where there is contamination or other extra development costs it is difficult to have a high proportion of affordable housing without substantial subsidy. However, policy directs those in housing need to those towns. People migrate from rural areas to rural towns, which adds to the housing need of those towns' populations. Such towns have suffered a great loss o previously affordable housing stock through the right to buy. It seems logical to allow planning authorities to designate land for development for affordable housing in those towns, as well as in villages.
In my constituency, sustaining the villages requires developments of one or two dozen affordable homes but that, collectively, will not meet the housing needs of the district, which is generated proportionately in the market towns themselves. However, planning authorities cannot currently generate the capacity to meet that demand.
I also ask the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to look again at a tariff system on all new homes or other commercial development, as suggested in the planning Green Paper. That would counter the evasion by private developers of the thresholds that require them to build affordable homes. A tariff system would generate money to invest locally in varied schemes to tackle that problem. More investment is needed, so I ask the Government to consider the needs of Dorset and the south-west region in the light of the Joseph Rowntree report "Can work—can't buy" that was published in May and to which I referred earlier. I also press local authorities to play their part.
Ms Atherton: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case about the problems that we face in the south-west. Would he care to comment on the situation of the Liberal Democrat Carrick council in my constituency, which last year failed to provide one affordable house in the district?
Jim Knight: I am not familiar with the details of Carrick, but if no affordable property is being built, the administration at that council should look carefully at the proceeds that it will get from being able to charge second home owners extra council tax, so that there is a resource to use.
In the survey that we carried out in Studland, 72 per cent. of residents wanted the extra money generated by increasing council tax on second home owners to be spent exclusively on affordable housing, not cutting council tax bills. No doubt local councils will call on central Government to increase their funding for housing in the region, but they will also have the opportunity, like Carrick, to put their money where their mouths are.
There are four other areas on which I would like the Department to reflect. The first issue is empty homes. I am told that there are 60,000 in the south-west alone. No doubt if we can bring those into use, it will make a

65WH
substantial difference. I should be interested to hear from the Minister how the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is working with councils to release those homes for affordable housing.
Secondly, I am interested in whether there is more that the Treasury can do. I gather that in the United States there is a tax incentive for property owners to rent out their homes. Given the attractiveness of property as an investment, we should consider whether capital gains tax could be waived or discounted if properties were offered to registered social landlords to manage as homes to let to those in housing need. Alternatively, the Treasury could consider a premium rate of stamp duty on sales of homes where the purchaser will not be using the property as their main home. The proceeds of that could then be reinvested in housing and we could offer some disincentive to the growth of second home ownership in those areas where it is particularly strong.
Thirdly, I ask the Government to explore new forms of shared ownership. The Minister will be interested to know that in Studland a 68 per cent. share in a shared ownership property was recently available. The cost of that share was £124,440, which is no longer affordable; great for the seller, but completely hopeless for the future. If the original conveyancing on that shared ownership property broke the link with the market prices, we could keep those properties affordable. Their resale could be restricted not only to local people, but perhaps to the retail prices index or the rebuilding cost plus any land inflation that had taken place in the meantime.
In summary, I ask the Government to acknowledge and prioritise the problem that we face throughout the south-west, to reflect that priority in a continued increase in resource allocations to the region and to be more radical in changing the planning policy, although, as I said, I welcome the moves that they have made. I also ask them to examine the potential for tax incentives and the conditions in property conveyancing to protect local people in areas where affordable housing is needed, so that we can build homes for people throughout the south-west.
4.15 pm
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill): I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) on securing the debate and on bringing this important issue to the attention of the House in a lively and thoughtful speech, which contained many ideas that will bear further consideration.
I am pleased to see that my hon. Friends the Members for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton), for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) and for Stroud (Mr. Drew) are present, giving tangible expression to their shared concern about these matters.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset is right that the south-west is grappling with rapid house price inflation, which has occurred in a relatively short space of time in many places in the region. The situation is exacerbated by the fact that the south-west suffers the double impact of significantly higher than average house prices, and lower than average incomes. My hon. Friend has graphically described the consequences of that state of affairs for his constituents.
Dorset is a very attractive county, and many people are attracted by its quality of life. It has beautiful countryside, pretty towns and villages, and a
66WH
breathtaking coastline of international importance that has been recognised as a world heritage site. That highly attractive environment means that it is not surprising that "in-migration" to Dorset is among the highest in the country. As a result, Dorset has experienced the second highest population growth among the English counties, and that trend is set to continue.
An increasing population adds pressures in several different ways; for example, on health and other local services. However, perhaps the most obvious consequence is pressure on housing, particularly when households with equity relocate to a county. We can see the impact of that in a variety of ways. House prices in Dorset have risen by more than 35 per cent. in two years. The average house price in the county is £193,795, which is well above the national average, and only slightly lower than the average for the south-east of England. Across the south-west as a whole, the average house price is £164,036, which is the highest nationwide, outside London and the south-east.
Another pressure on the local housing market, to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset alluded, is second homes. The percentage of dwellings in Dorset that are either second homes or holiday homes is more than four times the national average; in Purbeck and west Dorset they represent 5 per cent. of the housing stock.
The factors at play in Dorset are seen elsewhere in the south-west. The rapid growth in house prices is a product of increasing population and a generally successful economy in an attractive region. Overall, the south-west was England's fastest growing region in terms of population from 1981 to 2001. The rate of increase was more than double the national average. Population growth has been mostly in rural areas, and among people over 45 years of age. However, the overall picture obscures some drastic differences across the region.
Gross domestic product per capita in Swindon is just over £18,000, whereas in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly it is just over £8,000. Average house prices in the Cotswold district are nearly 2.5 times those in Plymouth. In some local government wards in the south-west, mean house prices are eight times the level of mean incomes. The unfortunate flip side of that state of affairs is that the regional homelessness figures showed an increase of 23 per cent. between 1990 and 2000. In 2001–02, the south-west had the third highest proportion of homeless people in England—5.3 per thousand.
In the light of those circumstances, I want to reassure the House that the Government are fully aware of the challenges and difficulties that are faced by many places throughout the south-west, which is a region of huge diversity in its economy and environment. The Government share my hon. Friend's concern about the housing pressures facing Dorset and the south-west in general, and I shall outline some of the measures that we are taking in response.
The Government are spending more money on affordable housing. My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset has mentioned the statistic; in 2003–04 we shall provide no less than a 30 per cent. increase in funding under the main approved development programme for social housing. That amounts to £20 million extra for housing in the south-west, bringing the total to £81 million. That will deliver about 2,000 more affordable homes for the region in 2003–04.

67WH
Affordable housing is a big concern in rural areas and the south-west is the most rural of all England's regions, with 93 per cent. of its area classed as rural. Over half the population lives outside major urban conurbations. A key issue for the region is the provision of sufficient housing to meet increasing demand in its rural communities, particularly for local people who cannot afford high house prices.
The White Paper "Our Countryside: The Future—A Fair Deal for Rural England" sets challenging targets for the provision of affordable housing in rural settlements of fewer than 3,000 people. In the south-west, we aim to deliver 350 new affordable homes in villages in 2003–04, and to increase that to, on average, more than 380 per year in the following two years. I shall certainly reflect on my hon. Friend's suggestion that we might widen the scope and role of the affordable housing scheme in market towns, but I can offer no guarantees on that.
Another key action by the Government that will help the housing situation in the south-west relates to planning. The Government's planning policy guidance note PPG3 seeks sufficient, better designed homes to meet housing need. PPG3 requires that we must build compact developments in towns and cities as a priority. PPG3 promotes well designed housing developments that do not waste land and a more sustainable approach to housing planning, which requires better integration of new housing with transport and other community infrastructure and services.
We have to ensure a better mix of housing that reflects the needs of everyone, not just the market for large detached housing. On 17 July I issued a written parliamentary statement relating to changes to PPG3 to widen the range of housing opportunity in terms of size, type and affordability. I welcome my hon. Friend's support for that initiative. My proposals underline the Government's determination that the planning system must facilitate the provision of new homes in the right place—focusing on brownfields first, but using greenfield land where appropriate—and at the right time, to meet planned numbers. My proposals will help to deliver more affordable housing without affecting overall housing numbers, and a better match between a community's housing needs and supply.
Although we have been mainly concerned today with the quantity of housing provision, it is important to say a few words about quality. My hon. Friend is probably aware that the Government have set a challenging target for all local authority and housing association homes to reach a decent homes standard by 2010 and we are working closely with providers to ensure that that target for social housing is met, and that the £19 billion in arrears for repairs to social housing is at last dealt with. We have also set a target to increase the proportion of private housing in decent condition occupied by vulnerable groups.
68WH
The House should also be aware that we are working with local authorities to end families being housed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation except in emergencies, from March 2004, and to sustain the reduction in rough sleeping, so that from 2002 it remains at or below two thirds of the 1998 level.
In 2002–03 more than £2.6 million of additional funding will have gone to 10 local authorities in the south-west to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping: Bournemouth, Plymouth, Bristol, Exeter, Gloucester, South Gloucestershire, Salisbury, Kerrier, Restormel and Christchurch.
We are delivering up to 460 homes for key workers in health, education and the police service over the three-year period to 2003–04 through the starter home initiative, which will ensure the continuing provision of essential services in the years to come. Beyond 2003–04, investment in key worker housing will depend on regional priorities and contributions from Departments and/or employers.
The mention of regional priorities brings me to a further important development in Government policy. The Government recognise that one size cannot fit all regions. We in London cannot, and should not, set out a prescriptive approach for all the issues facing the south-west. It is important that the south-west owns the agenda and seeks its own solutions. That is why we have set up the regional housing boards, to give each region an opportunity to identify its key housing priorities and to create its own response within a coherent national framework.
The south-west housing body has just prepared its first housing strategy for the region. I shall respond formally to its document in due course, but I am pleased that it has promoted a debate with an impressive range of stakeholders on the future of housing in the south-west.
It is important that the region owns its solutions, so the Government are providing the framework and resources to enable regional stakeholders to deliver more and better housing. We know the challenges all too well. Dorset has one of the fastest growing populations in the country, which is making it more and more difficult for local people on moderate incomes to find a home of their own. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset that the housing needs of the south-west are firmly in our minds, just as much as those of all the other regions in the country.
My Department's key objective is sustainable communities in all regions. Today's debate has been an excellent opportunity to reinforce the Government's commitment to a better future for the south-west, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important subject and permitting me to set out the Government's policies in response.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Four o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Prime Minister when he last visited Galloway and Upper Nithsdale constituency. [128013]

  The Prime Minister
  Regrettably, I have been unable to do so, but I hope to visit the hon. Member's constituency at some point in the future.

  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 16 July 2003 to the question tabled by the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West whether it is policy to hold regular meetings with(a) the First Minister of the Scottish Parliament and (b) the First Minister of the National Assembly for Wales. [127961]

  The Prime Minister
  I have meetings with both First Ministers on a regular basis, both bilaterally and through the Joint Ministerial Committee.

  Media Training
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Prime Minister what the cost was to his Department of media and voice training for Ministers and officials in each year since 1997. [123129]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer the Minister for the Cabinet Office gave him on 1 September,Official Report, column 693W.

  Tibet
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise the issue of Tibet with the Chinese Government during his forthcoming visit to China. [128183]

  The Prime Minister
  I raised human rights with the Chinese Premier, and underlined our interest in an ongoing dialogue with China over human rights issues. I also discussed Tibet with the Chinese leadership, and welcomed recent contact between the Chinese authorities and representatives of the Dalai Lama.

  World Trade Organisation
  John Barrett
  To ask the Prime Minister what his priorities will be at the World Trade Organisation's fifth Ministerial Conference in September; and if he will make a statement. [127941]

  The Prime Minister
  We will work for a successful outcome to the current round of world trade negotiations that benefits industrialised and developing countries alike.

  The recent agreement on the issue of affordable medicines for the world's poorest nations is a step in the right direction.
  316W
  Our immediate objective now is to secure agreement on a framework for an agreement on agriculture—where the EU has shown its commitment to the Round in agreeing ambitious changes to the CAP.

  We shall also be pressing for progress on reducing nonagricultural tariffs, increasing services liberalisation and agreeing special and differential treatment for developing countries.

TREASURY

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what Government spending was on HM Customs and Excise in real terms in each of the last five years. [127409]

  John Healey
  HM Customs and Excise reported their total public spending figures in Table 1 (Total spending for HM Customs & Excise) of Appendix 3 of their Spring Department al report 2003 (Cm 5924). Actual outturn is reported for the four financial years from 1998–99 to 2001–02.

  No figures are available in comparable resource accounting terms for the financial year 1997–98. The actual resource outturn figure for 2002–03 will be published in Schedule 1 of the Resource Accounts in their annual report this autumn.

  Public spending figures can be adjusted to 2000–01 price levels by applying the Treasury's GDP deflator, as shown in the table.

  £ million

  Financial year

  Actual public spending

  Real terms spending

  1998–99

  897

  963

  1999–2000

  921

  965

  2000–01

  847

  868

  2001–02

  1,106

  1,106

  Online Tax Assessment
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many tax filers submitted their self-assessment form electronically using the Inland Revenue's on-line programme in(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01, (c) 2001–02 and (d) 2002–03. [127073]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue received the following number of returns electronically in the following years:

  1999–2000—The number of returns received electronically by the Inland Revenue was 309,510. All of these were received via the Electronic Lodgement Service as the Internet service was not available until 3 July 2000.

  2000–01—The number of returns received electronically by the Inland Revenue was 336,127. 296,837 of these were received via the Electronic Lodgement Service and 39,290 via the Internet Service.
  317W
  2001–02—The number of returns received electronically by the Inland Revenue was 419,236. 343,009 of these were received via the Electronic Lodgement Service and 76,287 via the Internet Service.

  2002–03—The number of tax returns received electronically by the Inland Revenue was 705,690. 370,051 of these were received via the Electronic Lodgement Service and 335,639 via the Internet service.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of UK tax-filers submitted their self-assessment form electronically using the Inland Revenue's on-line programme in the tax year 2002–03. [127074]

  Dawn Primarolo
  7.8 per cent. of taxpayers submitted their Self Assessment forms electronically in the tax year 2002–03. 3.71 per cent. (335,639) used the Inland Revenue's Internet service and 4.09 per cent. (370,051) used the Inland Revenue's Electronic Lodgement Service.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the Government's target for take-up of the Inland Revenue's self-assessment on-line programme by UK tax-filers was in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03; what it is for the 2003–04 tax period; and how these targets were derived. [127075]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue does not have specific targets for each year.
  The Inland Revenue Public Service Agreement 2003–2006 posted on the Inland Revenue Internet site on 14 February 2003 sets out the targets for electronic filing.
  The Inland Revenue has set a target of 25 per cent. of SA returns filed electronically by 2005–06 (i.e. 2.2 million of 8.8 million returns), including but not differentiating those filed by agents. Electronically means Filing by Internet Service (FBI) or Electronic Lodgement Service (ELS).

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how HM Treasury is determining the value for money paid for the Inland Revenue's self-assessment on-line system. [127076]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Determining the value for money of an individual project is the responsibility of the department implementing it.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether an evaluation of the Inland Revenue's self-assessment on-line programme will be included in the review of the Inland Revenue and HM Customs and Excise announced on 2nd July. [127077]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Weston-superMare (Brian Cotter) on 2 July 2003,Official Report, column 270W.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how much HM Treasury allocated to the marketing of the Government's e-agenda for the Inland Revenue's self assessment on-line programme in(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01, (c) 2001–02 and (d) 2002–03; 127081]
  318W
  (2) how much HM Treasury spent on the marketing of the Government's e-agenda for the Inland Revenue's self assessment on-line programme in (a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01, (c) 2001–02 and (d) 2002–03. [127082]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answers given to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) in January 2003,Official Report, column 1061–63W and to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) in May 2002, Official Report, column 36W that detail all Treasury departments' marketing communications spend for the period, including for Self Assessment.
  The annual Self-Assessment campaign includes the promotion of the online service as part of a wider package.
  The three main messages of the campaign are: file by the due deadline, file early and file online. Most advertising will carry a combination of these messages accompanied by information about the support available but broadly speaking, around a third of the campaign effort is weighted toward e-filing messages, with online (internet) advertising concentrating on this issue.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what role he plans for the private sector in assisting the Government to meet its targets for take-up of the Inland Revenue self-assessment on-line programme. [127084]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue has worked closely with relevant parts of the Private Sector since the SA on-line programme was introduced. The filing product was created in close consultation with the software industry and equal prominence is given to third party software products on the Inland Revenue Website.
  An advertisement was published in May in "Government Opportunities" encouraging potential SA filing partners to come forward, and various joint initiatives are currently being worked on with independent software vendors, payroll companies and financial organisations.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how his Department is evaluating the results being achieved with regard to the percentage of UK tax-filers submitting their self-assessment form electronically using the Inland Revenue's on-line programme against the Government's pre-set targets. [127085]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Public Service Agreement 2003–06 sets out the targets for electronic filing. The Inland Revenue has set a target of 25 per cent. of SA returns filed electronically by 2005–06, including but not differentiating those filed by agents. Electronically means Filing by Internet (FBI) or Electronic Lodgement Service (ELS).
  The Inland Revenue counts the total number of returns received and how many of these have been received electronically to monitor its progress against the target.
  The achievement of the target will be assessed and reported annually and subject to validation by the Inland Revenue's Internal Audit Office.
  319W
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the actual per-return cost to HM Treasury was of the Inland Revenue's self assessment on-line in(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01, (c) 2001–02 and (d) 2002–03 with regard to electronic tax filing; and what the projected cost is for the 2003–04 tax year. [127086]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue's on-line service for Self-Assessment Tax Returns went live in 2000–01 (on 3rd July 2000).

  The "per return" costs were:

  £ per return

  2000–01

  187.83

  2001–02

  105.93

  2002–03

  33.13

  The projected "per return" cost for 2003–04 is £16.35 per return.

  Tax Changes
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library an estimate of the impact on the level of income of a transfer of all changes in the total level of taxation since 1997 to income tax, broken down by households with annual incomes of up to(a) £30,000, (b) £50,000, (c) £75,000 and (d) above £75,000. [127059]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There are many ways in which income tax increments or decrements equivalent to changes in current receipts since 1997 could be represented. These include raising or lowering one or more of the income tax allowances, increasing or reducing one or more of the tax rates or the size of an income band to which that rate applies and introducing new lower or higher rate bands or allowances. The impact on households with very different annual incomes would very much depend on which approach was adopted.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Business Rating System
  Brian White
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what progress has been made in the review of the business rating system as it applies to communications infrastructure. [126021]

  Mr. Timms
  I have been asked to reply.

  Representatives from industry, DTI, ODPM, Oftel and the Valuation Office Agency have met. The Department will now set in motion procedures to appoint a person or persons to carry out further analysis.

  Environmental Impact Appraisals
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many of the Department's policies have been screened for their environmental impact since June 2001; how many environmental appraisals have been conducted,320W
  and on what policy issues; and what information has been published about these screenings and appraisals. [124708]

  Keith Hill
  All Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's policies are screened for their impacts in a range of areas, including environmental impacts.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has to date published no free-standing environmental appraisals of its policies.

  Sunderland Football Club
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which Minister will determine the appeal by Sunderland Football Club against the refusal by the local planning authority to permit development of its training centre. [127087]

  Keith Hill
  Sunderland Association Football Club have applied for planning permission for an indoor training barn, student hostel, groundsman's store and perimeter fencing at Whitburn Moor, Cleadon. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has recovered for his own determination four related appeals made by Sunderland AFC against refusal of planning permission and one further application for planning permission which was called-in by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister to be considered at the same time as the appeals.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the ethnic make-up is of the new Afghan National Army. [127135]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We do not receive detailed breakdowns of personnel who have passed through the US-led Afghan National Army training programme. But indications from earlier this year were that about half of those trained were Tajiks, around a quarter Pashtuns and the remainder split fairly evenly between Uzbeks and Hazaras.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is being done to promote the rights of(a) women and (b) children in the new constitution of Afghanistan. [127136]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Afghan Constitutional Commission was convened on 25 April. Its 35 members (including 7 women) are tasked with providing a draft constitution, overseeing preparations for a Constitutional Loya Jirga later this year which will adopt it, and ensuring that the public are informed of—and involved in——the process. The UK has given £500,000 to support a UN-led process of popular consultation to ensure that as many Afghans as possible are able to engage in public debate. The Commission has also met with the Ministry for Women's Affairs, a number of women's NGOs, the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission and other civil society groups to discuss how to incorporate women's and children's rights into the draft constitution.
  321W
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action is being taken to reduce the level of violence in Afghanistan. [127137]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Coalition operations against extremist elements in Afghanistan are ongoing, especially in the south. The International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) continues to help maintain security in Kabul. Four Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) have deployed to regional centres to help extend the authority of central government, improve the security environment and facilitate reconstruction. These include the UK PRT in Mazar-e Sharif, which is helping to reduce tensions between rival regional commanders. Efforts to establish a new, multi-ethnic Afghan National Army and reform the police are continuing. The UK is helping train Afghan NCOs and developing a police crime scene investigation capability.

  British Exports
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the occasions since 1997 when Ministers from his Department have accompanied British firms on visits overseas to promote export marketing and sales, indicating the name of the Minister and the country visited in each case. [128407]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Information on such visits is not recorded centrally in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Burma
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the(a) Governments of (i) Thailand, (ii) China, (iii) Japan and (iv) Vietnam and (b) the United Nations regarding the arrest and detention of Burmese opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi. [126764]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We take advantage of regular bilateral and multilateral contacts with all Asian nations, including Thailand, China Japan and Vietnam to press for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, national reconciliation and an improvement in Burma's human rights record. From my discussions at the Asia-Europe (ASEM) Foreign Ministers' Meeting in Bali in July it was clear that Burma's international isolation is growing. We are also in discussion with the appropriate bodies of the UN on how to take these matters forward.

  Child Protection
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action is being taken by the Government to protect(a) child workers, (b) sexually exploited children and (c) child victims of trafficking in (i) Africa, (ii) Asia, (iii) the Pacific, (iv) Latin America, (v) the Caribbean and (vi) the Middle East. [128394]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Government are committed to the promotion and protection of child rights worldwide. We urge all countries to ratify and implement the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which sets the standard for guaranteeing children's rights and contains specific provisions on child labour, trafficking and protection from sexual abuse. The FCO's Human 322W
  Rights Project Fund is currently funding over £450,000 worth of practical projects with local NGOs to tackle these and other child rights issues. Details are available at www.fco.gov.uk/hum an rights.

  In addition, the Department for International Development provides substantial financial and technical assistance to the International Labour Organisation's (ILO) International Programme for the Elimination of Child Labour. This campaign aims to achieve universal ratification and implementation of ILO Conventions 138 on Minimum Age for Employment and 182 on the Worst Forms of Child Labour, which include trafficking and prostitution.

  China
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had and intends to have with the Chinese Government regarding(a) the occupation of and (b) human rights abuses in Tibet. [128186]

  Mr. Rammell
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised our concerns about Tibet with Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing on 25 June and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister discussed Tibet with the Chinese leadership during his recent visit to China.

  We remain concerned about the human rights situation in Tibet and continue to urge China to enter into dialogue with the Dalai Lama's representatives. We have welcomed the recent visits to China by representatives of the Dalai Lama.

  Defence Exports
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer of 14 July 2003,Official Report, columns 47–48W, how many meetings were attended by his Department's Ministers to promote the export of British defence equipment with officials from (a) Chile, (b) India, (c) Singapore, (d) Czech Republic, (e) Slovakia and (J) Tanzania in (i) 2002 and (ii) 2003; what equipment was discussed; and if he will make a statement. [127657]

  Mr. Straw
  Many of the occasions during which Ministers discuss UK-origin defence equipment with representatives of foreign governments do not form part of formal meetings. It is not therefore possible to provide figures about the number of meetings concerned. Disclosure of the types of equipment concerned may infringe on commercial confidentiality or provide sensitive information on the defence procurement strategies of foreign countries. I am withholding this information under exemptions 1 and 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  European Constitution
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the envisaged primacy given to European legislation over UK legislation in the draft European Constitution will override the authority of the European Communities Act 1972. 127390]
  323W
  Mr. MacShane
  The principle of the primacy of Community law has been central to the operation of the EU since its earliest days. This principle prevents countries from going back on obligations they have made to one another. It is an integral part of the obligations of our EU membership—as it is for all Member States. It is already enshrined in UK law by Section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972.

  George Atkinson
  Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what instructions have been given to his officials in Dubai in connection with the forthcoming release of Mr. George Atkinson from prison; whether Mr. Atkinson will be met by Foreign Office officials on his release; who will be responsible for booking his return flight to the UK and ensuring that he has the necessary travel documents; and on what date he expects Mr.Atkinson to be released. [127877]

  Mr. Mullin
  Mr. Atkinson was released from prison on 1 September and was deported to the UK. Officials at our Embassy in Dubai were in touch with the prison authorities to ensure that the necessary arrangements for Mr. Atkinson's return to the UK were in place. Our Vice Consul met Mr. Atkinson at Dubai airport and accompanied him throughout the deportation process to his flight.

  Guantanamo Bay
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has made a request to the US Administration for the repatriation of British detainees held in Camp Delta, to face, if the evidence justifies, trial in the UK. [127174]

  Mr. Mullin
  We are pressing the US authorities to move forward with the process of determining the future of the British detainees at Guantanamo Bay. We have discussed, and are discussing, a range of options with the US, including the possibility of repatriation.

  Indonesia
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will urge the Indonesian Government to withdraw all non-West Papuan troops and Brimob special forces from West Papua. [127175]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Indonesian Government are within their territorial rights to deploy Indonesian troops and police throughout their country to counter any aggressive external and internal threats. However, we have stressed to the Indonesian Government that any action undertaken in respect to their territorial rights must respect human rights and be in accordance with international law.

  There are a number of areas in Indonesia where the levels of violence raise issues, including Papua. The origins of such conflicts vary and are complex: some are inter-ethnic or inter-religious while others may have economic causes. Our message to the Indonesian Government is clear and consistent: long-term stability can only be achieved through political negotiation and consultation within Indonesia. Together with our
  324W
  European partners, we are in regular, top-level dialogue with the Indonesian Government, and urge them to maintain law and order and promote reconciliation in order to ensure the territorial integrity of Indonesia.

  We are implementing a strategy to tackle the causes of conflict and are working with EU and other partners to help Indonesia build capacity to analyse and respond effectively to outbreaks of violence.

  Iran
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the Government take to monitor the end-use of the dual-use equipment that was licensed for export to Iran during 2000, including toxic chemicals; and if he will make a statement. [127829]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government issued 3 export licences in 2000 for the proposed export of toxic chemical precursors to Iran for use in the oil industry. All were assessed rigorously against the consolidated criteria, which take account of the risk of diversion to undesirable end-users.
  Our overseas posts have standing instructions to report on any allegation of misuse of UK-origin equipment.

  Iraq
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library copies of regulations and orders made by the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq. [127594]

  Mr. Rammell
  I refer my hon. Friend to the website www.cpa-iraq.org/regulations where all the Coalition Provisional Authority Orders and Regulations are available.

  Moazzam Begg
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has received letters sent to him on(a) 6 and (b) 9 July by solicitors representing Mr. Moazzam Begg. [127139]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office received two letters dated 6 July and 9 July from Mr. Begg's solicitors. My hon. Friend the Minister for Europe replied to the letter dated 9 July on 21 August. A substantive response to the 6 July letter will be sent shortly.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department has had with US officials concerning the possibility of Mr. Moazzam Begg and Mr. Feroz Abbasi stranding trial in a US civil court; and if he will make a statement. [127171]

  Mr. Straw
  Mr. Begg and Mr. Abbasi have been designated as eligible to stand trial before a Military Commission, but have not yet been charged.

  The Attorney-General has recently held a number of rounds of talks with the US Administration. His objective has been to ensure that the British nationals detained at Guantanamo Bay, if prosecuted, are assured

  325W
  of fair trials that meet generally recognised principles, wherever those trials take place, and to make clear our opposition to the death penalty. We are discussing a number of options with the US Government. Further talks are planned for the near future.

  Moldova
  Mr. David
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals there are for an EU peacekeeping force to be deployed to Transdniestria in Moldova. [127875]

  Mr. MacShane
  There are currently no proposals for an EU peacekeeping force to be deployed to Transdniestria in Moldova. The EU is working to support the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe's efforts to reach a constitutional settlement.
  326W
  In the event the political talks make sufficient progress towards a settlement, the international community, including the EU, will need to consider the options for any potential stabilisation force.

  Western Sahara
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Morocco concerning recent court judgements affecting the peoples of the Western Sahara. [123463]

  Mr. Rammell
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answers I gave him on 9 July 2003,Official Report, column 820W, 11 July 2003 Official Report, column 1056W and 14 July 2003, Official Report, column 51W.

  Officials in Rabat have raised concerns over court judgments affecting the peoples of the Western Sahara with the Moroccan Government. We continue to monitor the situation in Western Sahara and raise specific cases with the relevant authorities where appropriate.

HEALTH

  Abortions
  Mrs Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many women have died in each of the last 10 years as a direct result of unsafe abortions; and what steps the Government is taking to reduce the number of deaths caused by unsafe abortions. [128401]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Maternal deaths associated with termination of pregnancy that were reported to the Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths for the period 1991 to 1999, are shown in the table. The data for 2000 to 2002 are not yet available.

  The Abortion Act 1967 requires a pregnancy to be terminated by a registered medical practitioner. The General Medical Council's (GMC) Duties of a doctor include making the care of the patient the first concern, keeping professional knowledge and skills up to date and recognising the limits of professional competence. Where there is evidence that a doctor is not fit to practise, the GMC is able to suspend or erase a doctor from the register or place conditions on their registration, As part of each hospital's clinical governance framework, all adverse events, including deaths, are investigated and lessons learned, and any appropriate action taken. In addition, the Commission for Health Improvement and the National Care Standards Commission monitor patient care in the National Health Service and independent sector respectively.

  Maternal deaths associated with termination of pregnancy; United Kingdom 1991–99

  Triennium

  Number of deaths from termination of preganancy1

  Number of these asssociated with substandard care1

  1997–99

  2

  0

  1994–96

  1

  1

  1991–93

  5

  3

  1Figures are from the reports of the Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths in the United Kingdom for the relevant triennium.

  Notes:

  1. From 1991–93 these deaths were defined as occurring before 20 weeks of pregnancy. From 1994, 24 weeks was used as the upper gestational limit. Thus comparisons of the data between triennia may be inappropriate.

  2. There were around 500,000 abortions in the United Kingdom in each three-year period and hence the number of deaths represents less than 0.0001 per cent, of all abortions carried out.

  "Agenda for Change"
  Mrs Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the proposed new pay system for NHS employees, under "Agenda for Change". [124345]

  Mr. Hutton
  "Agenda for Change" has been negotiated over the past four years by staff and 328W
  management representatives working in partnership. Following the conclusion of the union consultation exercise, agreement was reached through the Central Negotiating Group, which includes the four United Kingdom Health Departments, unions and employer representatives, to move to the next phase of testing "Agenda for Change" in early implemented sites. This commenced in June 2003 in 12 sites identified in England, which were selected in partnership with the unions. This phase will provide the opportunity to address any concerns that might arise, through the Central Negotiating Group and when formed, the new National Health Service staff council, with a view to national implementation in October 2004. These sites are being supported by the Modernisation Agency and will develop effective models of implementation for the breadth of organisations represented. All the nationally recognised staff organisations will be represented on the proposed NHS Staff Council.

  We anticipate that NHS Foundation Trusts will begin the "Agenda for Change" implementation process in April 2004 and that all staff in NHS Foundation Trusts will be guaranteed the opportunity of moving to the new pay system.

  Alcohol Advertising
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on alcohol advertising. [127722]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit, in close collaboration with other Government departments, including the Department of Health, is currently developing the national alcohol harm reduction strategy. The Strategy Unit is due to publish an interim analysis of the harms associated with alcohol misuse later this year. The final report, which will set out the cross-Governmental alcohol harm reduction strategy, is planned for publication later this year.

  As part of this project, the Strategy Unit and the Sponsor Minister, the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears), have had ongoing discussions with all relevant stakeholders. The final report will consider a wide variety of issues concerning alcohol misuse, including alcohol advertising.

  Community Pharmacies
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will make a statement on the Government's policy on community pharmacies. [127622]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer the hon. Member to the written ministerial statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on Thursday 17 July 2003,Official Report, columns 76–79WS.

  Compensation Claims
  Mrs Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of operation care complainants have brought compensation claims in each of the last five years. [128632]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  This information is not collected centrally by the Department of Health. The information that is requested can only be supplied at disproportionate cost to the request.

  The present situation is that National Health Service complaints and clinical negligence claims are handled separately. Once a patient who has made a complaint indicates that they are seeking legal action linked to the complaint, then the complaint is halted until the case is resolved through litigation, withdrawn or settlement reached with the trust or NHS Litigation Authority.

  However, a review of the way clinical negligence claims and complaints are handled in the NHS is currently under way. The recently published Chief Medical Officer's report, "Making Amends", sets out a number of recommendations to reform the way clinical negligence cases are handled in the NHS, including the removal of the rule which requires a complaint to be halted pending resolution of a claim to encourage closer alignment between the claims and complaints.

  Departmental Entertainment
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent by(a) ministers and (b) Departmental special advisers on food and alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks for entertainment purposes since March 2002. [127475]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer the hon. Member to the response given to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on Monday 27 January 2003,Official Report, column 673W. The total amount spent by the Department of Health on hospitality in 2002–03 is £125,000.

  Departmental information systems do not classify expenditure by Ministers, special advisers or other employment category, nor do information systems provide a detailed breakdown of food and drink.

  Food Supplements
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 8 July 2003,Official Report, column 776W, on the Food Supplement Directive, if he will make it his policy to add nutrients to the list of permitted ingredients included in dossiers submitted to the European Food Safety Authority; and if he will make a statement. [128556]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The lists of permitted vitamins and minerals and their sources in annexes I and II to the directive remain open pending safety assessments for additional substances. Dossiers of information supporting safety may be submitted to the European Food Safety for assessment. In the case of amendments to the permitted lists in the directive, Schedules 1 or 2 to The Food Supplements Regulations (England) 2003 will be amended accordingly.
  330W
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his Answer of 11 July,Official Report, column 1041W, on natural supplements, what plans he has to press for changes in the regulations to ensure that the maximum permitted levels of nutrients in supplements are set on the basis of safety and not nutritional need; what assessment he has made of the impact of this issue to the British specialist food industry; and if he will make a statement. [128516]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  While the Food Supplements Directive sets out principles for setting maximum limits for vitamins and minerals in food supplements, no such limits have yet been set. The principles in Article 5 of the directive state that maximum levels should be set based on scientific risk assessment and intake from dietary sources other than food supplements as well as taking account of reference nutrient intakes. The Government continues to argue for maximum permitted limits for vitamins and minerals in food supplements to be set on the basis of thorough risk assessments and will continue to press this view strongly at every opportunity.
  During negotiations on the Directive and when drafting the Food Supplements (England) Regulations 2003, the Food Standards Agency consulted with a wide range of stakeholders. The potential impacts of the Regulations on the specialist food industry are summarised in the Regulatory Impact Assessment accompanying the Regulations, which are available in the Library.

  General Practitioners
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what compensation is paid to GPs who lose their right to dispense; 127629]
  (2) what plans he has to reform regulations that permit the removal of the right to dispense from a GP. [127630]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  General practitioners do not normally receive compensation if they are no longer required to dispense National Health Service prescriptions. Primary care trusts can make transitional arrangements to ensure an orderly winding-down of such dispensing services.
  The Government has no plans to change the conditions under which certain GPs can dispense NHS prescriptions. However, in our response to the Health Select Committee Fifth Report, The Control of Entry Regulations and Retail Pharmacy Services in the UK (Cm 5896) on 17 July 2003, we said that we would invite medical and pharmacy representative bodies to look again at existing proposals to reform the rules governing rural NHS dispensing.
  We are setting up an advisory group to advise on how best to implement a series of changes we are proposing to current NHS dispensing rules. We published further details on 29 August 2003 in Proposals to Reform and Modernise the NHS (Pharmaceutical Services) Regulations 1992. A copy has been placed in the Library. We will also ask the group to consider the results of the representative bodies' consideration of their proposals for reforming the rules governing rural NHS dispensing.

  Hip Fractures
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people suffered a hip fracture(a) recorded as a first episode and (b) recorded as a second episode in each of the last five years; and what the cost was in each case. [124309]

  Mr. Hutton
  Table one shows the number of hip fractures, which were recorded as a first and second episode in each of the last five years. Table two shows the average cost of the procedure, taken from the Published National Schedule of Reference Costs. Data are available from 2000. The cost excludes any elements of critical care services that might have been be used by a patient.

  Table 1

  Finished Consultant Episodes (FCEs) where a hip fracture was recorded as the main diagnosis

  Year

  Episode Order

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  1

  40,083

  41.956

  43,030

  41,691

  42.367

  2

  5,004

  5,304

  5,732

  5,919

  7,177

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) Department of Health, England.

  Table 2

  Mean Average £

  Condition

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Neck of femur Fracture > 69 years old or with complications and comorbidities

  3,669

  3,818

  4,200

  Neck of Femur Fracture >70 years old or without complications and comorbidities

  2,946

  2,956

  3,137

  Source:

  Published National Schedule of Reference Costs.

  Laser Eye Surgery
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations have been received by his Department from(a) the Medical Protection Society and (b) the Royal College of Ophthalmologists on (i) guidance for and (ii) regulation of individuals involved in the provision of laser eye surgery. [128676]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department of Health has not received any representations from either the Medical Protection Society or the Royal College of Ophthalmologists concerning guidance and regulation in the provision of laser eye surgery. We are, however, aware that there are concerns regarding laser surgery.
  Laser eye surgery in England is regulated by the National Care Standards Commission (NCSC). Providers of laser eye surgery are required to be registered with the NCSC and to comply with national minimum standards set by them. Providers must keep records for the NCSC of each surgical procedure undertaken, including accidents or adverse events. They are also subject to annual inspections by the NCSC.
  The NCSC is currently monitoring development in the area of laser eye surgery and should any evidence emerge that further regulation of this procedure is required, it would be considered in order to further protect service users.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations he has received on the need for a Mental Incapacity Bill; and if he will make a statement; 128316]
  (2) what assessment he has made of the effect of the proposals in the draft Mental Incapacity Bill on the lives of (a) people with dementia and (b) their carers; and if he will make a statement. [128317]

  Ms Rosie Winter ton
  A draft Mental Incapacity Bill was published by the Department for Constitutional Affairs on 27 June. It is currently subject to pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. Letters received in the Department of Health about the draft Bill are being fed into the scrutiny process.
  The need for a Bill on Mental Incapacity was raised by many who responded to consultation on the draft Mental Health Bill, which was published in June 2002. The draft Mental Incapacity Bill aims to provide a better decision-making framework for people who are unable to make some decisions for themselves and those that care for them. The Department of Health is working closely with colleagues in the Department for Constitutional Affairs to make sure that the Bill addresses the needs of all vulnerable adults, including people with dementia and those who look after them, whether informal carers or professionals in health or social care services.

  David Kelly
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when over tae past two years Mr. David Kelly has met Mr. Andrew Gilligan of the BBC. [126330]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 17 July 2003]: I have been asked to reply.
  My hon. Friend will understand why it was not possible to answer this question on the day named. These matters are now being addressed by Lord Hutton's inquiry.
  The information requested has been passed to the inquiry. Lord Hutton will publish his report in due course. I am therefore withholding the information under Exemption 4a of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Radiotherapy
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what average length of time patients in each health authority had to wait for radiotherapy cancer treatment in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02. [127522]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Information on waiting times for radiotherapy is not collected centrally. However, the NHS Cancer Plan sets out maximum waiting time
  333W
  targets for first definitive cancer treatment, which includes radiotherapy when it is the first treatment. From December 2001, there is a one month maximum wait from diagnosis to first treatment for breast cancer and a one month wait from urgent general practitioner referral to first treatment for children's cancers, testicular cancer and acute leukaemia. From 2002 there is a maximum two-month wait from urgent referral to treatment for breast cancer. By 2005 there will be a maximum two months from urgent referral to treatment and a maximum one-month wait from diagnosis to first treatment for all cancers.
  In order to tackle radiotherapy waiting times, we have increased the number of radiographers in post by 9.2 per cent. and numbers in training by 55 per cent. since 1977. We are making better use of existing staff by establishing new roles for radiographers, which

  Elective Finished In-Year Admissions, Waiting List and Booked Cases: Finished Consultant Episodes—NHS Hospitals England. 1997–98 to 2001–02

  Length of time patient waited

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  More than 3 months

  1,134,491

  1,307,371

  1,147,551

  1,133,824

  1,155,138

  More than 6 months

  601,994

  723,520

  592,752

  587,714

  604,109

  More than 9 months

  356,778

  445,320

  349,472

  343,787

  354,641

  More than 12 months

  183,506

  245,884

  189,565

  186,096

  188,023

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health

  There is a clear pattern of significant reduction demonstrated in the waiting time in formation at the end of March 2003. Across all the time bands there have been significant reductions in the number of patients waiting compared to March 1997. This reduction is most apparent in the number of over 12 month waiters, where a total of only 103 patients were waiting at the end of March 2003.

  Source:

  Department of Health form QF01

  Notes:

  A finished consultant episode is defined as a period of patient care under one consultant in one health care provider. The figures do not represent the number of patients, as one person may have several episodes within the year.

  Figures in this table have not yet been adjusted for shortfalls in data.

  Waiting time statistics from HES are not the same as the published waiting list statistics. HES provides coutis and waiting times for all patients admitted to hospital within a given period whereas the published waiting list statistics count those waiting for treatment at a given point in time and how long they have been on the waiting list. Also, HES calculates the waiting time as the difference between the admission and decision to admit dates. Unlike published waiting list statistics, this is not adjusted for self-deferrals or periods of medical/social suspension.

  Written Questions
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he has taken to improve procedures for answering written parliamentary questions by his Department since 1st April 2002. [127490]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Significant changes have been made to these procedures within the Department since 1 April 2002. The parliamentary section responsible for overseeing them has been substantially reorganised and a new database has been introduced to help drive and
  334W
  can open up new career opportunities and improve retention. We are also making unprecedented investment in new radiotherapy facilities, with 61 new and replacement linear accelerators delivered to the national health service since April 2000. In addition, we are streamlining the patient's route to treatment through the Cancer Services Collaborative.

  Waiting Lists/Times
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have waited more than(a) three months, (b) six months, (c) nine months and (d) 12 months for elective admissions in each year since 1997. [112978]

  Mr. Hutton
  The table shows the length of time a patient waited for an elective finished in-year admission from 1997–98 to 2001–02, which is the latest year for which figures are available.

  monitor the process. This was immediately made available to all departmental staff; its predecessor having been solely for use by the parliamentary section. It records each stage of the answering procedure, provides a transparent means of checking precisely where a question is in the process and helps to identify and clear blockages in the system.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Olympic Games
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions her Department has had to ensure that sufficient hotel accommodation will be available for visitors to the capital, should the Olympic Games be held in London in 2012. [128653]

  Tessa Jowell
  The assessment of the cost and benefit implications of bidding for and staging the Olympics and Paralympic Games in London in 2012 undertaken by Arup in May 2003 estimated the average daily room requirement during an Olympic Games as between 80,000 and 145,000. Drawing on London Tourist Board figures, Arup also projected up to 200,000 rooms in hotels/guest houses as potentially available within International Olympic Committee (IOC) visitor travel time requirements of one hour.
  Detailed information on accommodation is required by the IOC for the applicant city questionnaire, and London 2012 Ltd., the company set up to prepare the Olympic bid, will be undertaking further work to verify and refine these figures over the coming months.
  335W
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what her estimate is of the total cost of a London Olympic Games; and how it is proposed that it will be financed, broken down by source in each year. [128086]

  Tessa Jowell
  The consultants Arup estimated the costs of a London Olympics at £3.6 billion with expected revenues of £2.5 billion. This implied a net public subsidy of £1.1 billion. The Government and the Mayor have agreed a funding package of up to £2.375 billion, allowing a generous contingency, including up to £1.5 billion from the lottery and up to £625 million from a London Olympics Council Tax. As is explained in the Memorandum of Understanding, which was included in the Government response to the Select Committee Report, "A London Olympic Bid for 2012" (HC 268), ref. Cm 5867:"The flow of funds will depend on the organisations that are nominated to deliver various aspects of the Games. These details have not yet been fully worked up. Because rises or falls in one sector of Olympic cost may be offset in another sector it is not possible to completely earmark particular strands of funding to discrete objects. Within that, the broad intention is that Lottery funding should be primarily directed to sports investment, Olympic facilities and event staging and that money raised from the Olympic precept should address capital requirements of the Games including transport infrastructure."

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what her estimate is of the total change in money available to existing good causes as a result of the establishment of special Olympic lottery games. [128087]

  Tessa Jowell
  Preliminary estimates provided by Camelot, and assessed by the National Lottery Commission, suggest that any reduction of income to the existing good causes from Olympic lottery games would be small—approximately 4 per cent. for the remainder of the Camelot licence period (until 2009). Each game will be subject to approval by the NLC, and in designing the games, Camelot will seek to minimise the effect on the core lottery games.

  Parthenon Sculptures
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she next plans to meet representatives of the Greek Government to discuss the return of the Parthenon sculptures to Greece. [127841]

  Estelle Morris
  The Government has no such plans. We have advised the Greek Government that the Parthenon Sculptures are a matter for the Trustees of the British Museum. The museum is independent of government.

  Schools (Physical Exercise)
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what percentage of schoolchildren in the UK participate in a minimum of two hours of physical exercise at school each week; 128580]
  (2) what steps she is taking to promote participation in sports by schoolchildren (a) during games lessons and (b) after school. 128581]
  336W
  Mr. Caborn
  The Government is investing more than £1 billion in England to transform physical education and school sport. This funding will help deliver an ambitious Public Service Agreement target, shared by DCMS and DfES, to increase the percentage of school children who spend a minimum of two hours each week on high-quality PE and school sport within and beyond the curriculum to 75 per cent. by 2006. Currently, about a third of schools provide this entitlement at Key Stage 1, two fifths at Key Stage 2 and a third at each of Key Stages 3 and 4.

  Tourism
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport whether tourism in the UK has grown as an industry in each of the last 10 years; how many people are employed in tourism in the UK; and what percentage of GDP is accounted for by the tourism industry. [128577]

  Mr. Caborn
  The available data on annual expenditure by domestic and foreign tourists in the UK over the last 10 years are shown in the table.

  Annual expenditure by domestic and foreign tourists in the UK for each of the last 10 years

  £ million

  Expenditure by foreign tourists in the UK

  Expenditure by UK tourists in the UK

  Total expenditure by tourists in the UK

  1993

  9,487

  1—

  1—

  1994

  9,786

  1—

  1—

  1995

  11,763

  20,072

  31,835

  1996

  12,290

  22,041

  34,331

  1997

  12,244

  24,137

  36,381

  1998

  12,671

  22,814

  35,485

  1999

  12,498

  25,635

  38,133

  2000

  12,805

  26,133

  38,938

  2001

  11,306

  26,094

  37,400

  2002

  11,859

  26,699

  38,558

  1 Not available

  Sources:

  International Passenger Survey

  UK Tourism Survey

  While there has been a generally increasing trend in the value of UK tourism expenditure over the past 10 years, it has not increased every year. In particular, tourism expenditure since 2000 has been affected by the foot and mouth epidemic, the SARS virus and the war with Iraq.

  It is estimated that 2.1 million people are employed in the tourism-related industries.

  It is also estimated that the tourism industry accounts for approximately 4.5 per cent. of UK GDP.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Written Constitution
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if the Lord Chancellor will draft a written constitution for the United Kingdom. [128476]
  337W
  Mr. Leslie
  There are no plans to draft an overarching codified constitution for the United Kingdom.

  Supreme Court
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if the Secretary of State will make it his policy for the proposed Supreme Court to sit outside London when considering devolution issues. [128477]

  Mr. Leslie
  As my hon. Friend is aware, we are currently consulting on the role that the Supreme Court will have in considering devolution issues. In parallel, we are also looking at where the court should be accommodated and whether it should have the power to sit outside London when considering devolution issues.

  Judicial Reform
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will make a statement on the priorities within the Department?s modernisation programme for ensuring better service delivery in the courts. [128470]

  Mr. Leslie
  The primary purpose of the departmental change agenda is to improve delivery to the public by the Court Service and the other agencies of the Department. This purpose underpins our plans for a unified court administration and the constitutional reforms announced in June.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what assessment he has made of the need to provide access to legal aid to victims of domestic violence. [127278]

  Mr. Lammy
  Domestic violence proceedings are a high priority for the Department for Constitutional Affairs and the Legal Services Commission (LSC). The LSC's funding code criteria allow such cases to be funded more widely than most other family and non-family areas. This gives the victim of domestic violence the means to secure various remedies against the other party. The latest available figure for expenditure on domestic violence (civil representation) for the financial year 2002 to 2003 is £53.4 million.

  The LSC has Regional Legal Services Committees who are tasked with assessing legal need regionally on an on-going basis. The Yorkshire and Humberside Committee have undertaken a project with the aim of developing good practice in identifying and addressing the legal advice needs of victims of domestic violence in the context of the Community Legal Service (CLS). The Legal Service Regional Committee's Periodic Survey of Justiciable Problems are publishing a research report in the next issue of the Family Law Journal which addresses the issue of legal need in domestic violence cases and examines the strategy needed to encourage victims to seek remedies.

  Gender Recognition Bill
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will make a statement on the draft Gender Recognition Bill. [128466]
  338W
  Mr. Lammy
  As Lord Filkin announced on 11 July this year the Government have published the draft Gender Recognition Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. On 17 July the Joint Committee issued a call for evidence to be submitted to it by 11 September. The Government looks forward to receiving the report of the Joint Committee and to introducing the Bill to Parliament as soon as Parliamentary time allows.

  Media Training
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what the cost was to the Lord Chancellor?s Department of media and voice training for Ministers and officials in each year since 1997. [123117]

  Mr. Lammy
  The cost to my Department (including the former Lord Chancellor?s Department) of media and voice training for Ministers and officials in each year since 1997 was as follows:

  Year

  £

  1997–98

  1—

  1998–99

  0

  1999–2000

  1,762.50

  2000–01

  2,625

  2001–02

  0

  2002–03

  0

  2003–04

  20

  1 Figures not available

  2 To date

  Figures for 1997–98 are not readily available because communications group accounts were not kept separately from the then LCD corporate services accounts.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  AS-levels
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total cost of setting and marking AS-level examinations in all subjects was in each year between 2000 and 2003. [128551]

  Mr. Miliband
  The answer can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Ofsted
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the level of higher education funding in Wales was in present day prices in each year since 1979. [124672]

  Mr. Touhig
  I have been asked to reply.

  The following table provides figures on Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (HEFCW) funding by financial year from 1993–94 to 1998–99.

  HEFCW assumed responsibility for funding HE in Wales in April 1993, and figures prior to 1993 are not available on a comparable basis.
  339W
  The National Assembly for Wales assumed overall responsibility for HE funding in Wales on 1 July 1999, and figures beyond this date are not held by the Wales Office.

  HEFCW funding from National Assembly for Wales/Welsh Office (inc. running costs and grants to HEIs)

  £000

  Current prices

  Constant (2002–03) prices

  1993–94

  179,200

  225,607

  1994–95

  232,497

  288,877

  1995–96

  242,465

  292,913

  1996–97

  243,522

  285,148

  1997–98

  236,787

  268,963

  1998–99

  231,222

  255,618

  Note:

  Constant price figures based on current price figures rounded to nearest 1,000 (nearest 100,000 for 2002–03 and 2003–04).

  Sources:

  HEFCW annual reports.

  HM Treasury GDP deflators used to produce constant price figures.

  Lessons (Ofsted Inspections)
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of lessons recorded as set by ability in(a) Year 7, (b) Year 8, (c) Year 9, (d) Year 10 and (e) Year 11 in each state secondary school in West Sussex were inspected by Ofsted between 1995 and 2002. [128614]

  Mr. Miliband
  This is a matter for Ofsted. HM Chief Inspector, David Bell, will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of his letter in the Library.

  Ministerial Visits
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the(a) foreign and (b) UK visits he has made since 1 April; what the cost was to public funds of each trip; whom he met; and what gifts were received. [126886]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Government publishes the overall costs of all ministerial overseas travel and a list of all visits overseas by Cabinet Ministers costing in excess of £500 on an annual basis. The list for the period 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003 was published by the Prime Minister on 16 July 2003,Official Report, column 482W. The next list for the period 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004 will be published at the end of the financial year.

  In respect of gifts received, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 14 March 2003, Official Report, column 482W.

  Details of UK visits are not held in the format requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Pupil Funding
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will publish the per pupil funding for each maintained school for(a) 2002–03 and (b) 2003–04. [127930]
  340W
  Mr. Miliband
  The available information has been placed in the Library of the House. The Information is as provided by local education authorities in their section 52 budget statements. The amount a school receives is dependant on a range of allocation factors including; the fair funding formula, Standards Fund, Standards Grant, and local formulae which operates within the individual local education authority.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  War Pensions
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many war disability pensioners suffering from a wholly psychiatric disorder lost their incapacity benefit in each year from 1995 to 2002. [127952]

  Maria Eagle
  The available information is in the table.

  Incapacity Benefit (IB) claims ceasing where a War Pension had been payable due to a psychiatric disorder

  1 Sep 1998 to 31 Aug 1999

  —

  1 Sep 1999 to 31 Aug 2000

  200

  1 Sep 2000 to 31 Aug 2001

  100

  1 Sep 2001 to 31 Aug 2002

  100

  Source:

  DWP Information Centre, 5 per cent samples of the Incapacity Benefit and War Pensions computer systems.

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred, and exclude a small number of cases held clerically.

  2. Figures exclude IB claims ceasing due to an award of Retirement Pension.

  3. Numbers are based on very few sample cases and are therefore subject to a high degree of sampling error and should be used as a guide to the current situation only.

  4. War Pensions figures exclude cases which have been archived 18 months after cessation of the War Pension.

  5. Information prior to 1998 is only available at disproportionate cost.

  6. "—" indicates nil or negligible.

  British Sign Language
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what proposals he has to recognise British Sign Language as a language; and if he will make a statement on its use by those who are hard of hearing; [128249]

  (2) what proposals he has to increase the amount of British Sign Language/English interpreters; and what funding is available to train language tutors. [128250]

  Maria Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to the written statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on 18 March 2003,Official Report, column 41WS, in which the Government recognise British Sign Language (BSL) as a language in its own right. We have made available an additional £1 million for a discrete programme of initiatives to support the statement and have said that among our priorities is increasing opportunities for people to learn BSL to a professional level. We have established a British Sign Language working group to consider priorities for allocating the additional funding and will receive their recommendations in due course.

  Disability Bill
  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the Government will publish the Draft Disability Bill. [127743]

  Maria Eagle
  I refer the right hon. Member to the Written Statement given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 22 January 2003,Official Report, column 12–13WS.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what use is made of medical reports when assessing an application for disability living allowance; and what other evidence is required to secure a grant of disability living allowance. [128105]

  Maria Eagle
  Entitlement to Disability Living Allowance is based on the care needs and assistance with mobility that a person requires as a result of an illness or disability rather than the diagnosis of that illness or disability. To support the information provided by the customer on the claim form, it is often necessary for the Department to obtain additional evidence from people involved in the care of the person with the illness or disability. It is for the decision maker to determine what additional evidence is necessary to enable them to decide the claim.

  Incapacity benefit (IB) claims ceasing following a personal capability assessment (PCA), number of appeals cleared by The Appeals Service and number found in favour of the appellant in each of the last five years

  1 March 2000 to 28 February 2001

  1 March 2001 to 28 February 2002

  1 March 2002 to 28 February 2003

  IB claims ceasing following a PCA1

  86,400

  91,900

  106,600

  Appeals cleared

  34,060

  30,785

  37,845

  Appeals found in favour of appellant (percentage)

  13,965(41)

  13,100(42.6)

  17,535 (46.3)

  Percentage found in favour of appellant

  41

  42.6

  46.3

  1 IB figures have been updated to include late notifications of IB ceasing and are subject to change. The most recent quarters include fewer late notifications and will be subject to significant change in future.

  Notes:

  1. Appeals figures are subject to change as more current data becomes available.

  2. IB figures are rounded to the nearest 100.

  3. Appeals figures are rounded to the nearest five.

  Source:

  DWP Information Centre

  Jobseeker"s Allowance
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people were claiming jobseeker"s allowance in(a) Somerset and (b) Taunton Deane at the end of each fiscal quarter since January 2000. [127824]

  Mr. Pond
  The information is in the table:

  Number of people claiming Jobseeker"s Allowance

  Month

  Taunton Deane Local Authority Area

  County of Somerset

  January 2000

  1,308

  6,398

  April 2000

  1,173

  5,447

  July 2000

  1,077

  5,046

  October 2000

  954

  4,651

  January 2001

  996

  5,153

  April 2001

  979

  4,836

  July 2001

  899

  4,335

  342W
  Where a decision maker considers that further medical evidence is necessary to establish whether someone meets the criteria for an award of benefit they can request a report from the customers General Practitioner, or other health care professional, or a report may be requested based on an examination by an Examining Medical Practitioner, who is trained specifically in the effects of disability.

  It is of course open to the customer at any time to provide such additional evidence, both medical and non-medical, as they may choose to submit in support of their claim or appeal.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of appeals against refusal of incapacity benefit were settled in favour of the claimant in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [127056]

  Maria Eagle
  Information on IB appeals is only available from 2000.

  The available information is in the table.

  There are a number of reasons for decisions being overturned at appeal; for example, additional evidence may be given to a tribunal that was not available to the decision maker. The Department is currently working on a number of initiatives to improve liaison with the Appeals Service and gain a better understanding of these issues.

  Number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance

  Month

  Taunton Deane Local Authority Area

  County of Somerset

  October 2001

  752

  3,853

  January 2002

  782

  4,533

  April 2002

  793

  4,082

  July 2002

  734

  3,731

  October 2002

  693

  3,641

  January 2003

  822

  4,393

  April 2003

  784

  4,037

  July 2003

  762

  3,785

  Source:

  JSAPBS

  Notes:

  1. Figures are based on a 100 per cent count of unemployment-related benefits, including clerically held cases.

  2. Somerset figures exclude Unitary Authorities within the ceremonial boundary of Somerset, namely "Bath and North East Somerset" and "North Somerset".
  343W
  3. The number of Jobseeker"s Allowance claimants are normally counted on the second Thursday of a month. For example, April 2003 claimant figures represent the number of claimants at the end of business on Thursday 10 April.

  Mental Health
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the impact of the draft Mental Health Bill on the services his Department provides for people with mental health needs. [126004]

  Maria Eagle
  The draft Mental Health Bill will break the automatic link between compulsory treatment and detention, allowing patients to be treated in the setting most appropriate to them. Treatment in the community will provide a positive alternative for the many patients who do not want or need to be detained in hospital and an opportunity to minimise the disruption to their lives.

  Jobcentre Plus services are designed to meet the needs of disabled people, including those with mental health problems. The reform will allow more people with complex mental health problems to access Jobcentre Plus services. Officials are considering the implications for the training of front line Jobcentre Plus staff.

  Pensions
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of pensioners received an income from(a) state and (b) private pension schemes in each year between 1992 and 2002; and if he will make a statement. [128549]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is given in Table 8 (state pension) and Table 14 (private pensions) of The Pensioners" Incomes Series 2001/2 a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the number of low income earners to have taken up stakeholder pensions since their inception. [128555]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information requested is not available. Such information as is available is as follows. The 2001/02 Family Resources Survey showed that some 20 per cent. of stakeholder pension sales were to working individuals earning less than £10,000 a year, and that the majority of sales (55 per cent.) were to people earning between £10,000 and £29,999 a year.

DEFENCE

  Afghanistan
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the size of the garrison in Afghanistan. [127161]

  Mr. Ingram
  We shall continue to deploy around 400 troops in Afghanistan.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 17 July 2003,Official Report, column 477W whether the United Kingdom has further plans to contribute to the payment of Afghan National Army salaries. [128526]
  344W
  Mr. Ingram
  The £5 million made available through the United Nations" Trust Fund for Afghanistan to pay the salaries of the Afghan National Army is intended for use over the current financial year. We are considering whether to make any further contributions.

  Aircraft Carriers
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to increase the number of escorts when the new supercarriers are commissioned. [127253]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are no plans to increase the number of Royal Navy destroyers and frigates when the new aircraft carriers are brought into service.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the estimated cost of the new aircraft carriers is; what the estimated cost was in 1998; and if he will make a statement on the procurement status of the carriers. [128074]

  Mr. Ingram
  The method by which the Department estimates the costs for equipment projects has changed since 1998 as a result of the adoption of resource accounting and budgeting in 1999. In 1998, the estimated cost based on a STOVL design was around £2 billion, based or. 1998–99 constant prices (which excluded inflation). The estimated procurement cost of the future aircraft carriers using the innovative, adaptable design is around £3 billion at resource outturn prices (which includes compound inflation). The CVF Programme is still in the Assessment Phase and we expect to award the Demonstration and Manufacture contract in Spring 2004 as planned.

  C17
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many flying hours have been accumulated by RAF C17 aircraft; and how many were expected. [127117]

  Mr. Ingram
  From June 2001, when the C17 was first available for tasking, to 31 July 2003, 11,540 hours have been flown. The original planned flying task for the aircraft was 3,000 hours per year for the seven years of the lease. From 1 April 2003, this was increased to 4,000 hours per year.

  Coastal Training Craft
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the annual running cost is of P2000 class coastal training craft. [127119]

  Mr. Ingram
  The annual running cost of the 16 P2000 class craft in financial year 2002–03 was £5.835 million. These figures include the cost of capital and depreciation. In addition the annual average maintenance cost for the P2000 fleet is £1.873 million.

  Deepcut Barracks
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 11 July 2003,Official Report, column 1030W how many cases of self-harm overdoses there were at each Army barracks in each year since 1995. [127070]
  345W
  Mr. Caplin
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 11 July 2003,Official Report, column 1030W what assessment he has made of the reasons for self-harm incidents at Deepcut barracks since 1995; what measures are being taken to prevent further incidents; and if he will make a statement. [127071]

  Mr. Caplin
  There are no discernible trends to the number of self-harm overdose incidents at Deepcut, although in most cases the decision to overdose appears to have been taken on the spur of the moment. Causes identified include homesickness, depression and boredom.

  A number of measures are in place in an effort to prevent self-harm incidents. As in all Army training establishments, the permanent staff at Deepcut are trained to be on the alert for signs of depression, altered behaviour and other possible indicators of self-harm; new recruits receive education on substance misuse and are encouraged to focus on themes such as looking out for each other and team cohesion. Details of helplines for a number of welfare organisations, including the Samaritans; the Army Welfare Service; and a Confidential Support Line, provided by the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association Forces Help, are promulgated widely throughout the barracks.

  Defence Staff
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) service personnel of officer rank, (b) service personnel of other ranks, (c) industrial civilian personnel and (d) non-industrial civilian personnel were employed by (i) the United Kingdom Defence Standardisation team in each year since its inception and (ii) the Directorate of Standardisation in each year from its inception to its re-organisation in 1999; how many of these were employed in Scotland; what the total manning costs were for each category in each year; what the manning costs were for Scotland in each year; and if he will make a statement. [128037]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Directorate of Standardisation (DStan) was formed in the mid 1960s and since then has gone through a number of reorganisations and change of location. As a consequence many of the historical records no longer exist.

  What is known is that in 1978 the complement was 121 Civilian non-industrial staff and 2 Service personnel of officer rank, all working in London. Since then there has not been any industrial or non-officer service personnel within the organisation.

  In August 1983 the majority of DStan staff (83) were dispersed to Glasgow (Montrose House) with 8 posts remaining in London. In late 1986 DStan moved to the newly opened Kentigern House in Glasgow and a further three posts were transferred to Glasgow. In the years from 1996 to 2003, the total number of Dstan staff has varied between 35 and 40, between 30 and 33 of whom have worked in Scotland. More detailed, though not exhaustive, records are available from 1989 and are summarised in the following table.
  346W

  Year

  Total Staff

  Scotland

  Elsewhere

  Non Industrial

  Service

  Approximate Costs (£ million) Scotland/Total

  1989

  78

  73

  5

  77

  1

  Not known

  1990

  78

  73

  5

  77

  1

  Not known

  1991

  76

  73

  3

  75

  1

  Not known

  1992

  57

  54

  3

  56

  1

  Not known

  1993

  52

  51

  1

  52

  0

  Not known

  1994

  50

  48

  2

  50

  0

  Not known

  1995

  51

  49

  2

  51

  0

  Not known

  1996

  35

  33

  2

  35

  0

  Not known

  1997

  35

  30

  5

  35

  0

  0.70/0.82

  1998

  36

  31

  5

  36

  0

  0.85/0.99

  1999

  36

  31

  5

  36

  0

  0.90/1.04

  2000

  38

  31

  7

  38

  0

  0.89/1.09

  2001

  38

  31

  7

  38

  0

  0.95/1.16

  2002

  38

  32

  6

  38

  0

  0.99/1.18

  2003

  40

  33

  7

  39

  1

  1.13/1.37

  Defence Training
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when the Defence Training Review Rationalisation Programme began; [127249]

  (2) what the earliest date is on which decisions on the Defence Training Review can result in the implementation of a major relocation of service police; 127236]

  (3) when the first major relocation from the Defence Training Review Rationalisation programme will be completed. [127250]

  Mr. Ingram
  The intention to review defence education and individual training was announced by my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Robertson, the then Defence Secretary on 22 July 1999,Official Report, columns 614–15W, and the outcome of that review which included the recommendation for the rationalisation programme was announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 27 March 2001, Official Report, columns 547–48W.

  The Ministry of Defence is currently engaging with industry to determine the most appropriate and cost effective locations for the Defence Training Establishments within the rationalisation programme. The earliest that any decisions on the locations of training units will be made is December 2004. It is anticipated that contracts with the successful bidders will be signed in 2005 and any relocations will take place after that date. Opportunities for early implementation will however be kept under review.

  Destroyers
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the average operating cost of(a) batch 3 type 22, (b) type 23 and (c) type 42 destroyers were in each of the last two years; and if he will make a statement. [127274]

  Mr. Ingram
  The actual cost of operating various types of frigates and destroyers will vary considerably from year to year, dependent on the tasking and maintenance undertaken during that period. Average annual operating costs, based on historic costs over the last two full financial years are given in the table. The
  347W
  figures include manpower, maintenance, fuel, stores and other costs (such as harbour dues), but exclude depreciation and cost of capital.

  £ million

  Financial Year

  2001–02

  2002–03

  (a) Batch 3 Type 22 Frigate

  11.9

  13.1

  (b) Type 23 Frigate

  10.3

  10.3

  (c) Type 42 Destroyer

  13.0

  13.5

  HMS Bridport
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for HMS Bridport. [127275]

  Mr. Ingram
  HMS Bridport is being held in extended readiness at Faslane.

  Hutton Inquiry
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria his Department used to decide which documents to disclose to the Hutton inquiry. [128603]

  Mr. Hoon
  We have disclosed all documents that appeared to be relevant to the inquiry"s work. We have also supplied further material which the inquiry has requested.

  Iraq
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what(a) scientific and (b) medical evidence was used as the basis of the statements in paragraph 4.10 of his Department"s report on first reflections on operations in Iraq, that there is no reliable scientific or medical evidence to suggest depleted uranium has previously been responsible for post-conflict incidences of ill-health. [126923]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Royal Society's independent expert Depleted Uranium Working Group recently completed an extensive review of the scientific work on potential health and environmental effects of depleted uranium (DU) munitions. The findings of the review are detailed in two reports entitled "The Health Hazards of Depleted Uranium Munitions" (2001, 2002). They support the Ministry of Defence"s view that risks posed by DU to the health of soldiers on the battlefield are minimal except for a small number of extreme cases. The United States Government has carefully monitored the health of those US soldiers who were exposed in extreme circumstances when DU rounds accidentally hit their vehicles during the 1990–91 Gulf Conflict. Some seventeen of them have had DU shrapnel embedded in their bodies for the last twelve years. None of the groups shows signs of health problems attributable to DU. The offspring of the highly-exposed US veterans, amounting to some sixty children, are all healthy.

  Some 53,000 British troops took part in the 1990–91 Gulf Conflict, and some 3,300 subsequently felt the need to attend the Gulf Veterans Medical Assessment Programme. The results of the first 3,000 patients to attend have been published: 75 per cent. were found to be well, no novel or unusual conditions were found and
  348W
  the most common condition was found to be post-traumatic stress disorder. No evidence of ill-health due to DU exposure was found.

  The findings of United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) studies in Kosovo (2001), Serbia and Montenegro (2002) and Bosnia and Herzegovina (2003) note very low levels of DU contamination which do not present immediate radioactive or toxic risks for human health. UNEP"s findings are consistent with MOD"s view that any DU contamination will be limited and localised and that actions to reduce any potential intakes will only be necessary in some extreme cases.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many(a) camp beds and (b) NBC suits and respirators were used during Telic 1; and what shortfalls there were; [127109]

  (2) how much body armour was issued during Telic 1; and what shortfall there was. [127108]

  Mr. Ingram
  I assume that Telic 1 relates to the period between initial deployment of troops to the Gulf region and the end of major hostilities. The quantities of camp beds, NBC suits, respirators and body armour deployed to theatre are detailed in the table. It is not possible to identify the quantities actually used during that time for which the information is not held centrally.

  Equipment type

  Number issued

  Camp beds

  25,280

  NBC suits

  218,000

  S10 respirators

  31,500

  Enhanced Combat Body Armour (ECBA) sets

  38,200

  The S10 respirator, referred to in the table, is an item of personal issue to all Service personnel, to be retained at all times; the number shown deployed to theatre was to provide replacement stocks.

  Although sufficient quantities of the equipments were supplied to theatre, I am aware that local supply difficulties may have resulted in shortfalls in some areas. In particular, some redistribution of ECBA ceramic plates was required, with priority given to front-line combat units. Supply difficulties will be addressed as part of the on-going departmental review of the operation.

  Joint Service Military Training
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent assessment he has made of the risks of joint service military training. [127248]

  Mr. Ingram
  The risks associated with the programme to create defence training establishments have been identified and are being appropriately managed and mitigated.

  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the capital cost is of work required at RAF Halton in order to make it serviceable for joint service police training. [127237]
  349W
  Mr. Ingram
  The initial estimate of the capital works required at the RAF Halton site to accommodate joint service police training is £90 million. This will provide modernised domestic accommodation, improved site infrastructure and a new joint police training facility.

  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what the capital cost is of work required at Chichester to provide joint police service training, excluding the MoD police; [127238]

  (2) if he will estimate the capital cost of initiating a pilot scheme of joint service police training; [127235]

  (3) how long it would take to begin operations if a decision were taken to start a pilot of joint service police training; [127234]

  (4) whether his Department has done a cost benefit analysis of Chichester as a location for a pilot scheme to extend joint service police training; [127233]

  (5) if he will permit a consortium to bid for a pilot scheme incorporating more joint military police training before completion of the Defence Training Review Rationalisation Programme. [127232]

  Mr. Ingram
  In 1999 it was estimated that the capital works required at Chichester to provide joint police service training, excluding provision for the Ministry of Defence Police, would be £3.5 million. Subsequent study has shown that the site does not offer the opportunity for redevelopment and modernisation to accommodate the full requirement for joint police training, including the MOD Police.

  No pilot scheme is planned for joint service police training.

  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what initial estimate he has made of the total saving from moving the Royal Military Police from Chichester to the lowest cost site, assuming maintenance of the same overall level of training output. [127239]

  Mr. Ingram
  The initial estimate of the total savings from moving the Royal Military Police from Chichester to the lowest cost site is £695,000 per annum. In addition, a receipt from the disposal of the Chichester site will be realised. Over a 25 year period moving from the current service police, MOD Police and Guard Service training locations at Chichester, HMS Excellent, Wethersfield and Worthy Down to the benchmark site at RAF Halton is calculated to generate savings of at least £430 million.

  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what priority he attaches to joint service military training in relation to other parts of the review of joint service activity. [127240]

  Mr. Ingram
  Joint service training plays an important role in underpinning joint operational capability. A high priority is placed on delivering joint training when it is appropriate.

  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether the initiation of full joint service military police training needs to await the outcome of the Defence Training Review Rationalisation Programme; [127242]
  350W
  (2) what joint service military police training is taking place; at what cost; and what proportion (a) by number of trainees and (b) by cost of all military police training, (i) excluding and (ii) including Ministry of Defence police, it represents. [127241]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are no plans to initiate joint Service military police training other than through the Defence Training Review rationalisation programme. However, the training at the Royal Military Police Training School (RMPTS) is open to all three Services and some common training has also been carried out with the MOD Police. In practice, personnel from the Royal Marines, Royal Navy and RAF have attended the following courses: Royal Military Police (RMP) Junior Non Commissioned Officers (JNCO), RMP Investigations, and RMP Scenes of Crime. Information for 2001–2002, which is the most recent year for which data are readily available, shows that students from the Royal Air Force, Royal Navy and Royal Marines make up 2.5 per cent. of the total student throughput and represented 2.4 per cent. of the total cost of RMPTS courses.

  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether recent experience of joint service operations in Afghanistan, the Gulf, Sierra Leone and the Falklands have resulted in joint service military training being placed at a higher priority. [127243]

  Mr. Ingram
  We have always placed importance on joint service training. Training provided is reviewed in the light of lessons learned from all campaigns.

  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many army military policemen have been deployed at short notice to support other service policemen to assist with incidents in operations overseas; and in how many cases. [127244]

  Mr. Ingram
  Since January 2003, 18 members of the Royal Military Police have supported deployed Military Police assets, at short notice, for seven incidents conducted in four overseas locations.

  David Kelly
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether his Department has complied with Dr. David Kelly's terms and conditions of employment in handling the matter of his discussions with Mr. Andrew Gilligan; [127159]

  (2) on how many occasions Dr. David Kelly spoke to Mr. Andrew Gilligan; and whether his line managers knew this; [127156]

  (3) how many of his Department's personnel have been interviewed in connection with the dossier story reported by Mr. Andrew Gilligan; [127157]

  (4) what inquiries are being conducted by his Department into unauthorised briefings of the BBC in connection with Iraq; [127158]

  (5) what (a) civil service and (b) MOD rules and regulations may have been infringed by Dr. David Kelly in talking to Mr. Andrew Gilligan. [127155]

  Mr. Hoon
  The hon. Gentleman will recognise that these are all matters that are being addressed by Lord Hutton's Inquiry. Lord Hutton will publish his report in
  351W
  due course. I am therefore withholding the information requested under Exemption 4a of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which journalists Mr. David Kelly has met over the past two years other than Mr. Andrew Gilligan of the BBC; and for what purpose each meeting was held; and when each meeting took place; [126331]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 17 July 2003.]: My hon. Friend will understand why it was not possible to answer these questions on the day named. These matters are now being addressed by Lord Hutton"s inquiry.

  The information requested has been passed to the inquiry. Lord Hutton will publish his report in due course. I am therefore withholding the information under Exemption 4a of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Deployments
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when, since 1997, units were attached to other(a) battalions and (b) corps to bring them up to strength for the purposes of operational deployment; and if he will make a statement. [128408]

  Mr. Ingram
  All front line units undertake regular operational deployments. The transfer of personnel to units on operational tours is and has always been a matter of routine. This information is therefore not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Royal Air Force
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what estimate he has made of(a) the cost and (b) the time needed for decontamination when the RAF leaves RAF Lyneham; [127104]

  (2) what recent survey he has undertaken of land and building contamination at RAF Lyneham; and if he will publish it. [127103]

  Mr. Ingram
  A land quality assessment has been commissioned, which will detail a range of proposals for the remediation of RAF Lyneham together with the associated costs. A land quality statement, which summarises the findings of the assessment, will be made available to interested parties.

  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a)civilian and (b) military air movements there were at RAF Northolt in each of the last 12 months. [128092]

  Mr. Caplin
  The following table shows the number of military and civil air movements at RAF Northolt in each of the last 12 months:

  Inward secondments financial year 1997–1998

  Parent Company or Organisation

  Start Date

  End Date

  Level

  Vickers

  April 1997

  April 1998

  B2

  Vosper Thornycroft

  April 1997

  December 1999

  B2

  Rolls Royce

  December 1997

  December 1999

  B2

  POSG Support Services

  January 1998

  January 1999

  Patent Officer

  British Aerospace

  March 1998

  April 2001

  C1

  Kent Probation Service

  March 1998

  March 2003

  Senior Probation Officer

  352W

  Month

  Military

  Civil

  Total

  August 2002

  253

  277

  530

  September 2002

  372

  673

  1,045

  October 2002

  419

  669

  1,088

  November 2002

  386

  645

  1,031

  December 2002

  224

  295

  519

  January 2003

  348

  431

  779

  February 2003

  328

  557

  885

  March 2003

  441

  635

  1,076

  April 2003

  426

  519

  945

  May 2003

  474

  815

  1,289

  June 2003

  529

  914

  1,443

  July 2003

  465

  694

  1,159

  Total

  4,665

  7,124

  11,789

  Civil aircraft movements at RAF Northolt are limited to 7,000 per calendar year; the number of movements in any other 12-month period may, as in this case, exceed this figure.

  Reservists
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many reservists served in(a) the first Gulf War and (b) Kosovo during 1999–2001. [128409]

  Mr. Caplin
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), gave him on 28 January 2003,Official Report, column 843W.

  Sea Harrier
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions have been held with the Indian Government in respect of the disposal of Sea Harrier aircraft. [127122]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Disposal Services Agency (DSA) has held no discussions with the Indian Government in respect of the disposal of Sea Harrier.

  Secondments
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his Department"s policy is on employing secondees from the private sector; how many secondees from the(a) private and (b) public sectors his Department employed in each year since 1997; from which companies and organisations they were seconded; at what level they were employed; and if he will make a statement. [127063]

  Mr. Caplin
  The interchange of personnel between the public and commercial sectors is an important feature of the Ministry of Defence"s long-standing programme to build stronger links with other sectors of the economy. This programme aims to enhance business performance by exchanging ideas, skills and experiences. Encouraging interchange activities is a key part of the Civil Service reform agenda.
  353W

  Inward secondments financial year 1998–99

  Parent company or organisation

  Start date

  End date

  Level

  British Aerospace

  May 1998

  December 1999

  C1

  Devonport Management Ltd.

  August 1998

  August 2000

  B2

  Simmons and Simmons

  September 1998

  August 1999

  B2

  Wragg and Company

  September 1998

  March 2000

  B2

  PA Consulting Group

  September 1998

  August 1999

  B2

  City and Hackney Community Service NHS Trust

  October 1998

  October 1999

  C1

  Gardiner and Theobalds

  December 1998

  December 1999

  B1

  TI Group

  December 1998

  November 2001

  SCS

  AWE plc

  December 1998

  March 2002

  C1

  British Aerospace

  January 1999

  January 2001

  C2

  UK Smart Procurement

  February 1999

  February 2000

  BNFL

  March 1999

  March 2000

  B2

  West Yorkshire Probation Service

  January 1999

  January 2004

  Probation Officer

  Inward secondments financial year 1999–2000

  Parent company or organisation

  Start date

  End date

  Level

  MayDay NHS Trust

  December 1999

  June 2003

  B2

  Defence Acquisition Group

  April 1999

  August 1999

  B2

  Dibb, Lupton Alsop

  April 1999

  April 2000

  B2

  British Aerospace

  August 1999

  July 2001

  B2

  Price Waterhouse Coopers

  October 1999

  October 2000

  B2

  Marconi Electonic Systems (Avionics Group)

  November 1999

  November 2001

  B2

  British Aerospace

  November 1999

  October 2001

  B2

  GEC Marconi

  January 2000

  March 2001

  C1

  GKN Westlands

  February 2000

  February 2003

  B1

  Thomson Marconi Sonar Ltd

  March 2000

  September 2000

  C1

  BMT Defence Services

  March 2000

  September 2000

  C1

  NNC

  March 2000

  September 2000

  B2

  In ward secondments financial year 2000–01

  Parent company or organisation

  Start date

  End date

  Level

  Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust

  May 2000

  May 2001

  B2

  BAE Systems

  April 2000

  October 2000

  C1

  Addleshaw Booth and Company

  May 2000

  April 2001

  B2

  BAE Systems

  June 2000

  June 2002

  C1

  BAE Systems

  June 2000

  June 2001

  C1

  AXA Corporate Solutions

  August 2000

  January 2001

  D

  BAE Systems

  August 2000

  March 2001

  B1

  AXA plc

  August 2000

  March 2001

  D

  BAE Systems

  September 2000

  March 2001

  C1

  BAE Systems

  September 2000

  September 2002

  C1

  BAE

  September 2000

  March 2001

  C1

  Babtie Group

  October 2000

  June 2001

  C1

  Price Waterhouse

  October 2000

  October 2001

  C1

  BAE Systems

  November 2000

  November 2003

  B1

  URS Ltd

  November 2000

  April 2001

  B2

  BAE

  December 2000

  December 2003

  B1

  BAE Systems

  February 2001

  September 2003

  B1

  Ernst and Young

  February 2001

  February 2002

  C1

  Rolls Royce

  March 2001

  March 2003

  C2

  Inward secondments financial year 2001–2002

  Parent company or organisation

  Start date

  End date

  Level

  Hertfordshire Probation Service

  June 2001

  January 2002

  Probation Officer

  Suffolk Probation Service

  June 2001

  November 2001

  Probation Officer

  Manchester Probation Service

  June 2001

  December 2001

  Probation Officer

  QinetiQ

  June 2001

  July 2003

  B2

  QinetiQ

  July 2001

  July 2003

  C2

  Burges Salmon

  September 2001

  April 2002

  B2

  BAE

  October 01

  October 2003

  B1

  Ernst and Young

  October 2001

  August 2002

  B2

  Mass Consultants Ltd.

  February 2002

  February 2006

  C1

  Mass Consultants Ltd.

  March 2002

  March 2006

  C1

  AMS UK

  March 2001

  March 2004

  B1

  Hagglunds Vehicle AB, Sweden

  March 2002

  January 2004

  C2

  354W 355W

  Inward secondments financial year 2002–03

  Parent company or organisation

  Start date

  End date

  Level

  Peterborough Hospitals NHS Trust

  May 2002

  May 2004

  B2

  Service Children"s Education

  August 2002

  July 2003

  Teacher

  Kennet Primary Care Trust

  October 2002

  October 2004

  C1

  West Midlands Health Authority

  November 2002

  March 2003

  C1

  Wragg and Company

  June 2002

  March 2003

  B2

  BAE

  June 2002

  June 2004

  SCS

  Rolls Royce

  July 2002

  July 2005

  B1

  Price Waterhouse

  August 2002

  August 2003

  B2

  British Nuclear Fuels Ltd

  September 2002

  September 2005

  B2

  BAES

  September 2002

  September 2005

  SCS

  BAE Systems

  October 2002

  October 2004

  B1

  BAES

  November 2002

  February 2004

  C1

  BAE Systems

  November 2002

  May 2003

  Graduate Trainee

  BAE Systems

  November 2002

  November 2003

  C1

  BAE Systems

  January 2003

  December 2004

  C2

  AWE

  April 2003

  April 2005

  C1

  AWE

  April 2003

  April 2005

  C1

  Rolls Royce

  April 2003

  October 2004

  C1

  BAES

  April 2003

  October 2003

  Graduate Trainee

  Lockhear Martin

  May 2003

  May 2005

  C1

  BAES

  August 2003

  July 2005

  C2

  MBDA Missile Systems

  September 2003

  March 2004

  C1

  BAE

  July 2003

  January 2004

  D

  War Pensioners
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many of the war pensioners, suffering from a wholly psychiatric illness who lost their incapacity benefit in the three years up to 31 August 2002, subsequently lost all or part of their war disability pension; how many of these submitted a worsening condition application; and how many who did not lose all or part of their war disability pension submitted a worsening condition application; [127950]

  (2) what the average amount lost each week in war disability pension was by those war pensioners, suffering from a wholly psychiatric illness who, having lost their incapacity benefit in the three years up to 31 August 2002, then went on to lose all or part of their war disability pension; [127951]

  (3) what the average amount of money lost each week in war disability pension to individual war pensioners suffering from wholly psychiatric disorders was in each year from 1995 to 2002. [127953]

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

  West Freugh Airstrip
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the maintenance programme for the airstrip at West Freugh. [127850]

  Mr. Caplin
  Under the terms of the Long Term Partnering Agreement, QinetiQ is contracted by the Ministry of Defence to maintain the West Freugh airfield infrastructure on a care and maintenance basis.

  This level of maintenance meets MOD"s requirements for the airfield and is consistent with its current status of disused and unlicensed.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions her Department have had with government representatives from(a) Armenia, (b) Azerbaijan, (c) Georgia and (d) Russia on the issue of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline project; when these discussions took place; what the result of these discussions was; and if she will make a statement. [128067]

  Mr. Timms
  Representatives from the prospective lenders to the project, including the Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD), met Government representatives from Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey during a trip to the pipeline transit countries in July 2003. Discussions centred mainly on the Host Government Agreements (HGAs) entered into separately between the three countries and the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company. ECGD is now awaiting information from the relevant Governments about the drafting of the HGAs.

  An ECGD business principles expert also took part in a trip to the region in June 2003, where he met the Georgian Minister of Environment.

  ECGD has had no discussions with Government representatives from Armenia or Russia.

  Representatives of TradePartners UK have from time to time had meetings with Government representatives from Azerbaijan at which the project has been discussed.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what Government assistance has been sought by BP for the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan pipeline project; what assistance has been granted; and if she will make a statement. [128082]

  Mr. Timms
  The project Sponsors, led by BP, have approached the Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD) regarding cover for the supply of UK goods and services, and for UK investments related to the
  357W
  project. Cover will be provided only if ECGD are satisfied that the relevant environmental, social and human rights impacts have been properly addressed and that the financial and project risks are acceptable.

  Cotton
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations the Government will be making at Cancun on the effect of subsidies on cotton produced in developed countries on the economies of less developed countries; and if she will make a statement. [125082]

  Mr. Mike O"Brien
  The UK Government are committed to the Doha mandate aimed at achieving substantial reductions on trade distorting domestic support and reductions of, with a view to phasing out, all forms of export subsidies. We will push for progress on both these areas at Cancun. That way we will achieve benefits for all Developing Countries in all sectors.

  The UK Government also recognise the important role of commodities like cotton for development and poverty reduction in many developing countries. For this reason we welcome the fact that four West African countries-Benin, Chad, Mali and Burkina Faso—have come together to identify their common interests on cotton and argue their case in the WTO. The UK Government have provided "50,000 to the nongovernmental organisation IDEAS who will offer technical assistance to these countries to strengthen their WTO case. It will, however, be important to ensure that the focus of negotiations at Cancun remains on achieving substantial reductions in agricultural support across all products to maximise gains for developing countries as a whole.

  Electricity Generation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the maximum electricity demand was in each year since 1983; and what the percentage change in maximum demand was in each year. [128303]

  Mr. Timms
  Available data are shown in the following table. From 1987 onwards data are for the United Kingdom. Before 1987 data are for Great Britain only. 1987 is given for both geographical bases.

  Simultaneous maximum demand for electricity

  MW

  Year ending March

  Maximum demand

  Percentage change on a year earlier

  Great Britain

  1983

  47,333

  -2.5

  1984

  47,396

  +0.1

  1985

  51,710

  +9.1

  1986

  50,943

  -1.5

  1987

  53,980

  +6.0

  United Kingdom

  1987

  55,330

  1988

  53,833

  -2.7

  1989

  53,555

  -0.5

  1990

  53,414

  -0.3

  1991

  54,068

  +1.2

  1992

  54,472

  +0.7

  1993

  51,663

  -5.2

  1994

  54,848

  +6.2

  358W

  Simultaneous maximum demand for electricity

  MW

  Year ending March

  Maximum demand

  Percentage change on a year earlier

  1995

  52,362

  -4.5

  1996

  55,611

  +6.2

  1997

  56,815

  +2.2

  1998

  56,965

  +0.3

  1999

  56,312

  -1.1

  2000

  57,849

  +2.7

  2001

  58,425

  +1.0

  2002

  58,589

  +0.3

  2003

  61,717

  +5.3

  Source:

  Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 2003 and earlier years.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what powers she has to require the owners of out of commission generating capacity to bring it back into operation. [128300]

  Mr. Timms
  As stated in the Energy White Paper, we will not intervene in the market except in extreme circumstances, such as to avert, as a last resort, a potentially serious risk to safety. However, under section 34 of the 1989 Electricity Act my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry does have the power to order generators to run power plant.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the total generating capacity available from(a) coal-fired, (b) oil-fired, (c) gas-fired, (d) nuclear and (e) renewable sources was in each year since 1983. [128298]

  Mr. Timms
  Available data are shown in the following tables. From 1986–87 onwards data are for the United Kingdom. Before 1986–87 data are for Great Britain only and fewer types of station are identified. 1986–87 is given for both geographical bases.

  Electricity generating capacity

  Great Britain

  MW

  Total

  Nuclear

  Oil-fired

  Other (steam coal/fired and coal/oil fired)

  Other (including gas turbines, oil engines and hydro)

  At end of financial year

  1982–83

  64,930

  6,535

  11,973

  40,782

  5,640

  1983–84

  61,100

  6,535

  9,889

  38,778

  5,898

  1984–85

  61,340

  6,609

  9,170

  38,442

  7,119

  1985–86

  61,677

  7,189

  8,404

  38,730

  7,354

  1986–87

  61,865

  7,189

  8,059

  32,295

  7,322

  Source:

  Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 1990 and earlier years
  359W

  Electricity generating capacity

  United Kingdom

  MW

  Total

  Nuclear

  Oil-fired

  Coal-fired

  Mixed/dual fired (including gas fired non CCGT and all conventional steam plant operated by generators other than major power producers)

  CCGT

  Gas-turbine and oil engines

  Hydro (including pumped storage)

  Renewables (other than hydro

  1986–87

  66,687

  7,189

  8,675

  35,662

  7,516

  ..

  3,476

  4,168

  1

  1987–88

  67,629

  7,229

  10,317

  35,369

  7,507

  ..

  3,041

  4,163

  4

  1988–89

  70,237

  8,308

  11,581

  35,173

  7,694

  ..

  3,313

  4,163

  4

  1989–90

  74,557

  11,083

  12,487

  34,583

  8,642

  76

  3,356

  4,194

  136

  1990–91

  73,518

  11,353

  11,895

  34,298

  8,451

  76

  3,130

  4,190

  125

  1991–92

  70,528

  11,353

  10,817

  32,686

  8,017

  331

  2,968

  4,199

  157

  1992–93

  67,499

  11,353

  8,556

  30,523

  8,762

  1,334

  2,539

  4,212

  220

  1993–94

  69,117

  11,894

  6,487

  29,132

  8,887

  6,163

  2,018

  4,220

  317

  1994–95

  68,741

  12,037

  5,145

  27,774

  8,791

  8,517

  1,895

  4,213

  369

  1995–96

  70,126

  12,762

  5,214

  27,494

  8,768

  9,377

  1,890

  4,220

  401

  At end of calendar year

  1996

  73,271

  12,916

  3,989

  25,796

  11,637

  12,462

  1,721

  4,243

  507

  1997

  72,865

  12,946

  4,069

  25,796

  11,015

  12,716

  1,526

  4,244

  553

  1998

  73,380

  12,956

  2,829

  25,324

  10,176

  15,643

  1,492

  4,263

  697

  1999

  75,446

  12,956

  2,829

  25,581

  10,332

  17,353

  1,333

  4,265

  797

  2000

  78,288

  12,486

  2,933

  24,835

  10,416

  21,058

  1,323

  4,273

  964

  2001

  79,488

  12,486

  2,933

  24,835

  10,309

  22,294

  1,323

  4,296

  1,012

  2002

  76,588

  12,486

  2,708

  22,452

  10,004

  22,089

  1,463

  4,254

  1,132

  Source:

  Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 2003 and earlier years

  Insider Trading
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations she has received on insider trading. [127783]

  Jacqui Smith
  None.

  Since 1 December 2001 the Financial Services Authority has been the primary enforcer of the insider dealing legislation.

  Nanotechnology
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations she has received on the progress of nanotechnology development in the UK. [127792]

  Ms Hewitt
  Since the beginning of this year, the Minister responsible for nanotechnology in my Department, my noble Friend, the Minister for Science and Innovation, has received 14 letters and has held 8 meetings concerning the progress of nanotechnology development in the UK. In addition, there has been continuous dialogue between my Department"s officials in the Innovation Group and the Office of Science and Technology with industry and science based representatives across a wide range of nanotechnology related issues.

  Offshore Wind Power
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what criteria were used to select the second round sites for offshore wind licensing; and by what process companies interested in developing offshore wind in areas not cited in round two of offshore wind licensing can proceed with their plans. [127192]

  Mr. Timms
  The round two strategic areas, within which developers are invited to apply for site leases for offshore windfarms, were identified primarily as areas with the greatest concentration of potentially suitable
  360W
  sites on the basis of sea depth and proximity to the electricity grid network. A particularly sensitivity coastal strip was excluded following strategic environmental assessment of the three areas. Developers interested in developing offshore windfarms in areas outside of the round two areas should inform DTI of their plans, as indicated in the DTI"s consultation paper "Future Offshore—A Strategic Framework for the Offshore Wind Industry". This information will feed in, along with the results of DTI"s current review of the UK offshore marine renewable resource, to the planning of the future strategic environmental assessment programme that will determine the programme of future site leasing rounds.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment has been made of the offshore wind potential off the north coast of Scotland. [127194]

  Mr. Timms
  In 2001 Garrad Hassan and Partners Ltd. completed a study for the Scottish Executive entitled "Scotland's Renewable Resource 2001". This included tidal stream and wave in addition to offshore wind. It can be viewed on the web at http://www. Scotland.gov.uk/enterprise/energy (click on More Information on Renewables). DTI is commissioning a survey of marine energy resources across all UK waters, which should be completed early in 2004. The results of this survey will be used to inform the programme of future strategic environmental assessments. Strategic environmental assessment of an area is necessary before that area can be offered to developers to tender for site leases for offshore renewable development.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when round three of licensing for offshore wind farms will commence. [127195]

  Mr. Timms
  No date has yet been set for a third site leasing round for offshore wind farms. The DTI is commissioning a review of the potential UK marine renewable resource, which will inform the programme of future strategic environmental assessment work.
  361W
  Strategic environmental assessment of an area proposed for a future round of offshore renewable development is a requirement before a competition can be announced to invite tenders for site leases.

  Postal Services
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment her Department has made of the impact of the European Commission proposal to apply value added tax to all suppliers of postal services in the EU and end the exemption from VAT for Royal Mail and other national universal service providers of postal services under the 6th VAT Directive (77/388/EEC). [128529]

  Mr. Timms
  This is a matter for the Treasury. I understand that the European Commission proposal (9060/03 COMM(2003)234) for a Council Directive amending Directive 77/388 as regards value added tax on services provided in the postal sector was the subject of an Explanatory Memorandum deposited and sent to Scrutiny Committees by the Paymaster General on 19 May. As indicated in the Explanatory Memorandum, a Regulatory Impact Assessment for the Commission proposal will be submitted as soon as possible.

  Public Service Contracts
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many public service contracts were awarded by her Department(a)in total and (b)to SMEs in each year since 1997; and if she will make a statement. [127801]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Governments have not collected information on the division between contracts awarded to SMEs and large businesses.

  The Small Business Service is undertaking an annual survey of Government procurement to ensure this information is available.

  (a) Central records indicate that the following numbers of contracts in total were awarded.

  Number

  19991

  6,924

  2000

  20,329

  2001

  24,267

  2002

  25,946

  20032

  7,391

  1 From 1 April

  2 To 4 April

  Data for earlier years are not readily available and can only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  (b)

  Simultaneous maximum demand for electricity

  MW

  Year ending March

  Maximum demand

  Percentage change on a year earlier

  Great Britain

  1983

  47,333

  -2.5

  1984

  47,396

  +0.1

  1985

  51,710

  +9.1

  1986

  50,943

  -1.5

  1987

  53,980

  +6.0

  362W

  Simultaneous maximum demand for electricity

  MW

  Year ending March

  Maximum demand

  Percentage change on a year earlier

  United Kingdom

  1987

  55,330

  1988

  53,833

  -2.7

  1989

  53,555

  -0.5

  1990

  53,414

  -0.3

  1991

  54,068

  +1.2

  1992

  54,472

  +0.7

  1993

  51,663

  -5.2

  1994

  54,848

  +6.2

  1995

  52,362

  -4.5

  1996

  55,611

  +6.2

  1997

  56,815

  +2.2

  1998

  56,965

  +0.3

  1999

  56,312

  -1.1

  2000

  57,849

  +2.7

  2001

  58,425

  +1.0

  2002

  58,589

  +0.3

  2003

  61,717

  +5.3

  Source:

  Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 2003 and earlier years

  Regional Assistance Schemes
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans there are to assess the effectiveness of regional assistance schemes with particular reference to Regional Selective Assistance and Enterprise Grants; and if she will make a statement. [128672]

  Jacqui Smith
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 9 July 2003,Official Report, column 796–97W.

  Technology Sector
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on Government initiatives to encourage growth in the technology sector. [127782]

  Ms Hewitt
  There is a wide range of supporting initiatives to encourage growth in technology intensive sectors. These range from support for fundamental research and education in the science base via Office of Science and Technology through targeted collaborative research schemes and grants for Research and Development delivered through Business Links and the Small Business Service. Further support is given across the economy through the R&D tax credits administered by the Inland Revenue. Further details relating specifically to supporting technology and innovation will be made later this year when I publish the results of the Innovation Review.

WALES

  Wanless Review
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Welsh Assembly Government on the need for primary legislation in order to implement the recommendations of the Review of Health and Social Care in Wales advised by Derek Wanless; and which of the four options proposed by the Review to solve the problem of bed-blocking would require primary legislation. [126458]
  363W
  Mr. Touhig
  [holding answer 17 July 2003]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 17 July 2003, Official Report, column 447W.

  I have regular discussions with the Assembly Minister for Health and Social Services and we have of course covered the Wanless Report and its implications. However, it would be inappropriate to comment on the likely need for primary legislation to solve that issue at this time. The Assembly have yet to publish their detailed response and action plan which is due for publication in November.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether his Department has had discussions with the Welsh Assembly Government about implementing the four options proposed by the Review of Health Care in Wales to solve the problem of bed-blocking. [126459]

  Mr. Touhig
  [holding answer 17 July 2003]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 17 July 2003, Official Report, column 447W.

  I have regular meetings with the Assembly Minister for Health, Jane Hutt AM, during which she updates me on health policy initiatives launched by her administration.

  I am aware that the Assembly will be publishing a detailed response and action plan in the autumn and it is therefore premature to comment on implementing the recommendations of the report before then. I will of course keep the matter under review.

  Devolution
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to meet the Richard Commission to discuss the future devolution settlement in Wales. [128472]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) on 1 July 2003,Official Report, columns 257–58.

  Ministerial Visits
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the(a) foreign and (b) UK visits he has made since 1 April; what the cost was to public funds of each trip; who he met; and what gifts were received. [126985]

  Mr. Hain
  The Government publish the overall costs of all ministerial travel and a list of overseas visits by Cabinet Ministers costing in excess of £500 on an annual basis. The list for the period 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003 was published by the Prime Minister on 16 July 2003,Official Report, column 482W. The next list for the period 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004 will be published at the end of the financial year.

  I have undertaken a number of official visits in Wales since April 2003. These have included attendance at the Wales TUC Annual Conference; attending three Eisteddfods, meeting with executive members of farming unions, meeting representatives of industry and commerce and visiting Welsh manufacturing facilities.
  364W
  The total cost of these visits, including my officials was approximately £4,500.

  In respect of gifts received, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my tight hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 14 March 2003, Official Report, column 482W.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Biodiversity and Bushmeat
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the terms of reference have been agreed for the interdepartmental ministerial group on biodiversity and bushmeat. [128366]

  Mr. Morley
  Officials are working on the arrangements for the Biodiversity working group. I hope the arrangements, which will include the terms of reference, will be concluded shortly and that the group can then meet.

  Convention on the Future of Europe
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what assessment her Department has made of the effect of the European Constitution on her Department"s responsibilities; [128176]

  (2) what assessment her Department has made of the effect of the establishment of an EU Foreign Minister on the representation of her Department in international fora. [128177]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The new European Constitution is not expected to have any direct effect on this Department's responsibilities nor on its role representing the UK Government in international fora. The draft of the new Treaty prepared by the Convention on the Future of Europe for discussion at the Inter Governmental Conference this autumn retains the key provisions of the current treaties relating to the environment, agriculture and fisheries.

  The UK is however opposed to the proposal to establish a Single Legislative Council. This would weaken the direct involvement of Environment, Agriculture and Fisheries Ministers in policy formation as well as in negotiating legislation.

  GM Crops
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the approvals procedure for genetically modified crops; whether she plans to amend the regulations; and if she will make a statement. [128330]

  Mr. Morley
  From 1998 to 2001, the UK and our EU partners conducted a thorough review of the EU procedure for assessment and approval of genetically modified organisms, including GM crops. This culminated in the revised EU Directive 2001/18, which entered into force in October 2002, replacing previous EU legislation in this area.
  365W
  The Government strongly support decision making under the updated and improved Directive. It provides a robust framework by which the UK authorities and our EU partners can make effective, evidence-based decisions on whether or not to allow the release or placing on the market of particular GM crops according to the merits of each case. The Directive has been fully transposed in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  Notwithstanding our support for Directive 2001/18, the Government have a voluntary agreement with the UK biotech industry that GM crops will not be grown commercially in this country until we have assessed the results of our Farm Scale Evaluations (FSE) crop trials. We will review our policy on GM crops in light of the FSE results and other relevant information, including the report of the GM public debate.

  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether GM crops that reduce acrylamide formation have been produced. [128693]

  Mr. Morley
  No GM crops that show reduced acrylamide formation have been trialled in the UK, and there are no current applications to market such crops in the EU. Acrylamide is formed during the cooking of some foods, and is believed to be produced as a result of a chemical reaction between the sugars and amino acids that naturally occur in foodstuffs. Recent research has indicated that acrylamide may be harmful to consumers. It might be feasible to reduce the formation of acrylamide during cooking by altering the composition of crops. This could be achieved either using conventional plant breeding or genetic modification.

  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) by how much(a) diesel fuel consumption by farmers and (b) soil erosion would be reduced if 50 per cent. of UK sugar beet, maize and oilseed rape farmers switched to GM herbicide-tolerant varieties and conservation tillage; [128694]

  (2) how many kilos of soil-acting herbicide would be saved if 25 per cent. of the UK forage maize crop were to be sown as GM herbicide-tolerant varieties. [128700]

  Mr. Morley
  It is not possible to give precise estimates of the impact of growing GM herbicide-tolerant (GMHT) crops in the UK on fuel consumption, soil erosion or herbicide usage. These issues are analysed in the report published by the Government"s Strategy Unit in July on the costs and benefits of GM crops www.strategy.gov.uk. This notes the potential for GMHT crops to deliver various benefits through improved crop management practices, but does not offer firm conclusions because of the complexity of the issues and the limitations of the available evidence.

  Nuclear Storage
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on discussions at European Community level on a common nuclear storage facility. [128172]
  366W
  Mr. Morley
  I am not aware of any such discussions. However, the European Commission has presented a proposal to the Council for a Euratom Directive on the management of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste. The draft Directive would require each member state to establish a clearly defined programme for radioactive waste management that includes all radioactive waste under its jurisdiction and covers all stages of management. The Commission"s draft favours disposal in a deep repository, without the intention of retrieval, as the most suitable method for long-term management of the most hazardous forms of solid and solidified radioactive waste.

  The draft directive also provides that a member state"s programme may include shipments of radioactive waste or spent fuel to another member state or third country if such shipments are:

  (i) fully in compliance with existing EU legislation, principally Directive 92/3/Euratom, and international commitments;

  (ii) covered by firm contracts;

  (iii) made only to states with appropriate facilities that meet accepted norms and standards of the member state of origin; and

  (iv) are conducted under adequate safeguards, where they involve ores, source materials and "special fissile materials" (uranium and plutonium).

  The Government are actively engaged in discussion of the Commission's proposal in the Council working group. However, my Department is also currently carrying out a programme of consultation and public participation to develop a long term radioactive waste management policy. That process will examine all the management options available, with no presumption in favour of deep disposal.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Anti-Semitism
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what liaison there has been between his Department and the Department for Education and Skills on dealing with anti-semitism in schools, with particular reference to teaching controversial issues. [126942]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  [holding answer 8 September 2003]: The Home Office and Department for Education and Skills work closely together on a number of issues some of which may be regarded as controversial. They do so in close discussion but within the confines of their own individual remits. Both Departments have worked particularly closely over the last three years in the preparation of Holocaust Memorial Day, which in addition to commemorating the victims of the Holocaust also seeks to address and confront the dangers of prejudice and discrimination today. The Department for Education and Skills produces free resources for schools for Holocaust Memorial Day, which amongst other issues addresses anti-semitism. The resources are promoted with the support and co-operation of both Departments.

  Drugs
  Mrs Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of property crime is attributable to the misuse of Class A drugs. [127672]

  Caroline Flint
  Recorded crime figures include statistics on drugs offences, such as possession, and on property crimes, such as burglary, but do not record whether the latter are related to an offender's drug habits.

  However, the Home Office sponsored New English and Welsh Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (NEW-ADAM) research programme, which involved interviewing and drug testing those arrested by the police, provides an insight into the proportion of crimes that are drug related.

  Analysis of the data from the first eight sites in the survey, collected during 1999–2000, shows that 65 per cent. of arrestees tested positive for one or more illegal drug, with up to 29 per cent. testing positive for opiates (including heroin) and/or cocaine (including crack). Whilst users of both heroin and cocaine/crack represent just under one quarter of all arrestees interviewed in NEW-ADAM, they were responsible for more than three fifths of all the illegal income reported.

  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions there were of people accused of possessing Class A drugs in the most recent year for which figures are available. [128126]

  Caroline Flint
  There were 17,634 prosecutions for Class A drug possession offences, and 12,388 convictions, in 2000 in England and Wales.

  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimates he has made of the size of the illegal drugs market in the UK in(a) 1997, (b) 2001 and (c) the present day. [128125]

  Caroline Flint
  The Home Office has only produced one estimate of the size of the illegal drugs market in the UK. This was for 1998. The estimated quantity of drugs consumed over the course of a year was estimated at 566 thousand kilogrammes (this did not include ecstasy tablets, which are measured in tablets not weight. The estimated number of ecstasy tablets for the same period was 27,000). In total the estimated value of illegal drugs for that year was £6.6 billion.

  Criminal Justice Bill
  Mrs Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for making appropriate treatment more widely available for the purposes of clause 16 of the Criminal Justice Bill. [127673]

  Caroline Flint
  We are already significantly expanding drug treatment provision for those referred from both the Criminal Justice system (CJS) and other sources, as part of the Updated Drug Strategy.

  Additional resources are being made available to fund this expansion. The National Pooled Treatment Budget for 2002–03 was £191 million. In 2003–04 it will increase by 23.5 per cent to £236 million and will continue to rise to £299 million by 2005–06.
  368W
  Subject to Royal Assent of the Criminal Justice Bill, the provisions under Clause 19 ("Drug users: restriction on bail", previously Clause 16) will be piloted in a limited number of areas initially, and will only be brought into force in a given area where appropriate assessment and treatment are available.

  Police Custody
  Mrs Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people detained by police were released within(a) 24 hours and (b) 36 hours in the last 12 months; [127668]

  (2) how many of those detained by police were released within (a) 24 hours and (b) 36 hours in the last year for which figures are available. [128622]

  Ms Blears
  Information is not collected centrally on the number of people detained under Part IV of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984 and released within 24 hours. The number of persons detained for more than 24 hours and released without charge within 36 hours is as follows:

  Persons detained for more than 24 hours and released without charge—England and Wales (number and percentages)

  Released within 36 hours

  Year

  Total

  (per cent.)

  Detained under warrant of further detention

  1997–98

  674

  603

  (89)

  71

  1998–99

  710

  650

  (92)

  60

  1999–2000

  570

  505

  (89)

  65

  2000–01

  525

  449

  (86)

  76

  2001–021

  505

  453

  (90)

  52

  1 Figures amended since publication of 2001/02 Bulletin.

  Source:

  Home Office Statistical Bulletin 12/02: Arrest for Notifiable Offences and the Operation of Certain Police Powers under PACE, England and Wales 2001/02.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Sao Tome and Principe
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development how much aid is spent multilaterally by the Department in Sao Tome and Principe(a) through the EU and (b) through the UN; and if he will make a statement. [127261]

  Hilary Benn
  In 2002, the EC spent "2.768 million in Sao Tome and Principe. Out of this, "1.993 million came from the European Development Fund (EDF) and "0.775 million from the EC's External Relations budget.

  DFID"s share of the EDF in 2002 was about 12 per cent. and of the EC Budget about 19 per cent.

  In 2001, the latest year for which figures are available, the UN spent US$ 1.7 million on Sao Tome and Principe. The amount contributed by DFID to Sao Tome and Principe through the UN during this year is not available, although our core contribution to the UN agencies contributing to this country in 2001 was some £45 million.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

  Parliamentary Hours
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Leader of the House if he will make a statement on changes to the sitting hours of the House. [128480]

  Mr. Hain
  In October last year a majority of Members voted to alter the sitting hours so that the House now sits from 11.30 am on Tuesday and Wednesday. The Standing Orders were changed for the rest of this Parliament, which will allow us a sufficient period to make a considered judgment on the effect of the changes.

SCOTLAND

  Darwin Mounds
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his participation in discussions with(a) the European Commission and (b) the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the Darwin Mounds. [128443]

  Mrs. McGuire
  Discussions involving the Government, the Scottish Executive and the European Commission led to the announcement of an EU ban on seabed trawling in the Darwin Mounds area on 20 August. The Government are proposing the notification of the Darwin Mounds as a Special Area of Conservation in a consultation paper issued today.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the effect the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy will have on Scotland. [128449]

  Mrs. McGuire
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs made a statement on the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy on 26 June. The agreement to which she referred is a good agreement for farmers, consumers and taxpayers and for the environment in the whole of the United Kingdom, including Scotland.

  Post Office Accounts
  Mr. MacDonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which banks with branches in Scotland have made agreements with the Post Office to allow the bank's customers to access their bank accounts via their local post offices. [128451]

  Mrs. McGuire
  All of the leading UK banks have made their basic bank accounts accessible at post offices as a result of the Post Office's Universal Banking Project. Agreements to access existing bank accounts at the Post Office are a commercial decision for the banks.

  Scottish Agriculture College
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to discuss the future of the Scottish Agriculture College with the Scottish Executive. [128453]
  370W
  Mrs. McGuire
  The future of the Scottish Agriculture College is a matter for the Scottish Executive.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people in Scotland will be eligible for Winter Fuel Payments in 2003–04; and if he will make a statement. [128454]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The information requested is not available, however the number of people in Scotland who received the Winter Fuel Payment in 2002–03 is estimated to have been 1,009,090, made up of 430,665 men and 578,425 women.

  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pensioner households are receiving winter fuel allowance in(a) Scotland, (b) Glasgow and (c) Glasgow, Anniesland. [128450]

  Mrs. McGuire
  In 2002/2003, 679,710 households in Scotland, 62,805 in the Glasgow parliamentary constituencies and 8,170 in Glasgow, Anniesland constituency are estimated to have received the winter fuel payment.

  Health
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has had with other Ministers about cross-border health issues. [128455]

  Mrs. McGuire
  My right hon. Friend and I have frequent discussions with ministerial colleagues on a wide range of issues.

  Fallen Stock
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the Scottish Executive to discuss arrangements for the disposal of fallen stock on offshore islands. [128456]

  Mrs. McGuire
  Responsibility for agricultural matters in Scotland rests with the Scottish Executive.

  Scottish Boundary Commission
  15. Angela Watkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland When he will publish the recommendations of the Scottish Boundary Commission. [128457]

  Mr. Darling
  I refer the hon. Lady to my reply of earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty),Official Report, c. 152.

  Devolution
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the devolution settlement as it affects Scotland. [128463]

  Mr. Darling
  The Scottish devolution settlement is well established and successful. The recent changes to the machinery of government at Westminster reflect its maturity.

  Road Haulage Industry
  Jim Sheridan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has had with the Scottish Executive about the road haulage industry in Scotland. [128452]

  Mr. Darling
  I have regular discussions with Scottish Ministers on a wide range of issues affecting Scotland, including transport.

TRANSPORT

  Robin Rigg Windfarm
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he first discussed with the Scottish Executive the safety zones for shipping around the proposed Robin Rigg windfarm. [127860]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Scottish Executive attended a meeting on 11 February 2003 at which UK Government Departments discussed policy on the development of offshore windfarms and their impacts on the safety of navigation including the case for safety zones around such structures. The Robin Rigg windfarm was one of a number of offshore renewable energy projects discussed.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he first discussed the exclusion of unauthorised shipping from Robin Rigg windfarm with the Scottish Executive. [128020]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My officials from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency appeared before the Convenor of the Robin Rigg Offshore Wind Farm (Navigation and Fishing) (Scotland) Bill Committee at the Bill"s preliminary stage on 11 November 2002. There they were questioned about the proposals to establish an exclusion zone around the Robin Rigg Offshore Wind Farm. Their appearance before the Committee was discussed at a meeting between my officials and the Scottish Executive on 15 November 2002.

  Transport Responsibilities
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on responsibility for transport between(a) parts of the United Kingdom covered by devolved Administrations, (b) England and (c) Northern Ireland. [127778]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The responsibility for transport between the United Kingdom Government, devolved Administrations and Northern Ireland is outlined as follows:

  Wales

  The National Assembly for Wales"s powers are limited to those functions specifically transferred to it by a Transfer of Functions Order, or conferred on it by specific primary legislation or an EU Designation Order. The functions which have been devolved in the field of transport include, among others, maintenance and improvement of the Welsh trunk road network, funding local authority expenditure on roads, a range of road safety responsibilities, concessionary parking schemes for disabled and blind people, land use and
  372W
  surface access planning. Railways, aviation and shipping issues in Wales are generally the responsibility of the UK Government.

  Scotland

  Unless a matter is expressly reserved to the UK Government in Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998, it is devolved. The Scottish Parliament has legislative competence in areas of transport including the Scottish road network; parking controls; promotion of road safety; bus policy; concessionary fares; cycling; taxis and minicabs; non-technical aspects of transport for disabled people; promotion and construction of new railways which start and end in Scotland; grants for passenger rail services; consultative arrangements in respect of public transport; ports, harbours, piers and boatslips; provision of freight shipping and ferry services, including CalMac; activities of Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd.; planning and environmental issues relating to airports; and inland waterways

  In addition, the Scottish Executive have power to issue directions and guidance to the Strategic Rail Authority in relation to franchised rail services that both start and end in Scotland; power to issue directions and guidance to the SRA in respect of franchised sleeper services; power to give advice to the SRA in relation to cross-border franchised rail services; applications to the EU for the designation of lifeline air services; and enforcement of vehicle emissions standards. The Executive are also the highway authority for the Scottish Trunk Road network.

  Functions reserved to the UKG in the field of transport in Scotland include transport security; transport safety and regulation, including the regulation of air transport and shipping, marine and air safety, the provision and regulation of railway services including rail safety; and marine, air and rail accident prevention and investigation; some aspects of road traffic regulation, including driver and vehicle licensing and testing, road signing, vehicle standards, general speed limits; some aspects of road safety; and technical standards relating to the transport of disabled persons.

  Northern Ireland

  While devolution in Northern Ireland is suspended, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has assumed responsibility for the direction and control of the Northern Ireland Departments including that dealing with transport.

  England

  The Secretary of State for Transport is responsible for all legislative matters regarding transport in England. He is also the highway authority for the trunk road network in England.

  A27
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether it is his intention to undertake a safety review of the A27 between Beddingham and Polegate with a view to identifying on-line safety improvements. [127218]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Secretary of State announced on 9 July 2003 that the bypasses of Selmeston and Wilmington proposed by the south coast multi-modal study (SoCoMMS) were not acceptable in the form
  373W
  proposed. Therefore, he asked the Highways Agency to work with local authorities and statutory environmental bodies to identify less damaging options, including management measures that reduce the need for major road construction, and report back. The Agency will be looking at the current problems and safety issues on the existing road between Beddingham and Polegate as part of this work.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what timescale will apply to the redesign of the A27 Southerham-Beddingham scheme; what public consultation process will apply to the redesigned scheme; and if he will make a statement. [127219]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Highways Agency will provide further advice on a redesigned scheme in October 2003. In the light of that advice, a recommendation will be announced together with arrangements for consultation.

  Aggregate
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his Answer of 2 July 2003,Official Report, column 267W, on aggregate, what assessment his Department has made of the environmental impact of mineral extraction to provide aggregate for road building and maintenance; and when estimates of the amount of aggregate required for road improvement schemes in the Ten Year Plan will be made. [127203]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Revised national and regional guidelines for the provision of aggregates for all end uses for the 16-year period 2001–16 were issued by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in June of this year. Regional Planning Bodies in England will take into account the likely environmental impacts of the implied extraction when apportioning the regional guidelines to mineral planning authority areas. Estimates of the amount of aggregate required for road improvement schemes in the Ten Year Plan will be made on a scheme specific basis as the design for each scheme is developed.

  Air Quality (London)
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has collated on changes in air quality in central London since the introduction of congestion charging. [127180]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer of 15 May 2003,Official Report, column 339W. The position remains unchanged. The Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs publish regular
  374W
  data on pollution levels in London which can be seen at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/airquality/ index.htm

  Car Travel
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to the answer to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) of 14 July 2003,Official Report, column 26W, on car travel, if he will provide figures for 1979 to 1998. [127577]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Figures for average car occupancy are available from the National Travel Survey for 1985–86 and for 1990–2000.

  Average car occupancy: 1985–86 to 2000

  Number

  1985–86

  1.64

  1990

  1.62

  1991

  1.61

  1992

  1.61

  1993

  1.62

  1994

  1.62

  1995

  1.62

  1996

  1.61

  1997

  1.60

  1998

  1.59

  1999

  1.59

  2000

  1.59

  Note:

  Figures for 1990–2000 are estimated using the average of three years of survey data, e.g. the figure for 2000 is the average occupancy for the period 1999–2001.

  Highways (Street Works)
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the average cost charged to companies was by each local authority in England for the occupation of highways during street works, in each year since the introduction of the Street Works (Charges for Occupation of the Highway) (England) Regulations. [128602]

  Mr. Jamieson
  To date, charges under the Street Works (Charges for Occupation of the Highway) (England) Regulations have only been applied on roads within Middlesbrough and the London borough of Camden. Comprehensive figures for charges levied are not available at this stage. However, we have appointed consultants—Halcrow—to monitor the operation of the charging scheme, and they will be reporting to us shortly with an assessment of the scheme's first 12 months. Copies of their report will be placed in the Library of the House later in the year.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  European Council
  The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane)
  The forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union from September 2003 to March 2004 is as follows:

  Date

  Location

  Event

  September 2003

  3–5

  Viterbo

  Telecommunications (Ministerial)

  4–5

  Benevento

  Informal Youth Affairs (Ministerial Informal)

  5–6

  Riva del

  Gymnich (Informal Foreign)

  Garda

  5–6

  Milan

  Informal Health Ministerial

  12–13

  Stresa

  ECOFIN (Informal Council)

  12–13

  Rome

  Justice & Internal Affairs (Informal Council)

  14–15

  Syracuse

  Informal Audio-Visual Telecoms and Culture Ministerial

  20–23

  Taormina

  Informal Agriculture Council

  22–23

  Brussels

  Competition (Internal Market, Industry & Research)

  25–26

  Lucca

  Informal Children's Affairs

  26–27

  Erice

  Community Regional Cohesion Policy (Ministerial Informal)

  29–30

  Brussels

  General Affairs & External Relations Council (GAERC)

  29–30

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  23–25

  Cernobbio

  Informal Terrestrial Digital

  25

  Catania

  Informal Internal Market/Industry Ministerial

  27

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  October

  2–3

  Brussels

  Justice & Internal Affairs

  3–4

  Rome

  Defence (Ministerial Informal)

  7

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  9–10

  Brussels

  Transport, Telecom & Energy Council

  13–14

  Brussels

  General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC)

  13–14

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  16–17

  Brussels

  European Council

  20–21

  Brussels

  Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council

  24–25

  Brussels

  Education, Youth & Culture Council

  27–28

  Brussels

  Justice & Internal Affairs (Informal Council)

  27

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  November

  4

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  6

  Brussels

  Justice & Internal Affairs (Informal Council)

  6–7

  Catania

  European Conference on Employment

  17–18

  Brussels

  General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC)

  17–18

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  18

  Milan

  European Conference on Immigration & Labour Market

  24–25

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  16WS

  Date

  Location

  Event

  24–25

  Brussels

  Education, Youth & Culture Council

  27–28

  Brussels

  Justice & Internal Affairs (Informal Council)

  December

  1–2

  Rome

  Euromed Meeting

  1–2

  Brussels

  Employment, Social Policy Health and Consumer Affairs Council

  1–3

  Rome

  Informal Public Administration Ministerial

  4–5

  Brussels

  Transport, Telecom & Energy Council

  5–7

  Rome

  Closing Conference for the European Year of the Disabled

  8–9

  Brussels

  General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC)

  12–13

  Brussels

  European Council

  15–17

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  16

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  22

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  January 2004

  8

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  16–17

  Brussels

  Employment & Social Policy (Ministerial Informal)

  16–17

  Ireland (venue tbc)

  Informal Employment and Social Policy

  19

  Brussels

  Eurogroup

  20

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  22–23

  Ireland (venue tbc)

  Justice & Home Affairs (Ministerial Informal)

  26–27

  Brussels

  General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC)

  February

  10

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  19

  Brussels

  Justice & Home Affairs (Ministerial Informal)

  23–24

  Brussels

  General Affairs & External Relations (GAERC)

  23–24

  Brussels

  Justice & Home Affairs (Ministerial Informal)

  26

  Brussels

  Education, Youth & Culture Council

  March

  4–5

  Brussels

  Employment, Social Policy, Health & Consumer Affairs (Ministerial)

  8–9

  Brussels

  Transport, Telecom & Energy Council

  9

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  11

  Brussels

  Competitiveness Council

  22–23

  Brussels

  General Affairs & External Relations (GAERC)

  22–23

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  25–26

  Brussels

  European Council

  31

  Brussels

  Justice & Home Affairs (Ministerial Informal)

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Public Collections
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Fiona Mactaggart)
  I am today placing in the Library of this House copies of a consultation document on proposals for a new licensing scheme for public collections for charitable, philanthropic and benevolent purposes.
  17WS
  This consultation builds on the package of measures set out in our response to the Strategy Unit review of Charity Law and Regulation published on 16 July, and proposes the setting up of a new, updated and unified local authority licensing scheme for public collections to replace the present complex, outdated and fragmented legislation. The aim is to modernise the law, creating a fair and cost-effective system of licensing which facilitates responsible fundraising but deters bogus collections and prevents nuisance to the public. We want to enable a wide range of organisations to be more effective and innovative, whilst maintaining the high levels of public trust and confidence which are vital to the continued success of the sector.

PRIME MINISTER

  Annual Reports
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair)
  I have today laid before both Houses the Annual Reports for 2002 of the Interception of Communications Commissioner, the right hon. Sir Swinton Thomas, the Intelligence Services Commissioner, the right hon. Lord Justice Simon Brown and the Chief Surveillance Commissioner, the right hon. Sir Andrew Leggatt. Some sensitive information has been excluded from the reports of the Interception of Communications Commissioner and the Intelligence Services Commissioner in accordance with Section 58(7) and 60(5) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act.

  I am grateful to the Commissioners for their reports and the work that has gone into preparing them.

TRANSPORT

  Crossrail
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling)
  On 14 July, I announced that I intended to assemble an expert team to assess Cross London Rail Link's business case proposals for the East-West Crossrail project. I am pleased to announce today that Adrian Montague will lead the expert review team for the Crossrail project. He is the Deputy Chairman of Network Rail, the Chairman of British Energy and is a former head of HM Treasury's Private Finance Taskforce. He has enormous experience in both railway projects and corporate finance and is ideally suited to this important task.

  The Government remain keen on the principle of a new East-West Crossrail link. Crossrail has the potential to relieve some of the serious congestion across central London. However, the costs are substantial. A project of this size needs the appropriate level of scrutiny and it must be funded in a way that reflects the distribution of the benefits.

  I have therefore asked the team to look closely at CLRL's proposals to see whether they are likely to be deliverable to time, scope and budget, and, if so, whether they are likely to provide proper value for money. I have also asked the team to consider whether there are alternative ways of delivering a Crossrail
  18WS
  project that would offer better performance than the proposals set out in the Business Case. I have asked the team to report to me as soon as practicable and hope that its findings will be available around the turn of the year. The final report will be published.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefit Fraud Inspectorate Report (Castle Morpeth Borough Council)
  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) inspection report on Castle Morpeth Borough Council was published on 29 July 2003 and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  Following the housing Green Paper "Quality and Choice: A Decent Home for All", published in April 2000, the Department for Work and Pensions developed a performance framework for housing benefits. The performance standards for housing benefits allow local authorities to make a comprehensive self-assessment of whether they deliver benefit effectively and securely. They are the standards that the Department for Work and Pensions expects local authorities to aspire to and achieve in time.

  The BFI inspected Castle Morpeth Borough Council against the Performance Standards. The report finds that the council is not at Standard for any of the seven functional areas of the Performance Standards—strategic management, customer services, processing of claims, working with landlords, internal security, counter-fraud, and overpayments.

  The council needs to make considerable improvements if it is to achieve standard in any area, and there was little awareness at senior management or member level of the key areas.

  Management information was very limited and there was little awareness of the issues affecting performance. There were significant backlogs in claims processing and overpayments, with claims taking on average 82 days to process. There was little deterrence to potential benefit fraudsters.

  In July 2002, the council began to replace its existing IT systems. This was done with very little additional resource and has had an adverse impact on the council's housing benefit and council tax benefit performance, which was already poor. The council's ability to recover overpaid benefits has been hampered by a lack of effective management and IT problems.

  The council assured BFI that it would act on the report to bring the benefits service up to standard. It had submitted bids for additional resources to the Department for Work and Pensions' Performance Standards Fund and Help Fund. In 2001–02, Castle Morpeth Borough Council administered some £3.8 million in housing benefits, about 29 per cent. of its total gross revenue expenditure.
  19WS
  The report makes recommendations to help the council address weaknesses and further to improve the administration of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, as well as counter-fraud activities.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for its proposals in response to BFI's findings and recommendations.

  Benefit Fraud Inspectorate Report (East Renfrewshire Council)
  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) inspection report on East Renfrewshire Council was published on 21 August 2003 and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  Following the housing Green Paper "Quality and Choice: A Decent Home for All", published in April 2000, the Department for Work and Pensions developed a performance framework for housing benefits. The performance standards for housing benefits allow local authorities to make a comprehensive self-assessment of whether they deliver benefit effectively and securely. They are the standards that the Department for Work and Pensions expects local authorities to aspire to and achieve in time.

  The BFI inspected East Renfrewshire Council against the Performance Standards. The report finds that the council is not at standard for any of the seven functional areas of the Performance Standards—strategic management, customer services, processing of claims, working with landlords, internal security, counter-fraud, and overpayments.

  The BFI found evidence of the council's commitment to improving its benefit administration as it had provided additional resources. Responsibilities for Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit administration and counter-fraud transferred to the Finance Department in 1998, when the full-time equivalent number of staff increased from 11 to 17. The council planned to increase this again by a further two staff in May 2003.

  However, this increased commitment needs to be directed by a clear vision for the benefits service supported by a broad range of formal policies and clearly communicated performance targets.

  The council also needs to undertake routine performance monitoring and regular reporting of performance results to senior managers and elected members to assure them that performance complies with regulations.

  Such arrangements should help bring about required improvements in the quality of fraud investigations much needed management assurance from regularly performed management checks, and ensure that systems are adequately safeguarded. When completed, the council will be in a better position to progress to standard in all seven functional areas of the performance standards, particularly in the area of overpayments.
  20WS
  In 2001–02, East Renfrewshire Council administered some £11.7 million in housing benefits, about 7.6 per cent. of its total gross revenue expenditure.

  The report makes recommendations to help the council address weaknesses and to improve the administration of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, as well as counter-fraud activities.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for its proposals in response to the BFI's findings and recommendations.

  Benefit Fraud Inspectorate Report (London Borough of Harrow Council)
  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 the London Borough of Harrow Council was published on 19 August 2003 and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  Following the housing Green Paper "Quality and Choice: A Decent Home for All", published in April 2000, the Department for Work and Pensions developed a performance framework for housing benefits. The performance standards for housing benefits allow local authorities to make a comprehensive self-assessment of whether they deliver benefit effectively and securely. They are the standards that the Department for Work and Pensions expects local authorities to aspire to and achieve in time.

  The BFI inspected the London Borough of Harrow Council against the performance standards to assess progress since the first BFI inspection report, published in September 2000.

  The report finds that the council is not at standard for any of the seven functional areas of the Performance Standards—strategic management, customer services, processing of claims, working with landlords, internal security, counter-fraud, and overpayments.

  The council had fully implemented 31 and partially implemented a further 22 of the 67 recommendations made by the BFI in the first inspection report. The council's failure to implement 11 recommendations on counter-fraud contributed to poor quality investigations and the incorrect use of sanctions.

  Verification of benefit claims was strong. However, the backlog of claims outstanding had not decreased since the first inspection, with over 5,800 cases outstanding.

  The average time taken to process a new claim for benefit was 78 days and only 47 per cent. of renewal claims were processed on time. There were also delays in dealing with changes of circumstances and appeals. The level of management checks was insufficient.

  Customers experienced difficulties in contacting the council's benefits service with telephones and reception closed one day each week, and 43 per cent. of telephone calls made by customers were going unanswered.
  21WS
  The report identifies some good practices, for example in the training of staff, working relationships with registered social landlords, and document management. In 2001–02, the London Borough of Harrow Council administered some £60.6 million in housing benefits, about 16 per cent. of its total gross revenue expenditure.

  The report makes recommendations to help the council address weaknesses and further to improve the administration of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, as well as counter-fraud activities.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for its proposals in response to the BFI's findings and recommendations.

  Benefit Fraud Inspectorate Report (Manchester City Council)
  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 Manchester city council was published on 31 July 2003 and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  Following the housing Green Paper "Quality and Choice: A Decent Home for All", published in April 2000, the Department for Work and Pensions developed a performance framework for housing benefits. The performance standards for housing benefits allow local authorities to make a comprehensive self-assessment of whether they deliver benefit effectively and securely. They are the standards that the Department for Work and Pensions expects local authorities to aspire to and achieve in time.

  The BFI inspected Manchester city council against the performance standards to assess progress since the first BFI inspection report, published in June 2001, and found clear evidence of performance improvements in the council's benefits service.

  The report finds that the council is not at standard for any of the seven functional areas of the Performance Standards—strategic management, customer services, processing of claims, working with landlords, internal security, counter-fraud, and overpayments. However, the council had fully embraced the concept of performance standards, and had carried out a full self-assessment against them. The BFI found aspects within the individual standards where the council met or exceeded the criteria.

  Manchester city council displayed commitment and professionalism in its efforts to improve benefits administration. The benefits service had strong support from senior officers and members, and there were clear improvements in performance. Processing times for claims and changes of circumstances were markedly better. Customer services had also improved, with longer opening hours, improvements to the public counter, better training for staff, and improved decision notices.
  22WS
  The council had not adopted the national verification framework, although it had made a commitment to begin introducing part of the framework from October 2003.

  Overpayments work had improved significantly, supported by detailed business planning and improved management information. Counter-fraud activity had improved since the first inspection and the council had developed clear counter-fraud policies, and brought responsibility for prosecutions in-house to improve control. In 2001–02, Manchester city council administered some £245 million in housing benefits, about 20 per cent. of its total gross revenue expenditure.

  The report makes recommendations to help the council address weaknesses and further to improve the administration of housing benefit and council tax benefit, as well as counter-fraud activities.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for its proposals in response to the BFI's findings and recommendations.

  Benefit Fraud Inspectorate Work Programme
  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) has provided further details of its work programme of inspections, as part of its Phase 8 programme for 2003–04. This is in addition to the Phase 8 announcement made on 20 March 2003.

  The BFI is an independent unit within the Department for Work and Pensions that inspects and reports directly to my right hon. Friend on the standard of benefit administration and counter-fraud activity in local authorities and departmental agencies.

  As part of the additional Phase 8 activity, BFI will be undertaking a first inspection of the Isles of Scilly local authority. As this authority is unique in that the Housing Benefit team administers less than 100 claims, BFI proposes to produce a summary report.

  Follow-up inspections on 12 other local authorities will also be undertaken. Seven of these authorities have been identified from post inspection monitoring of performance. Six were judged as poor or fair for their benefits services during the Comprehensive Performance Assessments in 2002, and another has failed to implement key recommendations from the first inspection.

  The remaining five local authorities have been identified from management information provided by them. The local authorities chosen are some that have continuously been in the bottom quartile of best value performance indicators for 2002–03. These authorities have previously been inspected by BFI but have failed to improve in the administration of housing benefits.

  BFI will also be assessing 197 district local authorities as part of the Comprehensive Performance Assessment programme, and five Scottish local authorities as part of the Scottish best value programme.

TREASURY

  Overpaid Tax
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo)
  For many years there has been symmetry within the direct tax system: the Inland Revenue normally has the right to go back six years to assess outstanding tax and those who have overpaid tax have the right to make claims to repayment for a similar period. A recent High Court case has the potential to upset this balance.

  Yesterday I announced that legislation will be included in Finance Bill 2004 to restore this balance. The period for claiming repayments of overpaid tax will be generally limited to six years (or five years in Scotland) from the date of the original payment. The legislation will apply to proceedings commenced on or after 8 September 2003.

  A copy of yesterday's Inland Revenue news release giving the relevant background to this measure and draft clauses for inclusion in the Finance Bill 2004 has been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses and is accessible on the Inland Revenue's website at http:/www. inlandrevenue.gov.uk.

SCOTLAND

  Staffing and Location (Scotland Office)
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alistair Darling)
  I have agreed to proposals by the Head of the Scotland Office, in consultation with the Permanent Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, for re-organising the Scotland Office. These will result in the number of posts reporting to me reducing from 96 to 65.
  24WS
  The reduction of 31 posts has already partly been achieved through transfers of responsibility (mainly Friends of Scotland) to the Scottish Executive and through not filling vacancies. Further reductions will be achieved by staff returning to the Scottish Executive or by redeployment with the Department for Constitutional Affairs. Individual staff will be consulted about their own future.

  I have also agreed that the remaining staff based in Scotland should be concentrated in the Scotland Office headquarters at 1 Melville Crescent, Edinburgh. The Scotland Office accommodation at Meridian Court, Glasgow will be given up.

  Thirty five legal and administrative staff will, in addition, continue to report separately to the Advocate-General for Scotland. The total of 100 posts compares with an agreed staffing level of 131 for the Scotland Office and the Advocate-General's staff together at 11 June 2003. The Advocate-General's staff in Edinburgh will continue to be based at Victoria Quay. The Scotland Office headquarters in London will continue to be at Dover House, Whitehall.

  The target date to complete these changes is 31 December 2003. Total savings to Scotland Office running costs arising from both the reduction and relocation of staff will amount to approximately £1.7 million next year. In line with the statement of funding policy agreed between the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Executive, the savings realised will reduce the Scotland Office's total call on the Scottish assigned budget by an equivalent amount and will therefore be available to the Scottish Executive.

  The numbers and organisation of Scotland Office staff will be kept under review in the normal way in the light of workload and any further changes in responsibilities.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTES on the Woolsack.
prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of peterborough.

Directors' Remuneration
Lord Dormand of Easingtonasked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect to introduce legislation to deal with excessive payments to company chairmen and executives.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, directors' remuneration is a matter for companies and their shareholders. In August 2002., the Government introduced the Directors' Remuneration Report Regulations, which introduced for the first time the requirement for quoted companies to produce a detailed directors' remuneration report and for a shareholder vote on that report. We are encouraged by the fact that shareholders have been vigorously exercising their new rights in that area.
The options presented in the Department of Trade and Industry document, Directors' Remuneration—Contracts, Performance and Severance, published on 3rd June, are currently subject to consultation that closes on 30th September. Any further government action on the issue will be considered in the light of the responses to the consultation.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I assume from what my noble friend says that there will be legislation on the matter. If there is, will he do all he can to expedite the introduction of the legislation? Would he agree that the Directors' Remuneration Report Regulations to which he referred in some detail, and which were introduced over a year ago, have had little or no effect on the excessive payments being made? If the Government continue to say that huge payments have to be made to attract and keep skilled managers, what does he have to say about those instances, of which there are an increasing number, of companies losing money while the people concerned get even more money?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the purpose of the consultation is clearly to consult, and when we have consulted and had all the responses we shall give careful thought to them. We shall decide the appropriate way forward from there.
The noble Lord said that the regulations were not having any impact. On the contrary, it is clear that there has been a major impact. In the shareholder
138
voting that has taken place, there have been some mammoth votes against directors' remuneration reports. In one case they were overturned, but in others there have been figures of 49 per cent against, 34 per cent against and 40 per cent against. Indeed, the average dissent is about 16.8 per cent. Directors will, I hope, take very seriously those votes of dissent and will take appropriate action in future to bring remuneration in line with what their shareholders believe is appropriate.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, if after the consultation to which the Minister referred a decision is made to bring in some kind of legislation, as the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington. wants, could the Minister assure the House that the Government will also introduce similar legislation to curb the remuneration of trade union leaders? Those people usually earn many more times the salaries of those which they have negotiated for their employees. How do the Government think that the outburst yesterday from Kevin Curran will help inward investment into this country on which so many jobs depend?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as I said, we shall consider the results of the consultation before we decide to take action. The question of the salaries of union leaders seems to me to fall into exactly the same category. It is not the role of the Government to do as the noble Baroness suggested, because it is incredibly difficult for the Government to get involved in making decisions about the salaries of individual people and the responsibilities that they take on.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I understand that the chairman and executives of a company have a remuneration package which, as my noble friend says, is the responsibility of the company. However, part of that remuneration package is a pension provision. Is it not obscene for the chairman and executives to protect themselves with regard to their pension arrangements when at the same time they are destroying the pension arrangements of their employees? Should not some legislation be introduced to prevent that?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I share the view that it is very inappropriate for company directors to be making large pension provisions for themselves at a time when they are closing down pension schemes for their employees. With the regulations in place, we are ensuring that there is greater transparency in directors' remuneration. On the other hand, we have taken action to protect members of company schemes. That is also appropriate action. It is not easy to link the two together by any simple formula, but company chairmen should be very careful about giving themselves extra pension provision in circumstances where they are closing down or greatly reducing the contribution for their employees.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that, as the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, has to my knowledge asked this question at least six times during the calendar year 2003, that reflects considerable concern about this issue? Will he also recognise that, as he has given an identical answer on all the six occasions on which the noble Lord has asked the question, it would be easier for him to tell the noble Lord what is clearly the Government's intention—that they have no intention whatever to introduce legislation to deal with those excessive payments?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do have a sense of déjà vu. The Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, is extremely important and we take it extremely seriously. However, where one has introduced legislation to deal with a particular situation, it is totally right and appropriate first to see the impact of that legislation before legislating further. It is not true to say that we have taken no action on this. We have acted in the regulations and we have a further paper out for consultation.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that he is to be congratulated on amending his previous stance in answer to some of these questions by at last recognising that it is possible to define what is "excessive". He previously denied that possibility. Will he also pay attention to the figures released last week and to the research done by Professor Cheffins and the like? Does the Department of Trade and Industry have research to counter the view put forward by such researchers that, neither here nor in Canada, has increased transparency had the effect of moderating the new rent extraction by company executives and senior managers? Will the Government do something to introduce regulation against excessive pension payments, which my noble friend mentioned, to directors who are currently cutting the pension rights of their workers?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I think that there is a complete difference between expressing a personal view that a particular salary is excessive and trying to introduce legislation to define exactly what salary levels should be. Those are two quite separate matters. One could have a very clear view that, in particular circumstances, salaries are excessive or not appropriate. It is very different to try to construct any type of legislation which would make sense in such circumstances. As for the impact of transparency, the key issue is whether transparency linked with votes on remuneration reports at annual general meetings will have an impact. My very strong view is that it will have an impact and that directors would not like to have any aspect of their remuneration reports turned down at annual general meetings.

Foreign Doctors: English Language Tests
2.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the English language tests, required to be taken by foreign doctors intending to practise in the United Kingdom, are to be abolished.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): My Lords, we have no plans to change the legal requirement for a person to satisfy the General Medical Council that he has the necessary knowledge of English before he is allowed to practise here.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. While foreign doctors are making valuable contributions in our health service, is it not very important to avoid any verbal misunderstandings that might endanger the lives of patients?
Lord Warner: My Lords, as I said, the GMC does not have any plans to make changes in this area. We all accept that it is essential to good patient care and relationships of trust that doctors have a high standard of language proficiency.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister is as baffled as I am by the report of the Sunday Telegraph on this matter. The GMC consultation document to which the report referred states that the GMC considers that:
"A high standard of language proficiency is essential for good communication".
All the GMC is opening up is the question of whether those who have qualified in countries where English is a first language—namely, some of the Commonwealth countries and others—should be exempted from the international English language test which seems to us on these Benches to be perfectly sensible.
Lord Warner: My Lords, the noble Lord is exactly right, and I share his bafflement at the newspaper report.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, are EC nationals required to pass this test?
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Warner: Wait for it, my Lords. EU doctors do not have to take English language tests through the GMC, but NHS employers must ensure that these doctors have English language competence to ensure that they can practise safely, and they may require them to undertake language assessments. The law was changed in this area by the previous government to stop infraction proceedings.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, am I not correct in recollecting that the law was changed by the previous government because of a European Union directive which required that it should be so and that the standards would be set by the profession, not by the employers?
Lord Warner: My Lords, as I understand it, the law was changed because the previous government were concerned about infraction proceedings being taken against them. We are, however, looking to see if case law makes it possible to reopen the issue.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, given the EU directive, it would be preferable if the department itself required that its employees could speak English to the required standards of the GMC?
Lord Warner: My Lords, there is a clear obligation on NHS employers to ensure that the doctors they employ can actually communicate satisfactorily with their patients. As I said, they can require these doctors to undertake an English language test.
Earl Howe: My Lords, can the Minister say when the Government are likely to reach a conclusion as to their scrutiny on recent case law?
Lord Warner: As quickly as possible, my Lords.

Airport Capacity
2.49 p.m.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnallasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that significant expansion of airport capacity in south-east England will be in the long term interests of the residents of the area and their environment.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, no decisions have been taken on how much capacity should be provided. Those will be taken after carefully considering all responses to the consultation. The Government will publish their conclusions in a White Paper later this year. In developing a future airports policy, the Government are committed to the principle of sustainability. That means striking the right balance between maximising the social and economic benefits of airport expansion and minimising the impacts, such as noise, air quality and damage to the environment.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that response which elegantly avoided the Question that I asked, but that I entirely understand. I should declare an interest as a resident of north-west Essex which is likely to be severely affected by increased
142
noise and other pollution in the event that there is further expansion of Stansted Airport. Is my noble friend aware that north-west Essex has one of the highest concentrations of historically important buildings in the UK, a number of which will be lost if current proposals for Stansted are carried through? Does he agree with me that such irreversible losses together with increased noise and pollution should be accepted only when the benefits unequivocally outweigh the disadvantages? Does he further agree that the recent report of the parliamentary Environmental Audit Committee raises a number of serious concerns about the assumptions underpinning the Government's thinking on airport expansion, including the probability that the growth in emissions into the atmosphere, which the report describes as "unsustainable and unacceptable" could destroy the Government's own commitment to a 60 per cent cut in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050? Can he say with confidence in all these circumstances that major growth in air traffic should be encouraged at all?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, my noble friend presents her case with her usual eloquence. There are environmental effects with any form of airport expansion. However, my noble friend will recognise that I mentioned in my initial reply that no decisions have yet been taken in respect of any airport in the country. She is right to say that we must take air pollution issues into account in assessing costs. The Government are carrying out an evaluation of exactly that aspect. We seek to encourage the development of air travel using airplanes which cause considerably less pollution than has been the case in the past. I emphasise to my noble friend that it is not a question of the Government seeking to discourage increased air travel. The simple fact is that air travel increases year on year. We already have massively overcrowded airports. We shall need additional capacity. However, that has to be balanced against a proper recognition of environmental costs.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, does the Minister consider that the recent French court ruling on Ryan Air will affect how the Government put together their traffic forecasts for the future? Does he consider that the airline industry in this country is subsidised as it is the only fuel-user that does not pay any duty or tax on the aviation fuel that it uses?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I understand that the case to which the noble Viscount referred has gone to appeal. Therefore, it would not be entirely appropriate for the Government to devote massive resources to a change in policy in the light of the initial judgment. Were the judgment to stand, it would have some effect upon the demand for air travel. However, I put it to the noble Viscount—he will recognise this point from his expertise in the matter—that the increase in air travel was a given factor in all developments in recent decades. There are bound to be pressures upon our airports and upon our airways

143
irrespective of the decision to which he referred. As regards the more general issue, airlines are not unfairly subsidised compared with other forms of transport. It is true that they do not pay tax on aircraft fuel but they meet full costs as regards airport provision.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, given the degree of concern and anger on the part of thousands and thousands of people in villages and towns in the South East threatened by airport expansion, does my noble friend accept that the policy of predict and provide, which he appeared to point to in an earlier answer, is no longer appropriate for airlines and airport planning and needs to be replaced—as it has been with motorway construction—by a policy of demand management? Is it not time that the Government spent some time looking at alternatives to air traffic such as building decent long-distance rail services?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I appreciate what my noble friend says. I emphasise that I did not use the words "predict and provide", nor do I seek to justify or defend that policy. My noble friend will recognise that my initial Answer carefully balanced possible increases in demand for air travel against social, environmental and pollution costs. Railways may indeed play a greater part in the provision of transport within the United Kingdom, but my noble friend will appreciate the very significant demand for air travel. A great deal of that demand relates to travel overseas as opposed to internal flights. It would be totally irresponsible of the Government not to address that issue.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords—
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords—
The Lord President of the Council (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, the Liberal Democrats first and then the Cross Benches perhaps.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, in considering the question of airport expansion, will the Minister make sure that all the costs associated with getting to and from airports—that is, the expansion of the surface access—are fully borne by the people who use airports and are not visited upon counties and towns around airports which would be, and is, a direct subsidy to the airline industry?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I recognise the point that the noble Lord makes. We shall seek to ensure that appropriate costs are borne by the industry. Certainly in relation to the question of air pollution we believe firmly in the principle that the polluter should pay. However, the noble Lord will recognise, with his usual fairness, that the development of an airport in an area brings significant
144
economic development to that area. Airports provide a significant number of jobs. Therefore, the airline industry should not bear all the costs.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that serious consideration is being given to the Severnside option which does not involve the expansion of an existing airport, involves no compulsory purchase, is the most environmentally friendly of all options and has much local support in the Severnside area?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful for that constructive suggestion in view of the challenges facing government policy at present. I emphasise that we have taken no decisions following the extensive consultation that has taken place over the past 11 months. We shall produce a White Paper before the end of the year. I assure my noble friend that we take seriously the development in the Severn Valley to which she referred.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, when the noble Lord says that the industry will be asked to pay the whole of the bill, will that include anti-terrorism measures? To whom will a bill be sent for the recent deployment of armoured vehicles round Heathrow Airport?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that is straying a little far from the original Question which was about broad environmental costs. The noble Lord will recognise that terrorism potentially affects airlines more grievously than other forms of transport. However, the matter must be put in context. The noble Lord will have appreciated from the exercise that took place at the weekend that we do not know where in our transport system terrorists may strike. Therefore, we have to bear in mind that all areas are potentially vulnerable.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, are the Government placing enough emphasis on the need for airports in the north of England and in Scotland? People who live in Manchester and Glasgow do not want to have to travel down to Heathrow. We need Heathrow to be a hub, but we need Glasgow and Manchester as well, plus subsidiary airports around them, in order to provide employment in those areas, as the Minister himself has said. However, the whole emphasis in the present consultation paper is on the South East. Surely that ought to change.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that is a very valuable point. The Government are of course concerned to develop regional airports and their capacity where appropriate. However, the noble Baroness will recognise that the massively significant pressure points on the three main south-east airports at present, which have been long neglected in terms of investment, are so acute that the Government would not be fulfilling their duty if they did not address themselves to the question of airport demand in the South East as well.

Universities: Tuition Fees
3.1 p.m.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I declare an interest as pro-chancellor of the University of Birmingham.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how much worse off the universities would be if they received no income at all from tuition fees rather than the fees set out in the January White Paper; and whether there is any viable alternative for financing higher education other than the raising of tuition fees.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, the Government considered alternatives, but concluded that variable fees were the only viable option for securing the level of investment that our universities need while giving them the freedom to respond to student demand. The White Paper proposes that universities with approved access agreements should decide their own fees up to a maximum of £3,000. We cannot pre-judge or pre-empt those decisions. However, if all institutions charged the £3,000 maximum, gross tuition-fee income would be over £2 billion.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, although I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer, does she agree that the Government may not be making a lot of progress in getting across to people that their proposals in the White Paper involve the abolition of all up-front tuition fees that currently exist? Would she also agree that the area in which the White Paper is most effective is the level of the maintenance grant?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful that the noble Lord appears to agree with at least part of what the Government propose. It is very important to get the message across, and we are doing all we can, but the change in higher education fees is hugely important in that students will of course not pay up-front fees. That is particularly important for lower-income families. In terms of the maintenance grant, we are looking very carefully at all the issues to support those students most in need. It is perhaps worth reiterating that 41 per cent of students will not pay fees.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, will the Minister quantify the cost of setting up the access regulator's office, and of meeting the expansion of up to 50 per cent of the cohort into university?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, that question is slightly wide of the mark of the information that I have before me. In our proposals, I believe that we have made it clear that OFFA will be very small and
146
measurably organised, in order to make sure that we have the right kind of access agreements in place. In terms of our 50 per cent target, which I believe is the right target, we have made sure that within our overall costings and fundings we are able to pursue it fully with our university colleagues.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, have the Government considered the difference between the £2 billion that the noble Baroness suggested that the universities might gain from the scheme proposed by the Government, and the cost of the elaborate scheme that they are proposing alongside it for long-term lending, interest free, to students until [hey are earning a given sum? That will cost a great deal of money. How does it compare with the £2 billion?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, it will of course depend on the individual arrangements set up by students. In all the discussions, we have talked to those involved already in determining the kind of loans that students have—the Student Loans Company—and in making sure that we have systems that will be viable and operational. Therefore, I do not believe that there is a comparison. It is also worth saying that, of course, the income from variable fees will be paid to the institutions themselves, which will enable them to have the kind of autonomy of decisions that they have requested.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a 50 per cent tax rate charged on those earning more than £100,000 would yield well over £4 billion? Is she further aware that 82 per cent of those who earn more than £100,000 have benefited from a university degree? Following the maxim that those who have benefited shall pay, which is one that the Government are now pursuing, is there not therefore some logic in raising the extra revenues required from such a source of tax?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, my understanding of the Liberal Democrat proposals is that, of the £4.5 billion that would be raised, £2 billion would be spent on giving a council tax reduction to all those who are council tax payers, and that the rest—£2.5 billion—would indeed be available. However, the difference between the Government's and the Liberal Democrats' proposals is, first, that those who go to university pay hack what they have in a sense borrowed in order to pursue the course. We believe that to be more equitable. Also, higher education institutions themselves will get the funding, not the Government. Many in the higher education sector would probably find that a rather attractive proposition. Furthermore, the money goes to the Exchequer without the guarantees that it would always be available for higher education. If one is raising money for higher education, it is important to ensure that it gets there.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords—
The Lord Bishop of Peterborough: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is the Bishops' turn.
The Lord Bishop of Peterborough: My Lords, would the noble Baroness agree that the increase in tuition fees, even if delayed beyond graduation, has the danger of discouraging people from precisely the backgrounds that she would want to encourage entering higher education from doing so?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate refers to perception of debt, which is an important factor in all our debates. It is of course why the office of the regulator is so important to ensure that universities do all that they can, building on their very good practice, to reach out to those students to demonstrate to them the real importance and value of a university education. However, the fact that fees are paid up-front at the moment is, in my view, a bigger deterrent.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, why was the question asked by my noble friend Lady Blatch treated as wide of the Question? Will the noble Baroness kindly write to my noble friend on the Front Bench with an answer to her question?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Baroness would agree that I have never failed to write to her on any question that she has asked me in this House, and this would be no exception. The information that I have before me relates specifically to tuition fees and not to the cost of setting up OFFA.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: My Lords, would the noble Baroness, having accepted that there is a legitimate concern that fees will deter students who might otherwise want and be able to come to university, accept that a more efficient, simple and perhaps clearer form of regulation of the universities in the matter than the rather complex and unclear office of the regulator currently proposed would be to come to an agreement with the universities to set aside a proportion of the money raised from those fees for scholarships for needy students?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very important point. Discussions are ongoing with universities as to what else might be done to ensure that we have the right arrangements. The question of bursaries or scholarships is being very actively discussed at present.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, the Question clearly asks,
"whether there is any viable alternative for financing higher education other than the raising of tuition fees".
My noble friend may not agree with the alternative, but will she concede that it is viable to raise the money through general taxation as an alternative?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we could fund many things within government by raising levels of taxation, but I wonder when my noble friend would agree that we had raised the level of taxation to the point where many people would be unprepared either
148
to vote for the Government or to wish to pay it. The question faced by governments in ensuring that we have the right kind of economy, can support our young people through education, have a good health service and transport systems, and so on, is all about balancing different priorities. I ask him to consider whether, were we to have an increase in general taxation, he would want us to give it as a No. 1 priority to the universities.

Police Officers: Drug Testing
3.10 p.m.
Viscount Bridgemanasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the proposed drug testing for police officers in England and Wales could be considered intrusive and a breach of their civil liberties.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have no plans to extend the drug testing regime for police officers. The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) has asked for it to be considered by the Police Advisory Board for England and Wales (PABEW) at its next meeting on 28th October. We welcome the discussion and will be interested to hear the views of police service stakeholders.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary will wish to look carefully at the proportionality and intrusiveness of any procedures recommended by the Police Advisory Board.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. How many police officers have been convicted of drug offences in the recent past?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have no figures in relation to this issue. One of the issues is whether there is a business case for such investigation. The noble Viscount will know that police officers in this country provide an invaluable service and at the moment we do not have an indication that random testing is necessary. However, if there is such evidence and we are persuaded that the matter should be looked at, we are more than happy to do so.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, in the course of the Government's discussions with the Police Superintendents' Association, will they, in addition to considering the drug testing of law enforcers, consider the possibility of the random drug testing of law makers?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, that has tempted people for a very long time, but, as with police officers, the case has yet to be made.
Lord Imbert: My Lords, given the likely acquiescence of the police service to the proposal to introduce drug testing because of their loyalty and responsibility, will the Minister tell me whether the

149
Government intend to introduce drug testing for other parts of the public service and the public sector, as is done in the United States of America?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, at present, we have no intention to extend the drug testing provisions more widely than they are currently drawn. However, it is right to say that we will not dismiss any empirical data which indicate that consideration of a change may he merited.

Business of the House: Northern Ireland (Monitoring Commission etc.) Bill
3.12 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, with your Lordships' leave, I shall make a brief statement about business on Friday and Monday. The usual channels have agreed that I may move the Second Reading of the Northern Ireland (Monitoring Commission) Bill on Friday 12th September. The Bill will come after Second Reading of the Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Bill and the Legal Deposit Libraries Bill. The usual channels have also agreed that we may take the remaining stages on Monday 15th September, so I shall move the necessary business Motion on Friday.
The order of business proposed for Monday will therefore be: Questions; Committee stage of the Northern Ireland Bill; Committee stage of the Criminal Justice Bill; dinner break business, which consists of two Northern Ireland orders; Report stage and Third Reading of the Northern Ireland Bill; and then, if time allows, further proceedings on the Criminal Justice Bill.
Amendments for Committee stage may be tabled now, in advance of Second Reading, and up to 4 p.m. on Friday or half an hour after the end of Second Reading, whichever is the later. Amendments for Report may be tabled on Monday between the end of Committee stage and 7 p.m. I am most grateful to the usual channels, and of course to all Peers with an interest in Northern Ireland, for their usual co-operation.

Gambling
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 the Commons message of 10th July be now considered, and that a committee of eight Lords be appointed to join with the committee appointed by the Commons, to consider and report on any draft Gambling Bill presented to both Houses by a Minister of the Crown;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following be named of the committee:

L. Brooke of Sutton Mandeville,

L. Donoughue,

V. Falkland,

L. Faulkner of Worcester,

150

B. Golding,

L. Mancroft,

L. Wade of Chorlton,

L. Walpole;

That the committee have power to agree with the Commons in the appointment of a chairman;
That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom;
That the reports of the committee from time to time shall be printed, notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
That the committee do report on the draft Bill by 8th April 2004;
And that the committee do meet with the committee appointed by the Commons on Tuesday 16th September at half past nine o'clock in Committee Room 3.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to; and a message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Anti-social Behaviour Bill
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee to which the Anti-social Behaviour Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 14,

Schedule 1,

Clause 15 to 40,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 41 to 66,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 67 to 71.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

National Lottery (Funding of Endowments) Bill
Lord Walpole: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Walpole.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Convention on the Future of Europe
3.16 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean)rose to move, That this House takes note of the draft constitutional treaty produced by the Convention on the Future of Europe.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The timing of the debate coincides with the publication today of a White Paper, A new Constitutional Treaty for the European Union, in which the Government set out their approach to the 2003 intergovernmental conference. We made copies of the White Paper available at 9.30 this morning, so I hope that your Lordships could see it before today's debate. The text of the draft constitutional treaty was presented to Parliament in August as Command Paper No. 5897.
The publication of the draft treaty comes at a time of real significance for the European Union and for Britain. We look forward next year to the enlargement of the EU to include 10 new member states. Successive British governments have supported enlargement for reasons both of principle and of pragmatism. As the noble Lord, Lord Hurd of Westwell, said eight years ago:
"Enlargement is not a luxury. It is a necessity if we are to build a safe and successful Europe for the 21st century".
He was right.
Enlargement is also essential for us to build a safe and successful Britain. It will end the Cold War division of Europe: in the Continent which suffered so much in the 20th century from bloodshed, division and tyranny, it will cement the values intrinsic to peace, democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law.
It will also create a single market of more than 400 million people. It will bring the United Kingdom wealth—estimates suggest that UK GDP could increase by up to £1.75 billion—and it will bring new trade and investment opportunities for us.
It will also bring us new partners in the fight against people trafficking; in the fight against the illicit drugs trade; against environmental pollution; and against human rights abuses. It is, in the words of the Prime Minister,
"an extraordinary moment in Europe's history…[which] offers us huge hope for the future".
The Treaty of Nice settled the straightforward mechanisms of enlargement in terms of voting and European parliamentary seats. But Nice left us with some unfinished business—that of deciding how a Union of 25 states really could function efficiently. The Laeken Summit agreed to establish the Convention of Europe and to consider how best to modernise EU decision-making structures to make the expanded Community a real success.
After all, the structures we are currently using were designed for a Union of six member states and we are already struggling to cope with the demands of
152
15 member states. Without reform, there would be a bureaucratic gridlock when the Union's membership increases to 25.
That modernisation and reform is the goal of the intergovernmental conference which will build on the convention's text. The IGC gives us an opportunity, through agreement on a constitutional treaty, to make the European Union more efficient, simpler to understand, more accountable to the European and national parliaments and better prepared to function effectively with 25 and more members.
I believe we all owe thanks to the two Members of this House who were alternates on the convention: the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart, and my noble friend Lord Tomlinson. Their contributions and those of the Select Committee on the European Union, under the wise leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, strengthened the British delegation to the convention and helped it to win plaudits from commentators throughout Europe.
As an example, a leading French constitutional expert, Robert Badinter, said in a French weekly, Le Nouvel Observateur:
"The search for consensus allowed the side showing the firmest will to take definitive control of the game, artfully trading concessions on the inessential to make sure of winning the essential…to the extent that we should dub this constitution for the Europe of 25 'la Britannique'".
It is certainly true that the draft treaty is a good result for the United Kingdom, and in it we have largely succeeded in achieving our aims. It provides for a more efficient European Union; it consolidates existing EU treaties into a single logically ordered text, which can give us legal certainty and stability for some years; and it sets out a more transparent and accountable structure for the EU, making clear where the Union can and cannot act.
In that context, I want to emphasise to your Lordships that the convention's text also makes it clear that the national governments of member states remain in control. The text of the draft treaty makes it clear in Article 9 that the Union's powers derive from the member states. Any powers not explicitly conferred on the Union by the member states remain with the national governments. Article 9 also establishes procedures for ensuring that national parliaments have an effective role in policing the Commission's legislative proposals, because all such proposals will have to be scrutinised for proportionality and subsidiarity by national parliaments and reviewed by the Commission should the national parliaments object. Therefore, national parliaments gain a significantly strengthened role. Indeed. I remind the House that that point is not only the view of Her Majesty's Government but is a view shared by our own House of Lords EU Committee, which, having examined this issue in detail, concluded that the effect of this and other measures in the convention's text means that,
"it is clear that the balance of power in the European Union is going to shift from the Commission in favour of the Member States if the [Convention's] proposals…are adopted".
Moreover, the text includes an important British proposal—the creation of a full-time chair of the European Council. In practice, we believe that that

153
will bring great continuity to the Union's actions and ensure that the agenda decided upon by national states is kept at the forefront of its operational priorities.
A further issue which has excited considerable interest when we have discussed the convention in the past and which will be a matter for the forthcoming IGC is that of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights—an issue upon which my noble friend Lady Scotland has worked so assiduously with her European colleagues in recent months. Today's White Paper spells out our position on the convention text, which makes it clear in Article II-51 that the charter,
"does not extend the field of application of Union law beyond the powers of the Union…or modify powers and tasks defined in the other Parts of the Constitution".
Nothing could be plainer. The charter does not give any new powers to the European Union. Member states are affected only when implementing Union law. But the Government will make a formal decision on incorporation of the charter into the draft constitutional treaty only when we can consider the overall picture at the IGC.
Like most other member states, there are elements in the convention's text which the UK does not support. At the Thessaloniki Summit in June, EU heads of government recognised that important issues still needed to be determined. Some of those are areas where the convention was unable to finalise its proposals; others are ideas with which we disagree; and some are issues which require further technical, including important legal, work.
But it may help your Lordships if I am explicit, as I know my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has been in another place. We shall insist that unanimity—or the veto—remains for treaty change and that it is maintained in other areas of vital national interest, such as tax, social security, key areas of criminal procedural law and the system of own resources. We believe that unanimity must remain the general rule for common foreign and security policy, as proposed in the final convention text. In short, we shall not sign up to any treaty which does not, in our view, advance national interest.
At this point, I want to turn to the latest report of the European Union Committee on the future of Europe, on which the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, will shortly speak. The Government have responded to the report, which they welcomed and which I commend to the House. I am sure that in his intervention the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, will set out the recommendations of the committee's report.
I hope that the noble Lord will excuse me if I preempt him a little by replying now to one of the key recommendations of the report—one which we also consider to be an important objective. This was for the Government to publicise their strategy for keeping Parliament informed of the work of the IGC, as well as doing more to make known to the public the content and effect of the treaty. We are of course fully committed to having Parliament involved in the preparations for the IGC, and as it proceeds.
154
Parliament will be the ultimate judge of whether the treaty serves our national interest, and it cannot have force in UK law except through Parliament's consent.
The Foreign Secretary has welcomed the suggestion of Jimmy Hood, chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee in the other place, that a Standing Committee be created on the IGC. My noble friend the Leader of the House has written to the chairman of the Procedure Committee about this. The committee would be closely modelled on the Standing Committee on the Convention, except that it would hear statements from Ministers rather than from parliamentary representatives. All Members of this House and the other place would be able to attend the committee. A standing order has been tabled today to this effect, and I hope that noble Lords will welcome that.
I hope also that the publication of today's White Paper will go some way to meeting the committee's recommendation and that it will assist the committee with its final report. The White Paper sets out what we expect the IGC to involve and how the Government will approach the negotiations, as well as explanations of EU terms and a passage on the EU's structure and recent history. It is accompanied by a leaflet which summarises the main IGC issues and background.
The paper will help to inform Parliament and is also available to the general public through the FCO website—www.fco.gov.uk. I also note here that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is operating an on-line forum, which it launched officially on 19th August and which will run until 4th October. The forum lets the public give the Government directly their opinions on the draft constitution in the run-up to the IGC. So far, it has recorded more than 650 postings and nearly 17,000 readings. In addition, the Europe Minister, Dr Denis MacShane, is conducting a series of visits around the United Kingdom to discuss with regional audiences the Union's enlargement and its implications for the future of the European Union.
Of course, we cannot precisely predict the ultimate outcome of the IGC, nor how long it will last. There will be many twists and turns in a negotiation involving 25 countries. What matters is that we secure the right text for the United Kingdom. The Government will not sign any treaty which does not, in our opinion, advance our national interest. But, of course, the final decision on this issue will be taken here, in this Parliament, and only after your Lordships have contributed to that decision.
Perhaps I may deal with the question of a referendum. In the United Kingdom we have held a referendum to consult on creating or joining a new institution—not on reforms to an existing institution of which we are already a member. It was right to have a referendum on whether to stay in or to leave the EU, as it is on whether to replace the pound with the euro. The party opposite was right not to hold a referendum on the major constitutional changes in the Single European Act or on the Maastricht Treaty. The proposals for the IGC would not change the fundamental relationship between the EU and its member states. Frankly, any analysis of the proposals involves less change than that embodied in the Maastricht Treaty or the Single European Act.

155
Therefore, the Government have concluded, as, indeed, our predecessors did, that the right place for a decision on any outcome of the IGC is here in this Parliament. This is where the executive is held to account in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, before the European Scrutiny Committee and before the EU Select Committee, whose experts have thus far, between them, produced 17 helpful reports.
So the constitutional treaty which we aim to produce will bring the Union's institutions and policies up to date. It will produce an efficient, transparent and accountable EU. It will give the EU the foundation it needs to continue on its historic path to embed the values of liberal democracy in Europe and beyond. That will be very much in the British interest. The Government will consequently be at the heart of the negotiations in the IGC to agree a new constitutional treaty for the European Union and Ministers will come before the British Parliament, which will take its decision on the final outcome. I commend the Motion to the House.
Moved, That this House takes note of the draft constitutional treaty produced by the Convention on the Future of Europe.—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.)
3.30 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for setting out, with her usual clarity, the highlights of the White Paper and some of the aspects of the proposed draft constitution for Europe or for the European Union, as the UK published Blue Paper corrects the Brussels paper.
During the hot days of August all eyes were on other matters such as the Hutton inquiry, which has preoccupied the media. So this great European project for a new constitution has not received much attention and has been creeping steadily and stealthily forward, which is what many of its proponents want. Too much illumination is not considered healthy.
Back in the summer we were assured that the Government's approach in a White Paper would appear before we had this debate. That has happened. Well done, excellent—it came out about five hours before the start of this debate. I was going to grumble a little about the impossible timing, but frankly it is such a light, diaphanous document, and the flaws in it are so glaringly obvious, that one can see straight through it in one quick reading.
One cannot fault the presentational skills of the noble Baroness in putting forward the matter. They are excellent. However, the whole procedure typifies the Government's attitude to this great project, which is to keep it obscure, to keep debate narrow and on detail, to keep reassuring everyone that it really does not add up to very much and, anyway, all its aims have been achieved. We are told—the noble Baroness put considerable emphasis on this point, as does the White Paper—that the draft,
"does not alter the fundamental constitutional relationship between the member states and the Union".
156
The Prime Minister says that in the introduction and the Foreign Secretary says it with one slight modification in his conclusion. But it does—we know that it does—without any doubt whatever. The draft confirms that it does as many of us have read and reread. The White Paper in paragraphs 62 and 74 confirms that there is a shift in powers and a change in the relationship. Does it really not alter matters; does it really not alter the fundamental relationship?
I cannot resist saying that this reminds me very much of Harold Wilson when he said that the pound in your pocket will not be devalued. It is simply implausible. It is untrue and it is unbelievable. Nor is it in any way supported by paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the draft constitution, as the White Paper quite wrongly implies.
This is a matter of the first magnitude. A free constitution of civil government is society's greatest treasure. It may well be true that not much interest has so far been shown by the general public in what has been presented as a rather arcane issue and as a matter of tidying up ends. But what interests the public and the media is not the same as the public interest. The fact remains that we are dealing with questions of stupendous significance for the future of our country which cannot be tidied away.
From Cicero, with his separation of powers, to the present day, the solemn and crucial nature of this work on constitutions and the need for popular consent has been unchallenged. So what the present plan certainly is not—we will not accept this—is a "tidying up operation". That description must qualify as one of the most idiotic remarks ever made by a Minister of the Crown. Even less can it be compared with or dismissed as the club rules of a golf club, as Mr Jack Straw tried on us back in the summer.
At least the chairman of the convention, Valery Giscard d'Estaing, had the discernment to refer to constitution-making in Philadelphia in 1787, but was that golf club rules? I do not know what George Washington, John Adams or Thomas Jefferson would have made of that even if they had heard of golf. What, too, would they have made of the fact that this draft of 200 plus pages stands against their own 40 pages in the 1787 American constitution?
We are dealing with a very strange document. I suppose it is a kind of constitution. I have read it very carefully and the draft completely forgets to mention the need to limit and to check central powers, which one might think is what lawful constitutions should be about. Instead it is more a wish list of objectives. It is a manifesto of statements of policy priority intentions. And even then, in its opening definition of EU objectives on the first page it omits many of the most important ones in a free society such as protection of private property—that is mentioned in the Charter—freedom of contract, free trade and so on.
It will be argued by its friends that this draft appeals to subsidiarity and proportionality and that those concepts somehow protect us and rescue us from overbearing central power. They do nothing of the kind. We have bitter experience anyway to tell us that

157
subsidiarity does not add up to a row of beans, especially when the offenders, who are the power-seeking centre, are the ones who finally decide what, if anything, to review, to delegate or to surrender.
The noble Baroness talked of the much vaunted concession to national parliaments to have a say in the subsidiarity process. That is a very small concession indeed, and many have said that it is entirely hollow. That is confirmed by the fact that this Parliament's delegates to the convention, including the two very able delegates from the other place and our own two able delegates, pressed in vain, again and again, for something much stronger. They wanted a serious check on the extension of competencies, the questioning of subsidiarity and the appropriateness of community action and all they received was what they called the "yellow card" of review. As the Economist stated, subsidiarity,
"has been drained of all power",
in the new proposals. I believe that the Economist was right. Instead. I urge those who have not read the text to read it and they will see beyond any assertions to the contrary that huge new central powers are demanded by the draft—it is only a draft—on top of existing, exclusive powers.
The old distinctions between community and intergovernmental roles have been concertina-ed into a single towering structure. This reinforced European Union is to extend control, according to the draft, through so-called "shared" powers over all economic and competition policy, over social and employment policy, over social and territorial cohesion—whatever that may mean; it could mean anything—over environment, consumer protection, transport, research and technology, together with complementary, or co-ordinating action—which means interference—in public health, industrial policy, culture, education, vocational training, youth issues, sport and civil protection.
The cynic may say and I suppose the Government would say, "What's new? It is all in the existing treaty". What is new is that all those powers of involvement are now to be enshrined in the laws of the constitution, enforceable in the courts. What is newer still is that the draft gives the central institutions, not merely extra powers, but power to take more powers still—that is the infamous passerelle clause, Article 24(4), which I hope will be negotiated out of the document.
Most of those goals and activities would have been far better left to the member states. It would have been better management and wiser politics, but that simply is not the spirit in which the draft was drawn up.
The noble Baroness mentioned the Charter of Fundamental Rights, an unnecessary document that invites its ridicule. It is ridiculous because it elevates to a basic right such things as protecting the physical and moral integrity of sports persons, and the right of children to express their views freely.
I spent most of August with my grandchildren, who were staying with me, and all I can say is that I am wholly opposed to children expressing their views freely. I am wholly opposed at least to that aspect of
158
the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It is unnecessary, anyway, because it duplicates our national rights and the European Convention on Human Rights.
The whole inspiration of the work of the convention from the start plainly was that big is beautiful, that the world needs super-blocs and superpowers, and that they must be a counterweight to the American hegemony. I have never believed any of those things. If they were once valid, they are no longer so. I do not accept that America really has the power to be so "super", or that it can go it alone and do what it likes. So both the arrogant neo-Cons in Washington, who think it can, and the anti-Americans throughout Europe, who fear that it is already doing so, are wrong. They are united in what the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, once perceptively called "diagnostic alliance"—on a wrong diagnosis.
These constitution builders have forgotten about the human scale in government. Incidentally, the American colonies had 2 million people in 1776 and around 3.5 million in 1787. We are dealing with more than 500 million people now. These enthusiasts have forgotten, or never grasped, that centralisation makes no sense in the network age. They have forgotten that Europe's true interest is to preserve its diversity. which is where its true strength lies.
Above all, they have looked straight past, or been wilfully blind to, the key injunctions from the Laaken Council of Ministers that set them up in the first place—namely, to bring the EU closer to the people and to make it more accountable. There is not a whiff of that remit in the document. On the contrary, we would end up with the EU still more remote from everyday interests and still less accountable to the citizenry, not least because of the substantial extension of QMV, which the Government favour in general, although they have some reservations in particular.
Not a single power is transferred by the draft to lawfully elected national legislatures nor to national executives. Power is simply shuffled ambiguously between the three central institutions. The document certainly strengthens the central EU institutions all right but it does nothing at all to strengthen the power of the people at the grassroots.
The noble Baroness mentioned the negotiating positions that they shall not pass—the famous red lines where the Government have said that they will try to keep the veto, especially on tax, social policy, foreign affairs and defence, aspects of the judicial system and criminal law, and the system of own resources, which presumably means our budget rebate. We will have to see whether those red lines hold against the first cannonade. The omens do not look good. Several European leaders have already sworn that the treaty draft should not be changed and that amendments must be kept to a minimum. We on this side have no confidence whatever in a government whose negotiators think it is all about tidying up and golf clubs.
Besides, the red lines have already been crossed in fiscal matters and in the conduct of foreign policy. The long finger of intrusion is now to instruct us on how and what to tax and at what levels, as provided at Article III-6, for those who are interested.

159
A new Union foreign minister, under a new permanent president, is to tell us what the foreign policy line is, how we,
"shall comply with acts adopted by the Union",
as stated in Article 15, and how we must stick to them, although they may well have been decided by a qualified majority under the powers of Article 39.
Indeed, with the EU's new and divisive military ambitions, which have caused so many headaches and achieved so little, we will be told how and where to defend these non-existent common foreign policy aims. The new Union minister—the new phraseology rightly worries some people—will somehow work both to the Council of Ministers and the Commission. To whom will he be accountable? I think that the noble Baroness and the Government are worried about that also. It will have to be cleared up. As for extending EU powers to criminal law harmonisation and the judicial system, the front door has been closed but all sorts of back doors remain open in this document that need to be very carefully guarded.
For this constitution to go ahead broadly as drafted requires the assent of each member state. In the interests both of our nation and of Europe the Government should withhold their assent unless there are the most radical and major amendments—that seems highly unlikely. That will not be the end of the world for the Union. Giscard d'Estaing has said that things would just go on as before; they would revert to their present pattern, and we would then have room and space to develop a more democratic way forward instead for a greater Europe or a new Europe, a Europe of equals instead of one of énarques.
The UK used to be described as the sick man of Europe. Nowadays they are the healthy man of a sick Europe. To oppose either the euro or this constitutional treaty is not—I repeat, not—to be in some way anti-European, as Mr Straw tried to argue in a truly contemptible speech 10 days ago. On the contrary, it is to recognise that the best hope for the EU and the best path for an enlarged Europe lie in different directions from these "old Europe" proposals—directions that we have outlined in detail many times, and that many in Europe are now calling for. That includes the 15 nations that met at Prague at this weekend, who said that they want major changes in the constitutional treaty.
So our watchwords are: reform, return powers to parliaments, decentralise and democratise. That is the kind of lead that we should take.
Above all, if this constitution, overriding our own unwritten one, is to be approved in a broadly unaltered state a national referendum is necessary. It is not good enough to say that we should rely on the parliamentary processes. Lobby groups do not seem to understand that. They have been writing to me and, I expect, the Minister to seek the alteration of certain words. They do not understand that there is no opportunity to amend this treaty once it has been settled. We will have a Bill all right; we will be able to examine the constitution but we will not be able to change it. There is a little con-man element in the White Paper that
160
says, "It is all right; Parliament will be allowed to look at this in detail". We will not be able to change a single word of the treaty.
I know that joining the EC when it was based on national treaties and co-operation between nation states was a big decision, although it was based on national treaties. Anyway, as the Minister reminded us, Harold Wilson had a referendum even on that. But subordinating the whole Union to the higher powers and higher laws of a new constitution is quite another order of decision.
Other countries are having a referendum. The Government should come down off their high horse and listen to the people. At least, they certainly should not rule out a referendum so peremptorily. I cannot understand why they have done that. If they change tack, and when they do—they will have to in the end—our advice to people will be to vote "No" to this sorry document from the convention, and "Yes" to something much more up to date, much more suited to modern conditions and far better both for our nation and for the whole of Europe.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we need some changes in the structure of European co-operation. We are on the point of expanding from a Union of 15 to 25 and we should start by welcoming this magnificent extension of democracy, security and prosperity from Western to Eastern Europe. That is the context in which we should discuss this document.
When I listen to those on the Conservative Benches, I sometimes imagine that they think that the world stands still, that we are still in a world in which one travels occasionally to France by night ferry and the British economy has very little connection with the Continent—or with anywhere else except for the British Empire. However, the world does change and we must change our structures for European and international co-operation with it.
Last week, when I was reading something on postwar history, I was interested to find some references to conversations between Ernest Bevin and Dean Acheson in which they agreed that one did not want the United States simply to dominate the West in the post-war period. They agreed that it would be better to have a multi-polar western system—the phrase was used by Ernest Bevin—in which Western Europe would act as a useful counterweight to the United States. I believe that he was right. Her Majesty's Government have got themselves into a bit of a tangle in resisting the rather over-aggressive French interpretation in this context.
The role of Europe in the international order is extremely important. We need to strengthen that role and this larger European Union of 450 million people, which is responsible for well over 20 per cent of world GNP and is the largest single contributor of world development aid, must play its role. The draft European security strategy that Mr Solana presented to the European Council in Thessaloniki starts by saying that Europe is unavoidably a world power and that we must take on some of those responsibilities.

161
The draft that we have before us is, like most drafts negotiated by committee, a bit of a curate's egg. It is not the wonderful, simple clear language for which the Laeken declaration hoped. Part 1 is shorter and good enough for the average graduate student to understand after nine months' study. There are some awkward bits in it that have clearly been inserted by the Spanish to protect their structural fund until 2009 and a whole host of other such things. However, let us not be over critical. If we look back at the United States constitution, it has some very odd bits in it that protect the interests of the slave-owning states in the south and the proportions of white people for which slaves should be accounted. That constitution has its own compromises. I was told by Larry Siedentop some months ago that, as they came away from Philadelphia, one of the delegates wrote to his state assembly saying that he thought that they had not done too bad a job and that it might possibly last as long as 50 years. It has lasted a little longer so let us not propose to have too many high standards.
We on these Benches think that the advice from this House should be that the Government should seek a limited number of changes at the intergovernmental conference but should resist unpicking the package. The draft is a compromise. It is not, in every single element, what we would have liked, but it is an acceptable compromise.
We on these Benches retain a certain sense of disappointment in the style and approach which this Government, like their Conservative predecessors, continue to take to the European Union—all this talk of winning the arguments rather than of finding and constructing mutually acceptable agreements with others. The Government appear to be so in fear of the Murdoch press and the Daily Mail that they accept their continual, extraordinary errors and misrepresentations and appear to object to and go for only the BBC. The Government are, in some ways, in danger of following the same track as John Major's Conservative government—starting by saying that they want to be at the heart of Europe and slowly drifting towards the fringe.
I agree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, that the Government's attitude to public consultation on this matter has not been very helpful. We should have had rather more ministerial speeches and a White Paper should have been published before the summer. This White Paper is very thin. I had also intended to protest that it had been published only at 9.30 this morning, but it did not take very long to read because there was not very much in it. During the intergovernmental conference we need the Government to take a much more constructive approach and I welcome the proposal for a joint standing committee.
I was interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, because listening to Michael Ancram on the radio this morning, I thought I heard a rather different, more negative position. In July I was rather shaken to hear the deputy leader of the Conservative group in this House going all the way down the road with the Bruges Group in seeing the European Union as an almost alien power. We have been inside the European
162
Union for 30 years. We must accept that we should he making it work, talking about how to make it more effective and about how to promote our interests better in collaboration with others, not about whether we stay in or leave.
I am looking forward to hearing some of the speeches from more sceptical members of this House. Some of the language used by those members goes over the top. In a speech on the EU (Implications of Withdrawal) Bill in June, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, used the word "conspiracy" six times. He did not tell us what sort of conspiracy the European Union is. I remember that, in my youth, old Labour members used to regard it largely as a Catholic conspiracy. Is it still a Catholic conspiracy or some other sort? I could run through all the various other sorts of international conspiracies that have been suggested—Masonic, communist, capitalist or whatever—but that sort of language does not really help us get to grips with how we further tactical international co-operation with close neighbours who are also democratic.
We welcome a number of aspects of this convention, especially the proposals on budgetary reform, which at last end the distinction between compulsory expenditure on agriculture and non-compulsory expenditure on everything else. The proposals therefore open the door further to reducing the level of expenditure on agriculture through the Community budget.
We also welcome the proposal for a legislative council as a marked improvement in co-ordinating the way that too many different councils of ministers operate and a move towards greater transparency.
We welcome the acceptance that legal personality adheres to the European Union as a whole. That simplifies international negotiations. We welcome the expansion of the role of High Representative, which has been a great success with Javier Solana, to EU Foreign Minister. The biggest problem with that task will be the sheer weight of responsibility that will fall upon one man or woman, but it is a means towards a more effective use of common European interests on a global scale.
Many of us are not yet entirely convinced about the new President of the Council or how the relations between the President of the Council, the Foreign Minister and the President of the Commission will develop—I suppose it depends a great deal on the personalities of those appointed. However, we would like to see some limited changes, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that the most important of those is to strengthen the role of national parliaments. The protocol on subsidiarity, proportionality and the role of national parliaments is too weak. Gisela Stuart was quite right to criticise it. Common sense was resisted in the convention and we trust that Her Majesty's Government will find support in other governments in strengthening that.
On qualified majority voting, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will resist the Spanish and others in wishing to return to the more complicated Nice formulae, because we now have a straightforward formula of a majority of states and a majority of

163
population that is clearly the way forward. I am not sure that sticking to unanimity on so many matters relating to common foreign and security policy is necessarily in Britain's interest. It gives power to the last state that wishes to object. Simple majorities are allowed for in the treaty. We are almost always in the majority on matters of foreign policy, and we would be more effective if we were able to manoeuvre around the minority of awkward countries that, occasionally, wish to stand out against the majority.
There is a huge hole in the proposals on the size and composition of the Commission. There are to be 15 commissioners—one from each state—plus 10 non-voting commissioners. The comments that Wolfgang Clement of the German Government made yesterday were very much to the point: if each small country insists on having its own commissioner, why should not Germany insist on having two? That is a category mistake by the representatives of the small states. They want to have extra permanent representatives in the Commission, which will lead to our having a weaker Commission. We need a strong, effective Commission. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will rally to what has been the French position throughout; namely, that there should, perhaps, be as few as 11 commissioners, nominated collectively without reference to their nationality.
Incidentally, we should worry about the Commission becoming less effective. We are heading towards another scandal about corruption in the Commission with Eurostat. Her Majesty's Government should be concerned to see that the new Commission to be elected next year is more capable of doing an effective job.
I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, that the social dimension is overloaded. There were too many old believers at the convention who clung to the belief that the more power that is transferred to the Commission and to Brussels, the better for European integration. Some of the phrases not just in the Charter of Fundamental Rights but in Article 3 about children's rights and social exclusion are wonderful rhetoric, but they do not belong at the international level of government; they are things with which national, regional and local government should be concerned.
On defence, the British Government have been too defensive. There is no need to react so strongly to some of the nonsense on defence coming at the moment, I am afraid, from the Belgian Government and suggest that we should not have a mutual defence clause in the EU treaty. After all, we had one in the Western European Union treaty. It is inconceivable that, if there were an attack on a member state of the European Union, we would not all go to its defence. Her Majesty's Government have, again, fallen over too far backwards.
There are between 70,000 and 100,000 troops from EU member states operating on peace enforcement and peacekeeping missions outside the EU. Without having defined it properly, we are edging towards a common defence policy. We have not got it together
164
yet. Her Majesty's Government should lead the effort to make it more coherent and make sure that Europe uses what it has more effectively.
I also regret the fact that the section on economic governance bears all the signs of having been written by a group of people who are expert on institutions but do not know much about policy output. In that respect, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will use the Sapir report that came out in July—An agenda for a growing Europe: Making the EU economic system deliver—and was presented to the Commission to improve that dimension of the intergovernmental conference.
Much comes back to the role of the British Parliament. The Government, together with other parties, must consider how we can make sure that we play a more constructive role in developing European integration. A joint committee will be a step forward. I suspect that a joint committee that meets Ministers to discuss overall agendas for the EU ought to become permanent, not just part of the intergovernmental conference. We ought to make more of the potential links with British Members of the European Parliament. Other national parliaments do it; we should do more of it. We should certainly build closer links with the scrutiny committees of other national parliaments through the British Parliament's office in Brussels and elsewhere.
What about a referendum? The Conservatives are calling vigorously for a referendum on this occasion, if not on previous occasions when they were in office. It sounds like a cover for wanting to leave. We want to wait until we see what the IGC proposes and we see whether there is a case for a referendum. Above all, we want to see an intelligent debate in this country about the best means of European co-operation. There might be a case for a double referendum on this and the euro. We must make sure that we have a constructive debate on both and that we start from the assumption that British national interests are best served by closer co-operation with our partners on the other side of the Channel.
Overall, we give a welcome—cautious, in places—but we start from the assumption that European integration is a key dimension of international cooperation in which the British Government should continue to play the fullest possible part.
4.6 p.m.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, it is a privilege to speak at such an early stage of a debate in which so many distinguished noble Lords are participating. I fully expect the debate to be in the best traditions of the House, with considerable expertise and independence of mind available and freely given. I look forward to hearing what noble Lords have to say about the draft constitutional treaty and the forthcoming IGC. It will certainly inform the work of our Select Committee. Whatever our individual views, no one can doubt that the work of the Convention on the Future of' Europe has brought us face-to-face with policy questions of the profoundest importance.

165
As chairman of your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Union, I will formally move the Motion to take note of our latest report. As is usual in the circumstances, I speak not in a personal capacity, but as chairman of the committee. As noble Lords will know, the committee has produced a series of 14 reports on the work of the convention, addressing a wide range of questions which we identified as the earlier drafts of the treaty proceeded through the convention. Our latest report, which is the subject of the Motion on the Order Paper today, is a progress report, in that it simply lists the questions that, the committee feels, need to be addressed as we move from the convention to the IGC. We intend to produce a more substantive report in October that will, we hope, inform the IGC.
We decided on the timing so that the report could take into account a number of developments expected during September. That will now obviously include the White Paper published this morning; the Commission's own paper, which will be out next week; and, of course, your Lordships' debate today. The timing of the publication of the White Paper on the morning of the debate is, however, a bit disconcerting—to put it mildly—and I hope that the Government will understand the importance of providing your Lordships with a further opportunity to express views on it, once it has been fully digested.
I will not dwell long on the convention. The product of its work—the draft treaty—is before us, and it is to substantive questions of process and policy that we must turn our minds. I want, however, to take the opportunity to say a word about the four parliamentarians who laboured so hard in representing the United Kingdom at the convention. The other place sent Gisela Stuart, who played an outstanding role on the Praesidium and, perhaps of particular significance to us today, served as chair of the working group on national parliaments. She was a tireless champion of the national parliaments in the European context. David Heathcoat-Amory also made a valuable contribution and ensured that the views in which he passionately believes and which he eloquently expounds were robustly argued in the convention right up to the end.
From this House we were most fortunate to have two exceptionally distinguished representatives. One was the truly indefatigable noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, whose contribution to the convention was wide-ranging but of particular weight in financial matters. The other was the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart—who I am happy to see will be taking part in this debate. He, too, worked tirelessly on the convention, on a range of issues, and made a particular contribution on foreign affairs and defence.
All four parliamentarians also worked hard to ensure that both Houses were kept informed of the work of the convention, by producing written reports and by appearing both before specialist committees such as my own and in the novel forum of the Joint Standing Committee. I am sure the whole House will agree that these four parliamentary representatives served us extraordinarily well.
166
I want also to pay tribute to the right honourable Peter Hain, now Leader of the House of Commons and Secretary of State for Wales, who represented the UK Government at the convention. He, too, made an enormous contribution, most ably supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, who too has since moved on to higher things.
As always, I am most grateful to the Minister, who is both opening and replying to the debate. As always, she has taken great pains to keep this House informed of developments. I am delighted that she secured this significant debate today and that she has so ably set out for us the Government's position.
I turn to my first major theme: openness. The provision of information by the Government is one of the most significant questions that my committee has identified as we move from the convention to the IGC. The convention was a remarkably open affair. Vast amounts of information came forward on the convention website. No one can dispute that the material has been there for all those who wished to keep up with it. Our own Government have continued in this spirit, publishing in July two command papers giving the background and the full text of the treaty; and now we have today's White Paper, which will need to be carefully digested.
Today's debate, and a similar debate held in another place in July, reflect the Government's willingness to engage in dialogue, and Ministers' willingness to appear before specialist committees and in open fora. The Government are to be commended for launching a public debate on the Internet, which is indeed a welcome initiative.
Going forward to the IGC, however, we need to be certain that this good work will continue. The IGC is by its very nature a body where diplomatic and political negotiations take place. That, by definition, imposes constraints on what information can be released. But it would be a crying shame if the open spirit that has characterised discussions so far were allowed to become lost in the traditional secrecy of inter-governmental negotiations. I have glanced quickly at paragraphs 37 to 40 of the White Paper which deal with Parliament and the IGC, and I am only mildly encouraged. The Minister went a little further in her opening statement on the Government's strategy for releasing information about the IGC, and for that I am grateful. I am sure she will understand that what we need are the basics—factual details such as who is involved, what is to be discussed and, most importantly, the outcomes of those discussions.
The Foreign Secretary has made a good start by promising to make draft agendas available. But the key requirement is for records of deliberation and conclusions to be made quickly and freely available. I hope the Minister will be able to offer us something on that.
More importantly, there should be regular reports back by Ministers to this Parliament on substantive issues being deliberated on at the IGC. To that end, my committee would support an opportunity for this House to hold to account the Secretary of State for Foreign

167
Affairs and other Ministers representing this country at the IGC. I am therefore very happy that Her Majesty's Government are proposing the establishment of a Commons Standing Committee on the IGC, where your Lordships can attend and speak, and which will engage with Ministers. This proposal was placed on the agenda of your Lordships' Procedure Committee for consideration at its meeting this very afternoon. I hope, therefore, that this welcome proposal can be speedily agreed. This may seem like a dry procedural matter, but it goes to the heart of what will be a crucial element in the success or otherwise of the convention's work; namely, the question whether, when the decisions are finally taken by the IGC, parliamentarians, commentators and, most of all, the public can be confident that the decisions arrived at really are in their interest.
That is enough on process and on the need for transparency. I now turn briefly to the substance of the draft constitutional treaty itself. I base my remarks on the comments made by my committee in its report, which is on the Order Paper for debate today, and which are set out in paragraph 8 as a list of questions which the committee will be considering over the next few weeks. Perhaps I may refer briefly to one or two of them.
One matter that has been exercising the House, and indeed the public, is how far the proposed new treaty is in fact new. Are we on the verge of signing up to something which is totally novel, or do the proposals in the main add up to no more than a consolidation? My committee will be looking carefully at this question, but I have little doubt that we shall find the truth lying somewhere between the two.
To that end, the committee has already pressed Her Majesty's Government to provide Parliament with a comprehensive written analysis of how the proposed constitutional treaty differs from the existing EU treaties which it replaces; and in particular how far the treaty would extend QMV. The committee will then seek to determine what significant improvements will be made by the proposed treaty and, in the other direction, where the "thick red lines" are that the Government should not cross in negotiations.
We want also to be clear on what are the most significant reservations that other member states have about the treaty. As we know, a number of states—many but not all of them among the smaller states—want certain issues re-opened. That is neither surprising nor inappropriate—quite the contrary. My committee will be watching to see how other national parliaments are reacting to the concerns that are being raised by governments about parts of the draft. At the COSAC meeting in October, where the treaty is to be debated, we shall have an opportunity to inform ourselves on that.
One area where our Government clearly have reservations is defence—this has already been referred to. The committee has been monitoring closely suggestions that more decisions on common foreign policy and security matters should be taken by QMV. We also intend to take a close look at the role of the
168
proposed Union Minister for Foreign Affairs. Others will no doubt talk more about that in the course of the debate.
More generally on QMV, however, perhaps I may be permitted a personal aside. Where the national veto remains, it may not, as a matter of practical politics, be realistic that one member state would seek to frustrate the common will of the other 24. The difference between unanimity and QMV may not be as significant in some areas as some might believe. There is, moreover, an unfortunate tendency, when speculating on a 24:1 divide, that the "one" will always be a small country. It might well be a large one. It could be the United Kingdom. It could be over the budget rebate.
Another issue of particular concern to the committee has been the future position of the various existing national "opt-outs" under the new draft treaty. We have had assurances from the Government—which will be published with our final report—that the UK's Schengen and euro opt-outs will be maintained by the new treaty. That is no doubt reflected in the White Paper.
As I have emphasised, questions of democracy and accountability lie at the heart of the process by which the treaty has been prepared. It will be important to test how far the proposals do in fact make the European Union more democratic and accountable.
My committee will accordingly be probing how far the draft treaty represents an increase in the powers of the democratically elected European Parliament and whether these developments are compatible with the current inter-institutional balance.
We will also be particularly concerned to examine whether corresponding provisions should be made for national parliaments to scrutinise decisions by their own governments where the European Parliament and the Council will be acting together under the co-decision process.
The treaty also raises a number of significant institutional questions which need examination. One is the role of the proposed non-voting Commissioners and how an EU of 25 will be able to function efficiently until the proposed changes to the Commission take effect in 2009. Another concern raised at the Riva del Garda ministerial meeting—this time by Poland and Spain—was over the interim weighting of votes in the European Council and the Council of Ministers. That is clearly another major issue to be addressed.
A further key institutional question concerns the post of President of the European Council, for which our Government have been arguing most forcefully. Part I, Article 21 in Title IV, devotes a mere 165 words to the creation and functions of, and method of election to, this important post. My committee will be seeking assurances that this proposal really has been thought through, especially as regards accountability.
A similar question is how the proposed legislative council—if indeed we need one—is intended to operate. Will it be any more than a rubber stamp? How will open and accountable discussion of policy be secured? What records of deliberations should be made publicly available? Very importantly, how

169
precisely will it ensure—as Part I, Article 23 demands—consistency in the work of the Council of Ministers?
Another key area that requires consideration concerns proposals for national parliamentary scrutiny. I sense that my committee and the Government agree that in an EU composed of sovereign member states where many decisions are taken by elected and accountable national Ministers or their representatives, it is a duty of all national parliaments to subject their Ministers to rigorous scrutiny and to hold them to account.
In that spirit, my committee looks forward to working closely with the Government and another place to implement the treaty's proposals to strengthen national parliamentary scrutiny of subsidiarity. But we are also concerned, as are the Government, that the proposals giving national parliaments a "yellow card" procedure on subsidiarity do not go far enough—something to which the noble Lord, Lord Howell, referred. The Government have informed my committee that there is a case for pressing at the IGC the strengthening of these provisions—perhaps by ensuring that there is a "red card" option which would allow a number of national parliaments collectively to block a Commission proposal, rather than just causing it to be re-examined, as currently proposed.
I am conscious that I have, by necessity, been raising questions and not proposing answers. I look forward to the rest of the debate and to working with your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Union to ensure that the House continues to make a timely, informed and effective contribution to the debate on the future of Europe.
4.22 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Peterborough: My Lords, on behalf of my colleagues on these Benches, I welcome this debate and thank the Minister for introducing the draft constitution with characteristic clarity. I am honoured to follow the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and thank him and the Select Committee for their work.
In an earlier debate in January, my friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans voiced his concern about two issues:
"first, the values that are implicit in the work of the convention and in the European institutions; and, secondly, that deathly silence about things European within British society".—[Official Report, 7/1/03; col. 919.]
Almost exactly eight months later the silence may have been replaced by a whisper, but the issues that we are debating today have yet to catch the nation's interest and imaginative response. Six hundred and fifty postings on the website are indeed welcome, but hardly overwhelming.
I therefore hope that today's debates will produce a change of heart and provoke the public debate that the European Council and the Government desire. However, one problem is the sheer length and complexity of the constitutional treaty, with 59 articles, which compares unfavourably, for example,
170
with the seven articles of the United States Constitution. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, has already referred to that.
Throughout this process, the Churches and religious communities of Europe have voiced a number of concerns, some of which have been met in the drafts now before us. The respect for the status, under national law, of Churches, religious communities and non-confessional organisations in the member states and the recognition of the specific identity of Churches and religious communities is now enshrined in Article 51. We are encouraged by the commitment to maintain an "open, transparent and regular dialogue" with these Churches and organisations. We await, with interest, further indications on how that dialogue will be structured. We want to make it a living reality. The faith communities also welcome the continuing provision for the respect of religious freedom in all its dimensions by the European Union.
These provisions led the Conference of European Churches to issue a statement at the end of May:
"We welcome the growing consensus on the place of religion in the future EU. as reflected by the amended draft article 51 (previously article 37). This article guarantees the EU's respect for the status of churches and religious communities in the Member States based on their different constitutional traditions. The provision for open, transparent and regular dialogue reflects the specific contribution of churches and religious communities distinct from secular authority, at the service of society as a whole".
In a further statement CEC commented on the preamble which recognises,
"in an inclusive way the contribution of Europe's religious heritage—of which Christianity is a major part—in determining…the process of European integration. A Europe which disavowed its past, which denied the fact of religion, and which had no spiritual dimension would be greatly impoverished in facing up to the ambitious project which calls upon all its available energy: constructing a Europe for all".
That returns us to the principal concern raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans in January. I recognise that, as one of my correspondents has described it, the aims of the convention are to streamline the running of the Union and to provide the Union with more transparency and legitimacy in the eyes of its citizens.
Nevertheless, many religious people will be surprised that the preamble refers to "the values underlying humanism" without making specific reference to the role that theistic belief, and Christianity in particular, has played in the development of these values, as well as in the cultural and economic life of Europe. The right reverend Prelate said:
"'Europe' can and does cope with private expressions of religious belief, but it is not coping, cannot cope and wilfully will not cope with institutional or communal forms of religious belief, of whatever faith that belief may be".
That concern, I fear, remains. He continued:
"To want to be at the heart of Europe and yet, at the same time, to ignore the soul of Europe would be to make a profound mistake".—[Official Report, 7/1/03; col. 920.]
All religions welcome the defence of human rights and human dignity, but they would also wish to remind us of human responsibilities: to each other, to

171
our world and to "the common good". The language of duties and responsibilities to our fellow citizens may not be fashionable, but it points to values which are in some ways higher than "equality of persons, freedom and respect for reason". These are certainly subsumed in those higher values which could lead us to speak of the duties of citizens to serve society in their work, in their care for the young, the elderly or the disabled, and so forth.
To give the Charter of Fundamental Rights constitutional status has positive merit, but it leaves with the courts the discretion to decide how conflicts between individual rights and the common good are to be resolved. It must therefore remain a matter of concern whether Article 52 of the Charter provides an adequate safeguard to defend the democratic rights of a community to define and protect "the common good", and to protect the legitimate rights of groups as well as those of individuals. In that context, some Churches and religious groups retain a concern about the relationship between the need to combat discrimination in employment practices and the desire of a religious group to safeguard its beliefs in and through its institutions.
There is much that we welcome in this complexity of documents. Religious groups look forward to a constructive dialogue with the European institutions and hope that the seeming remoteness of Brussels, the lack of adequate media attention and the poverty of our knowledge of European laws will not result in a lack of accountability to the people they serve. A remote political culture helps no one. If we are to add a European identity to a national and increasingly regional identity, we have a large and vital task of education. I hope that this debate will prove to be a worthy beginning to that process.
4.31 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I should like to echo what has already been said in tribute to those who have worked in the Convention, and in particular our colleagues from this House. I should also like to echo the tributes made to my noble friend Lord Grenfell and his committee. Not only the committee but the whole House is fortunate to have at the helm at this juncture someone with so much international experience and wisdom as reflected in the words of my noble friend in his powerful contribution to the debate.
In one sense it is undeniable that the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, is right: the constitution does belong to the people. We are practitioners within the context of the constitution. But that is why the referendum held in the 1970s was so important. It established the constitutional context within which we were going to move forward. In commenting on the words of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, had to say is important. If, within the intergovernmental negotiations, it became clear that what ultimately was substantively proposed were to take us away from the understanding, commitment and context entered into as a result of the 1970s referendum, then undoubtedly the issue of a
172
further referendum would become important. But I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that it is far too early to say that such an eventuality will arise.
We are faced with a paradox. Two realities about the nature of existence constantly challenge me. On the one hand, the world is undeniably interdependent. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, referred to his grandchildren. Not infrequently I find myself looking at my own grandson and reflecting that there is hardly a major issue that will affect him and others of his generation during their lifetimes which can be handled effectively or resolved within the context of the nation state alone. Almost every major issue now has to be tackled in the context of international co-operation.
But the paradox is that, against this reality, people are anxious, insecure and looking for identity; they feel a need to belong. That is why, as the Government take forward their consideration of the draft convention, it is important that they take the issue of subsidiarity very seriously indeed and drive along that road as hard as they can. It seems absolutely essential that everything affecting people which can be decided in ways as close as possible to what they understand and of which they feel a part, should be decided in that way.
But it is not only as regards the issues of subsidiarity that matters should be left to national or even regional decision-making; there is also the issue of how people can feel that they have a say in the major issues being decided at the macro-international level. Obviously the European Parliament is terribly important here. How one strengthens its role and the part it can play in ensuring accountability is crucial, but I suggest that it is not simply a matter for the European Parliament, even on those policies that are decided in Brussels or elsewhere. National parliaments must also feel that they too have influence, and that is a difficult issue with which to grapple. However, it is one which we cannot dodge because if we look honestly at what has happened so far in the history of the European Union, it is undeniable that the European Parliament is extremely remote from ordinary people.
When elections to the European Parliament take place, we know that seldom do the issues of that parliament predominate. The elections become a kind of litmus test of the popularity of the government of the day and of the prospects for the opposition, expressed in terms which people do understand and which frequently are not the major issues facing the Union. I hope that the House will forgive me if I reflect that perhaps we did not get it right at the beginning. I take some responsibility for that because at the time I was the Minister of State at the Foreign Office working in this sphere for the noble Lord, Lord Owen. However, if the records are examined, they will show that on occasion I put forward questions about this issue. Sometimes I wondered whether we were right to move to direct elections to the European Parliament, and I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Owen, nodding in agreement with the fact that at the time I drew attention to this.
The result is that we have a European Parliament which is remote from ordinary people and not part of the reality of politics for them. Further, we have

173
national parliaments which do not bear the everyday responsibility of making a success of European policy. Therefore the game of populist criticism and negativism is played too easily. I emphasise, therefore, that in our approach to what is being proposed the Government cannot take too seriously the role of national parliaments, the European Parliament and, as they continue down the road, how the role of regional assemblies is to be related to the work of the European Union.
That brings me to the issue of the Commission. The Commission comes in for much abuse, and certainly there have been not infrequent elements of what most of us would regard as administrative madness in some of the excesses of overly zealous bureaucrats. However, when looking objectively at the history, I ask where we would have been with the evolution of the European Union without the Commission. It is a body of people with an historic responsibility to see the development of the Union undertaken successfully. However, that role must be tempered with the accountability to which I have referred, and it must be balanced with a strong Council. I have few illusions that if everything had been left to the Council, we would not have moved very far forward in the evolution of Europe, but we need a strong Council. If there is to be a strong Council, then I believe that the concept of more continuity in its chairmanship is a proposal worth taking seriously.
It would be impossible to make any observations on the issues before us without referring to the common foreign and security policy. I have always regarded myself as an Atlanticist, but recent events have sent me back to the drawing board. I believe that a unipolar world is a very dangerous world indeed. We need checks and balances. We do not want rivalry—God forbid—between Europe and the United States; we want co-operation. That is the way in which we will make a success of the world in which we live. But we want a meaningful balance and therefore cohesion and the ability for Europe to act alone when necessary—and to he a force that is taken seriously—are very important.
However, I should say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that if we are to go down that road there will be a bill. It will be no good merely talking about the need for checks and balances. We will have to show that we take the cost of international security as seriously as our American colleagues and that we are prepared to contribute to what is necessary to make a meaningful success of what we advocate.
We have seen that security cannot be achieved within Europe alone. One issue at which the Government will need to look closely is how they are going to replace, however imperfect—and they have been far from perfect and fairly amateurish—the provisions which were at least theoretically there, for example, in the Western European Union as it was emerging. They have given parliamentarians from outside the European Union the opportunity to share in the analysis, discussions and deliberations about what is necessary in security terms.
174
My noble friend referred to the ending of the Cold War. I hope that we are all agreed that that has happened. But we have to be careful that as we move forward we do not inadvertently make the dividing lines between what is included in the Union and what is still outside more significant than they have ever been. Therefore, as we discuss a common foreign and security policy, we need to think very hard about how we engage those European states which are not yet members of the European Union and how we engage Russia.
Let me refer to one other issue in regard to the common foreign and security policy. I hope that we do not inadvertently slip into the mistake that the Americans have made and fall into a mould of greater nationalism as distinct from internationalism—Britain can no longer do what it wants to do or would like ideally to do itself—neither can France—but, my God, as the European Union we will be able to do these things. If one thing has become abundantly clear in the past decade it is that order in the world cannot be imposed. Order has to be built, and that involves the engagement and stakeholding of the widest possible cross-section of the global community. Therefore our relationships with those countries in the wider Europe outside the European Union—and, as I said, with Russia—are very important.
The United Nations should feature far more centrally in any constitution than it does at the moment in the proposed draft. There are ritualistic references to the United Nations, but one does not get the feeling that an understanding of the indispensability of global interdependence has registered.
Let me make two final points. First, as regards human rights, one of the great achievements in Europe in the post Second World War period has been the Strasbourg institutions—the Convention on Human Rights and the Court of Human Rights. We need to consider very carefully the danger of assuming that the issue of human rights in the member countries of the European Union will be handled exclusively by our own legal systems within the European Union. In my view that would devalue the significance of the European Court for the wider Europe and, indeed, for Russia. This is not the time to do that. This is the time—indeed, I am glad to see the references to the European Union signing up to the convention—to strengthen the institutions in Strasbourg with their wider responsibilities.
My second point—I declare an interest because my whole professional life has been spent in this area—is that I am glad to see in the proposals references to development assistance. However, I wish that the references to the kinds of charitable, philanthropic responsibilities of the European Union were balanced by more hard political thinking about the damage the Union causes by insensitive trade policies and the common agricultural policy. We should not get into the contentious arguments about this issue in the constitution, but if we are going to talk in the constitution about our responsibilities to the Third World we need to consider how they are reflected in our domestic European policies, and how these

175
policies affect the Third World and arguably have far more significance than many of the things we may do in terms of providing aid.
I hope that we shall see these next months as being positive, imaginative, creative; that we come to terms with global inter-independence and see it as a challenge. I hope that we are able to look our grandchildren in the eye and say, "Yes, we are preparing for the future of which we are all inescapably a part". I hope for the success of international co-operation as reflected immediately in the more European setting and the European institutions that matter.
I shall feel very sad if, yet again, Britain goes down in history as a neurotic, insecure nation which is so worried about its own immediate self-interest that it throws away the chance to influence global thinking because it has not joined, participated and belonged. If ever there was a time to join, participate and belong, this is it.
I understand the pressures that led my noble friend to say what she did, but I was worried—we are good friends and so she will forgive me—about the number of times that she referred to "national interest". I do not understand what the term "national interest" means in this modern world. I understand why it is often used in rhetoric. The lesson that we have to accept, and on which we have to win over the British people, is that in the inter-dependent world in which we live—and it starts in Europe—no national interest can be served separately from the interests of the wider international community.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, I have often shared debates and scenes with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and towards the end of his speech I found a certain degree of the temperamental differences between us beginning to emerge; I am a less emotional creature than he is. Having said that, I find myself agreeing with a large part of what he had to say about the role of the European Union and our approach to it. His speech was one of a series of speeches of distinction that have so far been made.
I extend my thanks, as others have done, to the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and the members of his committee. I endorse absolutely his tribute to the activities of our fellow parliamentarians in relation to the convention.
I also express my appreciation of the two speeches—indeed, three speeches, but I refer to the two principal protagonists—from the Front Benches of the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, and my noble friend Lord Howell. I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, that her speech was a great improvement on the golf club rules and the "tidying up". It was a clear, comprehensive presentation. My noble friend Lord Howell was equally clear.
In a way they reminded me of my reactions to the proceedings surrounding the Single European Act some 18 years ago in which there was a tendency on both sides to proclaim victory or disaster when, in
176
truth, as so often on such occasions, we ended up trying to distinguish between the half full and the half empty glass.
There is another similarity between our proceedings now and those then and that is the passionate search in which we all rightly engage for the presentation of these documents, these issues, in language of limpid clarity, to be read by the ordinary man and woman in the saloon bar. Such a search is almost always fruitless. What could be more lucid, compelling and attractive than devolution, for example? Yet a glance at any of our devolution legislation shows an absolute dog's breakfast. It is almost impossible for an institution as well established as the European Union now is to distil a document of the apparent clarity, as you glance at it, as the American Declaration of Independence. The document we have is certainly more compact and workable than the present texts, for those who have to work in such a hideous jungle, as it were. It can be accessed by politicians, civil servants and other human beings who have to deal with it, even if it is not popular reading.
The document reflects an observation that Winston Churchill made way back in 1949. On a train ride to Strasbourg, Robert Boothby asked him what exactly he meant in his Zurich speech by talking about a "kind of" United States of Europe. Churchill refrained from giving an answer, and said, "You must remember, we arc not making a machine, we are growing a living plant". Living plants tend to be pretty untidy.
That is exactly what happens today as the institutions with which we are grappling reflect an intermingling of executive and legislative power which is at the heart of the system as it has evolved. The institution's character is hybrid, with the hybridity changing as one moves forward and looks at one issue rather than another. That guarantees that it is a thousand miles away from being a federal state. This will not be a superstate—the institutions, as they have evolved, stand in the way of that happening. They serve, in many ways advantageously, to maintain the role and the authority of the nation state as the dominant unit of accountability. I will come back to that when we discuss the role of national parliaments.
In fact, the proponents of federal union or anything like a superstate, who have constantly played a part in these debates, have been held at bay—substantially, if not completely—on many of the key points. The European Commission will not be a government of Europe, although it has an important role to play. The president and his colleagues will not be chosen by and drawn from the European Parliament. The Commission will not extend its exclusive right of initiation into home affairs or foreign policy. Qualified majority voting, although rightly widened, will not extend to such areas as taxation, own resources, treaty reform, foreign policy or defence. As others have emphasised, and as the Minister herself acknowledged, it is vital that Her Majesty's Government maintain her position and our position on that.
However—and the House would be surprised if I did not say this—several aspects of the document before us fall well short of delighting me. I agree with the noble

177
Lord, Lord Wallace, my noble friend Lord Howell and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, on a number of these points. I urge the Government to pay those reservations great attention and, in doing so, to remember, as has already been said, that only the intergovernmental conferences have the last word on these matters. At this stage, we have a draft convention and the ruminations of many others who have contributed to it. Similarly, at Luxembourg, we had the Spinelli draft treaty purporting to present a completely new Europe, just as we had the—in retrospect, rather curiously named—Genscher/Colombo Final Act. That was another presentation of a constitutional utopia. But when we got to the point in Luxembourg, the intergovernmental conference called the shots, and so it must be here.
I should like to mention one reservation which others have not made a great deal of but which worries me a lot—this wretched charter of fundamental rights. From the very outset I have wondered what on earth that was intended to be for. The Select Committee, presided over by the noble Lords, Lord Grenfell and Lord Hannay, pressed Mr Peter Hain very hard on this, and rightly so, when he gave evidence to the committee.
What purpose does the charter serve? As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, pointed out, we have the European Convention on Human Rights; the European institutions will be signing up to that and will be bound by that, as we have been. What on earth is the point of having a parallel, potentially conflicting, separate text, which will serve to confuse rather than enhance matters? If it has to feature in the text of the treaty to the extent that it does, I hope that it will be surrounded by a huge barrier of verbose insulation to ensure that it remains no more than a piece of not-very-impressive window dressing.
My second anxiety has been reflected in a number of speeches. I refer to the substantial increase in the legislative and budgetary powers of the European Parliament. I find that surprising, given the experience of the Prime Minister, among others, of the capacity of that institution for loading additional social and environmental burdens on business throughout the Union, often against the will of our Government and that of others. I am surprised that, so far, people have been persuaded of the case for surrendering more of the powers of the Council to a rival body whose public legitimacy is, to say the least, not overpoweringly impressive. I agree with the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Judd, looked at that.
Is it not rather startling—perhaps it is not—that in all the debates in which I have taken part in this House on this issue, nobody has ever cited a word of observation from anyone or any document emanating from the European Parliament? I believe the documents produced for this House are quite often cited in the other place. But it seems very much one-way traffic.
I am surprised by the extent to which it has been given an enhanced role when I reflect on an observation made by one of the vice-presidents of the Convention, a
178
former Italian Prime Minister, Professor Giuliano Amato in a very notable Ditchley Foundation lectu re in the mid 1990s. He said that the European Parliament,
"was not enough to establish that a European people already existed. That Parliament was the symbol of a community that might be seen in the future, rather than representative of an existing one".
It is an aspirational institution, and we may well have been wrong in believing that democratic accountability is best transmitted through that agency.
I shall move on to some rather more positive insights, and make some more exhilarating points in that direction. The first one is a natural counter to that: I welcome the opening up of the legislative work of the European Council. The fact that its legislative activities will be conducted in public and it will be taking a much plainer role seems a better way of meeting the democratic deficit than seeing it gibe away powers to the European Parliament.
I welcome, as others have done, the more straightforward rules for calculating qualified majority. And I welcome the tentative step towards establishing a more substantial role for national parliaments, particularly regarding subsidiarity. I agree entirely with what has been said by my noble friend Lord Howell, the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Grenfell, and Miss Gisela Stuart, who did marvellous work on the convention and, indeed. by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, in welcoming that.
The most important and critical institutional invention of all—again, for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Judd—has been that we pressed on the rotating presidency of the European Council the introduction of a so-called permanent chairman of that institution. I believe it could he the most important change to emerge from this convention, because it will introduce a sense of continuous dynamic, and give some continuity to the work of the Council. This will, I hope, enable the President of the Council to oversee the work of other ministerial councils. It could well establish that institution as almost the key junction box of the entire system. It is rightly matched by the establishment of the new post of European Foreign Minister. I am not sure I would call it that, but I am not quite sure what else to call it. Some people think it might be called Foreign Secretary, but that would be equally confusing. But these are important changes which will strengthen the effectiveness and identity of the European Union.
I am struck by the extent to which these key changes, these enhancements of the decision-making power of the Union in all fields—but particularly the economic—the enhancement of our common and foreign policy, actually reflect the original agenda in Luxembourg 18 years ago.
At that time there was a partnership between my noble friend Lady Thatcher and myself, supported by another partnership between the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Williamson. We had two objectives. One was to secure the necessary changes—by extending qualified majority voting—to secure the speedy implementation of the Commission's White Paper Completing the Internal Market; a White Paper not prepared by some remote

179
unknown antique foreign commission, but by my noble friend—I am sorry he is not with us today—Lord Cockfield. He had been despatched to Brussels with the express intention of generating such a document, as an agenda for completion by 1992. At that moment of glory in Luxembourg in 1985, my noble friend Lord Cockfield was able uniquely to secure the joint admiration, if not adulation, of both M Jacques Delors and Mrs Margaret Thatcher. So it was an important part of the agenda then and it is an important part of the agenda that we are trying to achieve now.
The other feature of that discussion was the importance of seeking a common foreign policy. The first article of Part III of the Single European Act states:
"That being members of the European Community, we shall endeavour jointly to formulate and implement a European foreign policy".
The history of that text is important. It is drawn from a draft treaty on foreign policy co-operation, prepared in this country and handed by my noble friend Lady Thatcher to Chancellor Kohl in my presence on 18th May 1985 for incorporation in the forthcoming Single European Act. It is a British product. It was something about which the Prime Minister at the time was questioned, when she reported on the Luxembourg 1985 council, on 5th December 1985 by one of our honourable friends, whom all of us will remember and mourn with sadness, Nicholas Budgen, a robust champion of national independence. He asked my noble friend this:
"Is not the pretence and rhetoric of a common policy on foreign affairs dangerous in that it leads to muddle and misunderstanding?".
My noble friend read the article that I have just quoted. She went on to say that it is,
"in the interests of all member states to act together if we can on certain matters because we are very much stronger by so doing".—[Official Report, Commons, 5/12/85: col. 439.]
That is what the substance of this debate is about: can we achieve greater influence, greater impact on behalf of the people of this country by working, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, in partnership, governed by the unanimity rules with our colleagues in the European Council? That is what we should be trying to do.
I must say two things on that issue before I close. The first relates to our present international scene. I think it is and will be seen to be a tragedy that the Prime Minister, in his understandable over-reaction to the tragedy of the events of 9/11, has too often and too dramatically taken us too far away from that route. I think that had we concentrated from an earlier stage on a common European reaction to those tragic events, we might have avoided events that could yet prove almost more tragic.
I am concerned also that my own party—uncharacteristically and I think for a short time—has so misled itself that it is ready at this stage to commit itself to a referendum on anything that may emerge from the constitutional convention, not before the ink is dry but before half the wet ink has been put on it. We do not yet know what is going to emerge. It may prove to be an issue so dramatically different from those we
180
have subscribed to in the past as to deserve that response. But I hope very much that my own party will consider carefully the wisdom of committing ourselves in advance to a referendum on this issue before we know what is going to emerge.
I hope finally that the Government will take account of the several important qualifications that I have made to what has so far been achieved, for I do very much agree with the number of colleagues who have already made very similar points.
5.4 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I very much agree with the final words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, as to the precipitate approach to the question of a European referendum. I am bound to say that I remain rather an old fogey regarding national referendums: I prefer to see parliamentary democracy work if it possibly can. And I certainly do not think the case for having a national referendum on these proposals from this convention has yet been made. We must await, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, said, the outcome of the discussions in the IGC. It is to be hoped that the question of a referendum on the convention may coincide with the need for a referendum on British membership of the euro. I shall comment on that issue at a later point.
I agree with all noble Lords who have spoken about this being a very important report. It comes at an historic stage in the development of both the European Union and, as the situation in Iraq has shown, at a critical point in the development of the transatlantic relationship. I join with others in the tribute to those who have served so well on the convention; in particular my noble friend Lord Maclennan of Rogart and the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson. They have done an excellent job for this House and indeed for the country as a whole.
I want to concentrate briefly on the significant realities that the forthcoming IGC will have to face if the enlarged Union is to work effectively for its citizens and play a constructive role on the world scene.
While the proposed constitution creating a greatly enlarged Union is a formidable challenge, it does not in my judgment propose a qualitative change in the character of the Union; rather, it knits together the succession of the earlier treaties. It moves in fact, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, said, more towards a union of national states and parliaments than in the direction of any superstate or a closer European federation.
The proposed constitution demands significant changes however of practice and procedure rather than of principle. I very much agree with my noble friend Lord Wallace and, indeed, with the chairman of the Select Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, about the many important matters that still remain to be resolved in the IGC's discussions and of the importance of maintaining an adequate parliamentary scrutiny of these developments.

181
First, a Union of 25 nation states simply will not be able to work without qualified majority voting on a substantial scale. The areas where a right to a national veto is recognised will have to be carefully defined and agreed and, I hope, very much limited in their area.
However, a corollary of expanding qualified majority voting and limiting the right to veto will have to be an expansion of subsidiarity—deliberately leaving areas of decision-making to national administrations. Again, the draft constitution document is fairly thin on this issue and will need a great deal of work at the IGC.
The European Commission and the European Parliament will both in my judgment—and I speak as a long-time ago former member of the European Commission—have to practise the self-denying discipline of Talleyrand pas trop de zéle in harmonising the details of our daily life.
If a European Union of 25 is going to work, it will have to concentrate on the strategic priority areas of economic integration and of monetary integration through the single currency. That will best protect and promote living standards of its citizens and give the Union maximum negotiating power within the global economy and political clout in international affairs. The proposal therefore to elect the future president of the Council of Ministers in place of the present six-monthly rota, which will become unworkable with 25 members, will enable the European Union's influence to be deployed more coherently in world affairs. That, together with the appointment of a European Foreign Minister, accountable to both the Council of Ministers and the European Commission, will, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, said, be potentially a very important development indeed. In fact, it is the best way forward to shape Europe's partnership with the United States in the face of the 21st century's new threat of international terrorism, with its tragic ranks of suicidal volunteers.
I conclude my brief remarks by saying that the sad thing is that, at this critical stage in the development of the European Union, the Government's original wish, on being elected, to be at the heart of Europe has been damaged and diminished—I hope only for the time being. First, it has been damaged and diminished by our delays and dithering over joining the euro, and now by the degree to which we decided to go it alone with the United States' President instead of deciding to use the more constructive road map of being part of a European effort, through the United Nations, to establish a timetable and policy to deal with Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
In the long run, in the 21st century, what will matter is not the American/British relationship but the American/European relationship. That will be the case whether or not Britain is positive and active and at the heart of that relationship. It would be sad if, given the history of this country's role in international affairs, we were deliberately to allow ourselves to drift into a marginal role in what will be the fundamental relationship in international affairs in future. If we were to allow that, we would not enable ourselves to
182
play a proper part in making a success of an enlarged European Union, which is of such fateful importance for the future.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, again. I say again because, a little over 30 years ago, I followed him at a rather greater distance on the way to Brussels.
When the House last debated the Convention on Europe, on 7th January, one could already discern the shape of things to come, but much of the detail remained obscure. Now, much has been filled in, although there are still areas of obscurity and ones which will need careful scrutiny and possibly amendment at the inter-governmental conference which will begin its work next month. We are thus at a decisive point in what has to be regarded as effectively a single process and which is likely to result in a constitutional agreement early next year. We have the draft of such an agreement as the convention established it. We need to say what we think of it, and thus help the Government to determine their own attitude in the months of negotiation that lie ahead.
First, I should like to say a word about the significance of this document as compared with others this House has ratified in past years. We have already been treated to a good deal of hyperbole on the subject in the press, in which the phrase "a thousand years of history" crops up rather frequently. Why one should cut out the Anglo-Saxons, who contributed a good deal to our constitutional history, I have never quite understood. But I leave the choice between one lot of continental invaders and another to those who have that mind set.
A glance at the document shows that it is certainly not just a tidying up exercise, although that is in part what it is. But nor, at least in the view of this observer, who was involved in one way or another in negotiations on most of the other European treaties, is it in any way the most significant or far-reaching of those treaties. It is not as significant in this view as the original Treaties of Rome and Paris, which we ratified in 1972; nor as the Single European Act 1986, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, referred, which quite literally changed Europe's economy; nor as the treaty of Maastricht, which established a single currency and laid the foundations of a common foreign and security policy.
In the view of history, the document may not even be considered as significant as the various accession treaties which opened the door to countries which had suffered from fascism and communism, the most recent of which we are currently in the process of ratifying parliamentarily. But it is surely more significant and far-reaching than the Treaties of Amsterdam and Nice, those rather botched jobs whose failure to deal effectively with the challenges facing the enlarged Community provides part of the rationale for the present negotiations. So it is somewhere in the middle of the spectrum.

183
How much of it is tidying up? That we do need to know, and I hope that the Government will set out the details clearly and persuasively, and perhaps a little more fully than in the White Paper, on which our speed reading abilities were put to the test. It really makes no sense to regard a statement about the supremacy of European law as some kind of innovation, when rulings of the European Court of Justice, which we respect and which apply in this country, have been based on that principle for decades. Equally, the significance of references to a closer Union, a concept that was in the preamble of the original Rome treaty, hardly seems to merit the importance attached to them. The present Union is becoming a closer one all around us each day, as our economies and societies organically respond to the removal of artificial barriers. In any case, no one seems to dispute the political need for a clearer, tidier set of rights and responsibilities. So what is tidying up should not be contentious and should be welcomed.
Then there are the innovations which, clearly, we must examine with great care. The proposal to bring the whole area of immigration, asylum, crime and counter-terrorism—what used to be called Pillar 3—within the scope of the Community method and in many cases but not all within the scope of majority voting, seems not to be greatly contested. Certainly, recent experience of the old inter-governmental methods in this area have not been a brilliant success. But if we are to move in this direction, I hope that we will set out very clearly that the objective is not to create a fortress Europe, repelling all those less fortunate and less prosperous than ourselves, but rather to achieve a judicious balance between the need to avoid unmanageable surges of immigration and our own duty and interest to keep our doors open. There will be other, probably quite modest, areas where a switch from unanimity to qualified majority voting will make sense, but in some—the Government's red lines on defence, tax, harmonisation and social security—that will need to be resisted.
As to the institutional innovations, these seem to me quite clearly to provide more authority to the representatives of national governments and parliaments than hitherto has been the case, but to do so while at the same time strengthening the Parliament and the Commission. It is simply not in our interest to have a weak Commission. How is competition policy to be enforced by a weakened body? How is impartiality and even-handedness to be achieved in a Union of 25 disparate countries? But to expect the Commission to become more of an executive body, better at performing the many functions that it already has, and less of a trend-setting innovator does not mean that it needs to become weaker.
The new provisions for calculating majority voting also seem to me an improvement, giving the larger member states a greater weight than at Nice. Do those in this country who oppose the convention text actually want to move back to the status quo, which is in many respects less advantageous to Britain than what is proposed?
184
An area which will certainly require much meticulous work at the IGC and perhaps some adjustment is that dealing with common foreign and security policy. There are of course those in this House and elsewhere who believe that the European Union should not be trying to move further down that road—and "further" is the word, because we already have a functioning CFSP in the Balkans and in the Union's participation in the Arab/Israel peace process. I do not imagine anyone is proposing to pull back from that.
I do not myself agree with that negative view. Iraq was of course a traumatic experience for all of us, for those who supported the war, as I did, and for those who did not. But, if it showed one thing clearly, it was surely that a divided Europe has little influence in Washington and risks being marginalised so long as it is divided. It also highlighted the greatest challenge for any CFSP that is going to be worth having—how to build a transatlantic partnership which can face the challenges to our values and our interests that will be thrown at it, without splitting apart or developing into a "me too" approach, but also without systematising our disagreements with the Americans, which must be resolved, not proudly proclaimed.
Against this background, the proposals in the convention text—a number of which I proposed myself in our debate last February—seem to me to make good sense. The fusing of the role of the high representative with that of the Commissioner for External Relations, with the resultant foreign minister chairing the External Relations Council and not being institutionally subordinate to the Commission, is worthy of support. I would have liked to have seen two further elements—a foreign affairs committee of the whole Union bringing together representatives of national parliaments and of the European Parliament to provide support and democratic legitimacy for the foreign minister, and, secondly, recognition of the need for a strengthened CFSP to develop an organic link with the US to underpin the partnership to which we should commit ourselves from the outset.
Are there ideas in the convention text to which we should object or which are missing? I certainly think so. It is absurd to be contemplating an extension in the membership of the Court of Auditors to 25 or more when the existing court of 15 is already top-heavy. This House has proposed a slimmed down version, and I hope that the Government will commit themselves to working for that. The proposal for a public prosecutor seems to me at the very least premature; let us hope that it could be set to one side.
The idea of a wide-ranging general power enabling the member states to make changes to the constitutional agreement without requiring national ratification seems to me undesirable and should be resisted. That is the passerelle clause to which the noble Lord, Lord Howell, referred. Such a provision can be useful when it is limited to a particular area of policy, as it was in the earlier treaties which gave a power to the member states to reform the European Court of Justice. It could be that some such provision relating to the institutional aspects of the European Central Bank and to the growth and stability pact would provide just that potential for

185
greater flexibility that is desirable in the current circumstances. However, a catch-all provision risks letting the future development of the Union slip away from the hands of the member states that compose it, and that would be highly undesirable.
So there is much to be done in the six months or more which lie ahead and much for Britain as a key European player to do. But to be effective we have to be constructive and we have to be able to enlist the support of others. An approach which consists of opposing the convention's proposals root and branch will bring nothing but isolation, as the initial reaction of all member states, old and new, at Thessaloniki, in June, demonstrated.
We need to work hard to define our interests and how to further them at the intergovernmental conference, not to lose ourselves in a politically opportunistic debate about how in due course we will approve whatever the outcome may be. And let us have no illusions; for us to reject an outcome which all others accept would have far-reaching implications not just for that treaty but for our membership of the European Union as such. Far better surely to work for an outcome that all can support, to work to strengthen a relationship which remains central to our future as a nation and to our role in the world.
5.23 p.m.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. He and I have our disagreements, and we both sit on Sub-Committee A, but—perhaps slightly to the surprise of us both—we have agreed on quite a number of things. I have always benefited from listening to him. Both of us sit under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, to whom I am very pleased to pay tribute. He chairs our senior committee with a very light and wise touch, which makes it a pleasure to be on that committee, from which I shall very shortly be retiring—much, I am sure, to his relief and that of most other members of the committee.
The noble Baroness, and indeed the Prime Minister, said that the convention and the proposed constitution were a remarkable event. Certainly the conclusions of the convention on the draft constitution were unveiled with a great fanfare. At times it seemed as though there had been nothing like it since the Field of the Cloth of Gold. The champagne flowed. President Giscard d'Estaing stood ramrod straight while that music so familiar to citizens of the former German Democratic Republic, the "Ode to Joy", was played. President d'Estaing was even compared to Socrates. He, however, preferred to compare himself to Thomas Jefferson at the time of the Philadelphia convention, in 1787. It was President Jefferson who, according to President Giscard,
"installed leading ideas into the system".
In fact, in 1787, Jefferson was in Paris, not Philadelphia. When he read the conclusions of the Philadelphia convention he was deeply depressed, fearing it threatened an over-mighty government. He might have a similar reaction to what is proposed in the convention.
186
Even by the limited standards that the Government have set for themselves, the constitution is surely something of a failure. It is not the easily comprehensible, clear document that will connect Europe with its citizens. In the opinion of the Economist magazine, it has actually made matters worse, less comprehensible and less clear and has confused further the division of powers within the EU. While the US constitution is 15 pages long and the accompanying Bill of Rights specifies 10 liberties and procedural rights, and the UN constitution fits into the pocket, this document runs to more than 150 pages.
I am not opposed to the idea of a constitution. I think that there is a lot to be said for having a clear document that defines the different powers of the different institutions. In many ways, I think that we would be better off with a federal constitution so that we could actually have an end to the endless institutional tug-of-war and competition for power. However, this document has not provided it.
If the purpose was solely to amalgamate existing treaties—which would be a genuine tidying up exercise—then there was hardly any point in having the convention at all. Any parliamentary draftsman with a computer could have brought the -treaties together in one volume. Indeed, the private sector has already done that, and, with the permission of the House, a consolidated set of treaties is already available in the Vote Office and has been for some time.
Winston Churchill once allegedly, and uncharacteristically rudely, observed about a speech that,
"it has every platitude apart from please lift the seat and adjust your dress before leaving".
Much the same could be said about the European constitution. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, reminded us that we are solemnly told that,
"children may express their views freely."
In fact, it goes on to say:
"Such views will be taken into consideration in matters which concern them in accordance with their age and maturity'".
The document says that,
"Everyone has the right of access to a free placement service".
It is just as well that it did not say that everyone has the right to free tuition at a university, as it might have done a few years ago. It states:
"The Union shall enjoy a high degree of environmental protection".
The constitution stops somewhat short of proposing women-only shortlists for commissioners, but it does specify that one third of the candidates for the Commission should be women. Some of the points made and some of the principles and policies are worthy, while others are more debatable. However, they have no place in a constitution.
As George Will observed:
"A proper constitution does not canonise as rights elevated beyond debate the passing policy whims of the moment".

187
The purpose of a constitution is to distribute power between the legislature, the executive and the judicial institutions so that the will of the majority can be expressed while power is also limited in order to protect minorities.
The Prime Minister, in his foreword—perhaps it was written by Alastair Campbell—claims that the constitution does not bring about a fundamental change in the relationship between member states and the Union. That is the spin—the tumble dryers are in overdrive. However, note the word "fundamental". The fact is that merely having a constitution is itself a significant change and does itself alter the relationship between member states and the EU. Constitutions have unintended consequences. And there are many other ways in which this constitution is a step towards a more centralised Europe.
In July the Government presented the draft constitution as a White Paper. Rather curiously the Government's version left out 100 pages which were dismissed by the Foreign Secretary as largely technical. The omitted pages included the areas where QMV is to be extended, the EU's involvement in criminal law and the new European public prosecutor, which the Government themselves are committed to trying to get removed, but that was not included in the draft that the Government presented.
Foreign policy, defence, criminal justice, police matters, all for the first time come under the EU. The EU has, like the Habsburg Empire with its two-headed eagle, two presidents—a President of the Commission elected by the European Parliament and a President of the Council now to be elected for two-and-a-half years by the directoire of serving heads of governments. It is not in this document, but I read that the Eurozone may elect its own president as well. I wonder whether I am alone in my anxiety that the EU is somewhat in danger of debauching the currency of European bigwigs.
But I have left out the Foreign Minister. Europe is to have its own Foreign Minister, not as the Government of this country wanted, a high representative, but a Minister with a department and embassies and a Minister who is also to be a member of the Commission. He will be a very important person but, of course, the mystery remains of what will he say to his opposite number, the US Secretary of State, if there is a deep division in European foreign policy, as there has been in recent months. Even this Government have their red lines, QMV on foreign policy, QMV on taxation. We know what the Government want, but it is inevitable and in the nature of things that some of those battles will be won and some will not.
Then we have the Charter of Fundamental Rights, compared at one time by a Minister in the Government to the Beano. The Government originally said that this bizarre document was acceptable only as a political document and so could not be made legally binding. But the draft constitution now puts the whole text of the charter in part two of the constitution.
188
The Government say that the scope of the charter is limited to the institutions of the EU. The way they put it, you would think they were talking about the fair employment equal opportunity policies of people working for the Commission. The institutions of the EU, the Council, the Parliament, the Commission, are law-making bodies whose legislative actions will come under the charter. Many important policy areas covered by the charter are from now on in another part of the treaty to be "shared competences". So it seems highly probable that the influence of the charter will grow and that those areas will come increasingly under the European Court of Justice.
Even if the Government are right and there is some kind of Berlin Wall between the charter and the rest of the constitution, what on earth is the ECJ meant to make of a constitution that affirms certain fundamental rights and then, if the Government are to be believed, denies them to most EU citizens? The Court of Justice would surely be justified in trying to extend those rights. I believe that it would be well justified. What is the point of them otherwise?
The Government argue that they have included a reference to the commentary in the treaty and they refer to the strong horizontal clause II-51. But the Government's position is plainly not watertight. We saw that in the wording that the Minister used. It is plain also from the wording in the White Paper. On 9th July the Leader of the House of Commons, Mr Peter Hain, referring to the charter, said:
"After the final IGC negotiations…we shall see whether we can accept the proposal".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/7/03; col. 1268.]
So the Government cannot pretend that the charter is not a problem. It has been admitted by Mr Hain and, I believe, again today that it is potentially a problem.
The charter also entrenches into the constitution the Geneva Convention of 1951 on refugees, which covers asylum policy. Noble Lords will remember that not so long ago the Home Secretary floated the idea of repealing and amending the convention on refugees. Some of us wondered whether that was the tumble driers in action again—just more spin. When Mr Hain appeared before the Select Committee, I asked him about that. He said,
"We are perfectly happy with the convention on refugees".
But certainly any change in future will be impossible now that it is part of the European constitution.
Power is to be given to the Union to approximate criminal laws and penalties across member states for a list of crimes with a cross border dimension. Who is to decide whether those crimes have a cross border dimension? There are no prizes for answering that. This is the first time that the EU has intruded into criminal law. Criminal justice procedures are to be harmonised. Perhaps criminal justice Bills in your Lordships' House will become less regular events. That would be a relief to many to us but one wonders how so many eminent lawyers would pass the time.

189
The EU is to get legal personality—the word is used advisedly. At present, the EC, the first pillar, has such a capacity. The new Union will absorb the two intergovernmental pillars into a single organisational structure meaning that the Union will have exclusive competence to sign international agreements. Perhaps when the Minister replies to the debate, she might tell us whether member states are able to sign treaties in areas outside shared competence or outside areas of exclusive competence of the EU. Are there any areas in which the British Government can sign treaties on their own?
Sadly, the proposals in the convention for giving a larger role to national Parliaments are a small brown mouse. National Parliaments are allowed to express views but then, as the draft constitution says,
"the Commission shall review its proposal…after such a review the Commission may decide to maintain, amend or withdraw its proposal".
It is little wonder that that was strongly criticised by the House of Commons European Select Committee. It is a great pity that the proposal put forward by Gisela Stuart for a yellow and red card system that would be binding on European institutions through national Parliaments was not followed up.
Libraries. it used to be said, filed the French Constitution under periodicals. To quote George Will again,
"the more detailed a constitution is in presenting political outcomes as elevated beyond the reach of elected and changeable majorities the more certain it is to become dated."
The Constitution carries on the tradition of the EU speaking to the peoples of Europe rather than listening or providing an opportunity for the peoples to speak to the EU.
"Democrats should hope that the European Union's Constitution will he filed with the daily newspapers".
5.37 p.m.
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, usually on matters European I find myself on the other side of the argument to the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, and so I do, I am afraid. this afternoon. However, I very much agree with something that he said at the outset of his remarks: namely, that there is too much in the draft constitution of fad, the temporarily politically correct and statements with a philosophical approach rather than concrete constitution making.
I confess to your Lordships' House that I have a certain fondness for the preamble of the draft constitution and in particular for the penultimate paragraph which states:
"Convinced that, thus 'united in its diversity', Europe offers them [the Europeans] the best chance of pursuing, with due regard for the rights of each individual and in awareness of their responsibilities towards future generations and the Earth, the great venture which makes of it a special area of human hope".
The phrase which my eye alighted on, and I was delighted to see, was, "united in its diversity". There is a reason for that which, as it casts a slightly wider light on the draft constitution, I should like to share with your Lordships. In passing we should note that although the preamble quotes Thucydides, it does not much sound like him. But that particular paragraph and that phrase are important.
190
Some two years ago, I was asked by the late Lord Jenkins of Hillhead to stand in for him at a meeting in Brussels, the purpose of which was apparently to choose a motto for Europe. The committee was to be chaired by the formidable Jacques Delors and was to meet, slightly strangely, in the Swiss Hotel in Brussels. When we arrived, we were confronted with a shortlist of mottoes for Europe, all 10 of which were displayed on a screen. They had been shortlisted from a great many more mottoes, which had been debated, discussed and voted on by tens of thousands of schools across the European Union.
Mr Delors said, right at the beginning of the discussion, that there was not much need for discussion as it was self-evident which motto we should recommend. The motto that he chose, if my memory serves me correctly, read: "Europe—solidarity, prosperity, democracy, pluralism and justice". It is the sort of motto with which one would spring out of the bath in the morning and say, "That's it". We then had a debate about the motto, and I expressed the opinion that solidarity carries, certainly in the United Kingdom, too much ideological baggage, and perhaps was a word with which we should be prudent. I did not win that argument, but the Germans did. A lady who had come from Germany—an abgeordnete of the Bundestag—said, "We Germans understand solidarität: it means that we pay for everything", so solidarity sank.
We then spent some time talking about the American motto, "E pluribus unum", or "From the many, one". It was the feeling of everyone in the room and reflected the views of the children across Europe that, whatever else might happen, we would not end up as one in the sense of a single nation, state or people. The feeling was that we were in fact quite different—that we were a coming-together of nations very proud of their character and history. That is why we chose the phrase, "United in diversity", which I am glad to see has arrived in the preamble.
One could argue—I would—that Europe's unity in fact turns more on adversity than on diversity. It springs from necessity. We take action together because of the need to compete globally and to pro vide the United States with a more equal partnership. On that note, I would like to say how much I agreed with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. A number of us who belong to Sub-Committee C visited Washington shortly before the beginning of the Iraq war. We represented a wide variety of views Some were slightly more or less Antlantacist or pro-European, but we were all startled by the degree to which it was made absolutely plain to us by pretty well all the people whom we met in Washington, particularly in the Pentagon, that unless Europe got its act together to a significantly greater extent it could not be seen, would not be heard and would not be able to help. That is a need.
We need to protect the environment from degradation, and by definition we cannot do that unless we co-operate to achieve it. We need to cooperate to an unprecedented degree to protect our societies from terrorism. The motor of the European

191
Union is necessity, but European unity—and the European Union constitutionally—cannot mirror that of the American union, with its "E pluribus unum", for that very reason. The phrase that the French use all the time is, "A union of nations". Because we are a union of nations, we are attempting something unique, a new experiment. We are not creating a super-state, and we are not imposing the dominance that historically has always been the pattern of one nation in Europe on the other nations of Europe. We are attempting, on a voluntary and democratic basis, to do something that is more than co-operation, a confederation, or a series of bilateral arrangements. We are attempting to create something new.
It is for that reason that this experiment is so relevant to the rest of the world. In particular, it is that dimension of the European Union that makes it, in the terms of the preamble,
"a special area of human hope".
It is also why the Council of Ministers remains the most powerful and decisive European institution, a position not changed by the draft constitution. Indeed, it is arguably reinforced by it.
There is one dimension, however, where we should be bolder in emulating the United States and its constitution, and that is in a greater determination to make a direct connection between democracy and power in the European Union. It is there that Articles I-25 and I-26 absolutely miss the challenge of beginning to bridge the democratic deficit inside the European Union. They deal with the European Commission and its presidency, proposing that:
"The Commission, as a College"—
the term now used—
"shall be responsible to the European Parliament".
Yes, to the European Parliament. but not to the European electorate. As the next clause makes clear, the presidency of the Parliament will be determined by the Council, which will indeed take into account European elections, but will then put its proposed candidate for the presidency of the Commission to the Parliament.
To bridge the democratic deficit, we have to find a way to demonstrate to voters across Europe, particularly with the enlargement of the European Union, that how they vote in European elections has a real impact on what Europe does. In other words, we must show that there is a real connection between the will of people in the Union and the agenda of the Union. How could we begin to resolve that problem? Not in the terms proposed in the draft constitution.
The president of the European Commission should indeed be chosen by the Members of the European Parliament, subject to ratification by the Council and not, I would argue, the other way round—in effect, chosen by the Council with the ratification of the Parliament. However, a way should be sought for the presidency of the Commission to reflect the political majority that results in European elections. For that, at the end of the day, we will have to come to a view on a common electoral system for the European elections.
192
If we do not make that connection, we will be faced with steadily declining electoral turnouts for European Parliament elections. Just as it is not in our interests that the Commission should he fatally weakened, nor is it in our interests that the Parliament should never develop real democratic credibility. In that, we should learn from the United States' experience, which accepts that there is a certain balance of power between institutions and that there is—this is democratically not a had thing—a tension between institutions in the Union. The idea that somehow all the institutions cohere is fundamentally unrealistic. The institutions have to reflect the diversity of political view within the Union.
Historically, we in this country are always rather proud of our understanding of democracy. We believe ourselves to have a robust instinct for it, and in many ways that is correct. Therefore, it seems to me a pity that Her Majesty's Government have chosen to draw a red line around large areas instead of focusing their attention on putting the red ink where it will make a real difference to democracy.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Owen: My Lords. I believe that the debate will once and for all end the illusion that we are involved merely in a tidying-up exercise on the constitutional treaty. Indeed, the Government. in their White Paper,
state at page 27, paragraph 43:
"Important issues still need to he determined".
I would add "very" at the beginning of that statement:
"Very important issues still need to be determined".
I pay tribute to the House of Lords Select Committee and its chairman. who spoke so eloquently at the beginning of the debate. For those of us who have been trying to find our way through this complex constitutional treaty, its series of reports has been extremely important. First, it has tried to establish genuine consensus, but where it is not genuine they appear to have clarified the dissenting issues. That is an important contribution.
Now, it seems to me, we must move away from generalities and come down to particulars. In that spirit, I submitted detailed amendments to the House of Lords committee and I cannot possibly cover any or all of them here today. I understand why the Government in their White Paper could not reveal too much of their hand and list every amendment they wanted to make and shown in every respect where their bottom line was drawn; indeed, it would have been unwise of them to do so. I welcome some of those bottom lines and some of the issues they have taken on. Some of them I shall cover today. However, fundamentally, there must be a real determination to knock on the head the idea that the treaty can merely be glossed over with a formal ratification procedure at the end of the Italian presidency.
By all means, have a second Treaty of Rome and give the Italians that satisfaction and in many ways, they deserve that. However, it will not and cannot be completed by December. This is a long process and it should not be hurried. Above all, we must carry public

193
opinion right across the European Union, let alone across this country, and we are a long way from doing that at present.
Moreover. I hope that the Government will show a readiness to pick out early on, and to obtain the quiet support of other countries over some of these essential issues. If the House will allow me. I want to deal with some of them in a little detail. First, the current draft treaty, amended at the last moment, leaves open the possibility that a president of the Commission could also become President of the European Council. If that were ever clone, it would be a massive consolidation of power in one person and would, in effect, mean that the Union would be led by someone with most of the powers of a head of government of a single state.
At present, under the draft treaty, that could happen by a mere qualified majority vote unless Article 21.3 is amended to state that the President of the European Council,
"may not be a member of another European institution",
as appeared in an earlier draft which was changed at the last minute.
That draws attention to a serious issue. These last-minute amendments and some others are made by serious politicians. We should not underestimate them. They genuinely want a superstate. It is absurd for us to go on pretending that they do not. Some of them have been heads of state and heads of government. Some of them have held high office, and some still do, in many member states and they have not produced these amendments out of a hat or argued their case within the convention and elsewhere by accident. They are deliberately designing a treaty which can evolve over time to create what they want. They want the essential powers of a member state currently held in areas of defence, foreign policy, some questions of internal security, economic policy and in a few other areas, taken centrally at the European level by qualified majority voting. In so doing, they are deliberately reaching the point at which we cross the threshold of a self-governing member state to a situation in which member states no longer individually. if they wish, uphold those essentials—the internal security of their own territory and the independent conduct of foreign and defence policy—which are the hallmarks of a self-governing state. That is not accidental; it is deliberate.
I come to the second essential point. In Article 21.1 the words should be reinserted that appeared in the earlier draft: that anyone chosen as President of the European Council—the new post—should have previously been a head of government. In my judgment, it is a democratic safeguard that this post should be held by someone who has been able to win the support of people in his or her own country to hold the highest democratic position in that country and then go on to win the support of a qualified majority of fellow heads of government, many of whom will have served with that individual within the European Council.
The third change which I believe to be essential relates to Article 22 and the use of the term "Union Minister" for the first time ever. That has been mentioned by a
194
number of speakers and it is clear that the Government have considerable reservations about the proposal. This is a massive political threshold, and we should not duck that, towards a superstate. People understand what a Minister is. A Minister is a government in a state. For that reason, throughout the evolution of the European Community, we have not used the term. It is no accident that we have chosen terms such as "Secretary General", "High Representative" and "Commissioner". We have never used the term "Minister" and we should not start now. That should be deleted and we should use the term "High Representative for Foreign Affairs". That is what people have understood. That job has been well-conducted by Xavier Solana and there is no reason to change it other than a pretension to being a single state with a government. Unless we take that stand now, it will not be long before they come up with a Union Minister for economic affairs.
Fourthly, the High Representatives—that post carries out intergovernmental common foreign and security policy, which I strongly support, and also the new European security and defence policy, which now it has been much modified after the meeting in Nice I support, and I am pleased that the governments have done that. The High Representative should be appointed only by the European Council, but not as is currently done, appointed by a qualified majority of the European Council and with the agreement of the President of the Commission. The President of the Commission should not be involved in that appointment. Nor should the High Representative be a vice-president of the Commission; nor, as in the draft, should they have their names submitted with the rest of the Commission for the approval of the European Parliament. This is an intergovernmental post and we should be quite adamant that there is no creep, using the device of double-hatting.
It is helpful that the High Representative can cross over to external relations, which is a Commission function. I believe that that can be broadly done within the wording of Article 27.3, which is itself a compromise, that in exercising responsibilities with the Commission on external relations, and only for those responsibilities, the High Representative shall be hound by Commission procedures. The High Representative would not therefore be shared equally between the Commission and the European Council, which puts the individual in an impossible position. He or she would be firmly within the European Council. The Government used the expression "a foot in the door" of the Commission. On current proposals, the Commission has a great deal more than a foot in the door and that needs to be modified.
The fifth essential amendment relates to Article 6 on legal personality. We must make it clear that member states retain their current rights in terms of' representation on international bodies. Since we took the intergovernmental pillars and collapsed them into one Union treaty, that is not clear. The effects are from three elements, all of which are referred to in the treaty: "Union competence" on the treaty-making capacity of member states; the implications of the "Community way" of law making; and the "primacy" over the law. All contribute great doubt as to whether we have yet

195
settled this question. The Prime Minister has made absolutely clear that the retention of current rights in terms of representation on international bodies by member states must not be undermined.
On my sixth point, I come to Article 40, which covers defence policy. Currently it goes way beyond what was agreed at the IGC in Nice under then government red lines. The existing position, and that which has pertained for some years maybe in the European Community and certainly now in the European Union—it may have come in first at Maastricht or perhaps prior to that—is that the emergence of a common Union defence policy might occur. The emphasis is on the word "might", but it is not something that will occur. Yet the word "will" now appears in the draft treaty.
It is also vital that we do not establish structured co-operation, which, the treaty admits, is purely a new name for what was agreed at Nice in relation to enhanced co-operation. But at Nice we were explicit: enhanced co-operation, which I supported, would come in but it could not be applied to matters having military and defence implications. Yet, a mere few years later, they have returned to this fundamental question. We should continue patiently to develop European security and defence policy along the lines of the important negotiation that took place in Berlin plus between the European Union and NATO. That went a long way to satisfy American anxieties and, perhaps I may say, the anxieties of European military commanders. Yet it has been basically torn up by the attitude that structured co-operation can now be created when four, five or six members effectively go their own way.
My seventh point is that Article 24.4 must be deleted. I am glad that the Government made it clear that they are not prepared to support the so-called "escalator" or passarelle clause, again inserted at the last moment, which allows the European Council to replace unanimity requirements with qualified majority voting in any area it wishes, provided it is unanimous. That allows a temporary European Council to create permanent changes. It opens the perspective of extending the competence of the Union without the proper procedures for amending the constitutional treaty provided within the treaty itself, which I believe are good provisions. Basically, what has been there in the past has been kept. I cannot see how any parliament in a member state can allow this clause to go through. It would provide an open season on moving the Community by stealth—or certainly by clear steps—towards a superstate. I do not believe that that could be accepted by this House or the House of Commons.
Finally, I turn to the question of what we are going to do. There is no doubt that in this paper the Government have started on the process of serious change. Are they going to stick to it? I profoundly hope that they will. I have voted for every single treaty that has come before us and I do not want to vote against this one. But I certainly could not vote for it in its present terms and I expect the Government to say the same. I believe that the
196
Government must recognise that they do not have a prayer of obtaining the full-hearted consent of the British people at present. Ted Heath was right. He did not obtain it but one does need the full-hearted consent of the British people when such changes are made.
This is certainly one of the big treaties. We can argue about whether it is the third or the fourth biggest. We were right to have a referendum in 1975 and, for a long period, it gave us the democratic legitimacy in this country to hold out against temporary moods of opposition—not least that which came from the Labour Party all through the 1980s. It was a democratic safeguard. Personally I believe that we should have had a referendum on the Maastricht Treaty, but at least the then government could say that the treaty was ratified after an election when it was clear that all three political parties were in favour of ratifying Maastricht.
I do not believe that these important constitutional treaties can come into being without the agreement of the people. It is a weak form of democracy which considers that such things can be decided purely and simply by governments. Someone has already made another point which I remember as Foreign Secretary: once a treaty is signed, it comes back to this Parliament—the House of Commons and this place—and it cannot be changed; it cannot be amended.
We all try to compromise. I know that I shall have to compromise on this treaty and that I shall have to accept some things that I totally dislike. But I also want some things which I do like and I want some constitutional stability. I hope it means that we shall not have IGCs every three years, which has been the case over the past decade or more.
However, I hope that I can vote for the treaty because it has been fundamentally amended—perhaps substantially amended is a better way of expressing it. I hope that I can vote for it in this House and that I can go out and campaign in the country, as I did in 1975, for the positive endorsement of the British people. Only cowardice stands in the way of dealing with this matter in this way. It will be very embarrassing if more and more other European member states hold referendums and we, who like to think of ourselves as the mother of democracy, refuse to do so. I also genuinely believe that it would immensely strengthen the Prime Minister's hand in the negotiations if he said, "I, like you, am going to go before my public and I have to take account of them, as you do". There will have to be a great deal of very determined efforts to persuade people about the values of this treaty.
However, like others who have spoken in the debate, I have no doubt that our continued membership of the European Union is a vital aspect of British political life. I wish us to be a constructive and serious partner. But—I know that this is still controversial—I also want the situation in this country whereby a British Prime Minister can argue for a foreign policy on which he cannot obtain unanimity or consensus in the European Union and then act on it. I recognise that the period since the rather amazing military victory in Iraq has been very difficult, and I know that the post-war

197
period has not been conducted well and that some serious mistakes have been made. I hope that, as a result of the Hutton inquiry, some lessons will be learnt about collective responsibility and collective Cabinet decision-making. I hope that the JIC procedures will not be corrupted in the way that they have been. That has shocked many of us who have worked with the JIC procedures over many years.
That said, the fundamental substance of what the Prime Minister argued—that we had to involve ourselves in Iraq—was correct. I wish that he had not put the emphasis on weapons of mass destruction but on maintaining all the UN resolutions on the ceasefire. But he was able to act as the Prime Minister of a self-governing nation and able to take an independent judgment on the conduct of foreign and defence policy.
I believe that if this treaty is not amended in a serious way, a future Prime Minister will not have that freedom. That, in my view, makes the word "stupendous", which I believe was used by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, in his opening speech, quite correct. This matter is of stupendous importance to the people of this country. It may be boring and it may be difficult, but we must somehow make it a very successful negotiation. The more we can remain united in this House and in the other place, the better.
6.7 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I, too, want to congratulate our parliamentary colleagues who have worked so hard on this constitution. They deserve our thanks and gratitude for all the work they have done.
The reason that I put my name down to speak in this debate is simple. Like the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, I was disturbed by some recent speeches in your Lordships' House about Europe. I was disturbed by accusations of conspiracy and deceit—conspiracy and deceit by all our governments over the past 30 years. Like the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, I was particularly disturbed by the Second Reading debate on 27th June on the European Union (Implications of Withdrawal) Bill. That, together with growing misinformation about our responsibility to bale out other member states with financial problems, spurred me to add my name to the speakers' list.
However, I am delighted to see that many noble Lords far better qualified, more knowledgeable and more distinguished than me are to speak about how it is in our national interest—social, economic and political—to be part of Europe, and how being part of the single market has brought prosperity to our country while, at the same time, introducing us to different lifestyles and forms of society. I agree with the Minister. Quite simply, we are better off in Europe. Of course, that is why the draft constitution is so important.
But that is not to say that everything in Europe is wonderful. As my noble friend Lord Judd implied, the public still perceive Europe as too complex, too bureaucratic and too remote. People are wary of the political deals done in back rooms—deals which affect
198
their lives and leave them uncertain as to where power lies. If we are not careful, enlargement will add to those uncertainties. I think that the constitution will allay some of those uncertainties; allay them by clarifying the division of power between Europe's institutions and the individual member states, about which your Lordships' Select Committee has been so insistent. I hope that the final text will make it very clear that the Union draws its powers from the member states and not the other way round.
However, there has to be an exception to that. The EU is a trading bloc. As a customs union it must have exclusive powers within the single market in certain matters to make it work, such as the rules for competition, commercial policy, a common policy for fisheries and agriculture and some aspects of monetary policy. Without those exclusive powers one cannot have a single market. It is right that that should all he carefully laid out in the constitutional convention.
However, the convention goes further. It goes on to set out objectives; well-intentioned, social objectives about which the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, was rather sarcastic. Those objectives seek to promote a more gentle form of capitalism, an objective about which I am sympathetic. It speaks about a Europe of sustainable development based on balanced economic growth; a Europe with a social market economy; yet a European market that is highly competitive, aiming at full employment and social progress and a market that protects and improves the quality of the environment.
No one can argue with those aims. In terms of political correctness they cannot be faulted. But the trouble with political correctness is that it changes with time. Ten years ago it would have been politically correct to speak of a choice between a strong economy and a social market economy—one could not have both. Today we think that we can, thanks to John Smith's concept of a fair society and a strong economy going hand in hand.
Can we be sure that what is politically correct today will be politically correct in 10 years' time? I do not think so. The signs of change are already there. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has started to point them out. He has pointed out that these politically correct objectives deal with the well being and trading relationships between the members of a trade bloc. They look inward. What is now becoming apparent is that the European Union must consider itself as a trade bloc that has to compete globally with other trade blocs. So instead of being a customs union with a commercial policy directed towards internal competition and competitiveness within the single market, we have to be a single market that looks outwards and competes in world markets with Asia, America and Japan. Europe has to become globally competitive because the global economy will not give Europe a free ride.
We in Britain believe that we can achieve that through innovation, skills, investment, leadership, technology, adding value and indeed through people rather than through institutions. So in the constitution I would prefer to see the more lasting values of people

199
being enabled, encouraged and inspired and having the economic freedom to carry out their tasks rather than the currently politically correct institutional concepts.
Indeed, instead of referring to politically correct competitiveness or social full employment, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, that the constitution should seek to achieve the more practical reforms necessary to complete the internal market. After all, we are still awaiting completion on crucial matters such as opening up Europe's energy market, creating a single European airspace, opening road and rail transport to international competition, integrating financial markets and spreading the use of the Internet and other new technologies, all of which will make Europe a more competitive single unit in world markets.
My other reason for saying that the constitution should speak of more outward-looking economic policies is the hope that economic pressure from outside Europe will help to impose the discipline of checks and balances on the Commission. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, spoke of limits and checks on central powers. I agree that those checks and balances are necessary, but only in the rules of the single market where the Commission has exclusive powers. I do not agree with him that that can be left to the member states. The individual nation states are probably too fragmented to do that themselves.
I hope that the Minister will be able to assure me that there are sufficient safeguards where the European Union has exclusive commercial powers and that the commercial objectives will eventually be much more outward looking. Such an assurance is not only helpful to European citizens, but it will also be helpful in our relationship with the other countries outside the Union, particularly with the United States. Despite much recent comment that the Anglo-American alliance has become simply the subordination of Britain's policy to the US, I still believe that most Americans prefer to have in Britain an independent friend, a friend who speaks its language, who possesses a major voice in the European Union, a friend that has an independent weight in world affairs so that it is capable on occasion of telling Washington some home truths and uses its independent influence to get Washington's attention. All my American friends, family and business contacts tell me that. Remember that America is the biggest foreign investor in the UK and almost 1 million people in Britain work for American companies.
I hope that the public will come to welcome this constitution. I think that they will when they understand that it will help to raise and to maintain their standard of living and create new and different lifestyles and forms of society. It should provide the greatest choice both in lifestyle and consumption for our citizens. It will certainly increase British jobs and prosperity and that will make the European Union probably the most successful regional organisation that the world has seen.
6.17 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Owen, has already said what I want to say far better than I could, but I shall crave the indulgence of the House and say what I think anyway.
I supported, and still support, this country's action in going to war at the side of the Americans and I believe that the transatlantic alliance is more important to us, and indeed to Europe, than any exclusively European relationships if a choice must be made. I am therefore concerned about the recent Franco-German-Belgian initiative, which is clearly designed as an alternative to NATO—the organisation that commits the US to Europe. We should not have to choose. Unfortunately Article 40 paragraph 2 of this draft treaty refers only to the,
"character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States and shall respect the obligations of certain Member States, which see their common defence realised in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation".
It also states:
"The policy of the Union…shall not prejudice the specific character",
of these policies and obligations.
However, it is difficult to see how that can be reconciled with the statement in the same article of the requirement of,
"the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy. This will lead to a common defence".
Where in that formula are the United States and Canada, whose logistical and technical support is essential for any country of the EU to conduct a serious operation? Where do they fit in to the common defence? I do not see how using the red card can prevent the effective sidelining of NATO, and that is serious.
It will be said that decisions on defence can be reached only by unanimity, and that therefore we have the power to reject this and other proposals and to maintain the veto whenever we need to do so. That is not so. Article 22 states:
"Except where the Constitution provides otherwise, decisions of the Council of Ministers shall be taken by qualified majority".
That appears to be accepted by Her Majesty's Government. I wish it were not so. It appears to be accepted that foreign policy decisions, as distinct from defence decisions, may in general be taken by qualified majority vote (QMV). That will be very widely interpreted and could have implications for decisions on aid and trade policies as they relate to our foreign policy. More important still, foreign policy decisions can have defence implications and lead to action in the defence area. The French and German foreign ministers proposed in one of the working parties that where a country, to protect its vital defence interests, were minded to use its veto the president of the Council of Ministers and the proposed EU foreign minister should try to persuade the recalcitrant country to waive its veto. If it did not, the president should call a Council meeting and proceed to a vote by QMV.

201
That proposal, in those stark terms, has not appeared in the draft treaty, and that is reassuring. However, unanimity on vital political issues that could lead to defence decisions is not guaranteed. Article 22.3 states that, except where the constitution provides otherwise, decisions of the Council of Ministers shall be taken by QMV. One of the provisions, or derogations, expressly allows action taken as a result of a common position or strategy to be taken by QMV; thus if the Council had agreed a common strategy on, say, supporting the road map in Palestine, action to implement that strategy by providing troops would require only QMV. It is easy to see how that could present us with serious commitments that we had not foreseen but could not refuse, and I do not believe that Article III 202.4 protects our position, given the other provisions in the treaty, particularly Article 22.
Given the ever-increasing tasks being placed on our seriously over-stretched Armed Forces, the Government will clearly not willingly accept constitutional provisions that could remove our veto in matters of defence. But the great danger, as in all European legislation, lies in the hidden provisos and exceptions that lurk on every page. The exception that I have cited is only one of several.
The Minister for Europe, speaking to Sub-Committee C, shared our concerns about the Franco-German proposal and said later that HMG would be reluctant to see any derogation ultimately of intergovernmental control of foreign policy. He said:
"The issue of whether one could move, say, to QMV, on the discussion of a policy, in other words adopting a policy position, beyond the sensitive areas that we have already mentioned [means that] we could have QMV on adopting the policy but if it came to implementing a policy that might involve, say, the deployment of soldiers, that would remain a question of unanimity".
He said later, discussing the question of national interests, that the possibility that the whole development of Europe's presence around the world might be blocked by one country, big or small, that had a unique national perspective on that particular problem, preventing Europe moving forward at all, would be dangerous for us and dangerous for British interests.
However, I wonder whether it is right that we should accept the principle of QMV in general for foreign policy if it will, in effect, deprive former bloc countries and satellites of their right to veto what they believe to be against their interests. The veto is essential to them precisely because they have no big battalions and they have emerged from the Soviet bloc, where for long years they were equally deprived of political independence. It is, moreover, playing into the hands of the common strategy—QMV implementation formula—largely to empower, not countries, but a faceless non-elected entity, the Union.
I found Dr MacShane's relaxed view disquieting, not least because military crises arising out of political situations often blow up out of a relatively clear sky, and, as happened with the Congo deployment in May this year, we were told there was no time for scrutiny.
The other trap in the draft treaty is the very broad powers that the EU has taken to itself in the fields of foreign and defence/security policy. Given the
202
continuing inability of the EU countries, apart from France and ourselves, to produce a convincing military capability or to spend what needs to be spent, it seems both arrogant and absurd to insist on the progressive framing of a common defence policy as a firm requirement or to introduce a solidarity clause, when we already have NATO provisions under Article 5 for such contingencies.
Equally, it is both absurd and impractical in Article II-206 to require states that sit on the Security Council to request that the so-called EU foreign minister he asked to present the Union's position. Quite apart from the fact that the Union position, presumably taken some time before the Security Council meets, will be out of date in any fast-moving crisis and is likely to have been based, in any case, on the lowest common denominator, we shall be creating a bloc that will devalue the UN and encourage, for instance, the African Union—President Gaddafi's creature—ASEAN and who knows what other blocs to demand similar representation. Fortunately, to agree to this arrogant proposal would require revision of the UN Charter, and that seems unlikely to happen.
There are many other disturbing features of this treaty, but my first main concern is that the devil is in the small print, and in such a complex interlocking series of provisos, exceptions and stipulations it will be very easy indeed for Ministers in late-night sessions, even with the best of briefing, to lose their way and be ambushed, especially in the grey area between foreign policy and the possible eventual military consequences, which, because they are simply implementing a policy, can he decided by QMV. We would lose our veto in that situation.
It would frankly be a great deal better if we could retain unanimity for foreign affairs as far as is humanly possible. This treaty is full of new commitments, both in the political and military field, which are designed to create something we do not need. We do not need to be forced into yet more double-hatting of scarce resources. We do not need to complicate well tried relationships in both the UN and NATO. As one of the only two effective and experienced military powers in Europe, we should not accept, or allow ourselves to be forced to accept, any dilution, by whatever formula, of our absolute power of national veto when our national interest is at stake.
The Belgians, the French, the Germans and the Luxembourgers do not own the treaty. Too many British governments of all complexions have yielded too much already in the sacred name of pragmatism and practical compromise. We are in the EU and must stay there to make it work, but not on terms designed to transfer the powers of elected national governments, who can be changed, to an unelected bureaucracy that requires member states to ensure,
"through the convergence of their actions, that the Union is able to assert its interests and values on the international scene",
to ensure that their national policies conform to the position of the Union, and to accept that,
"European decisions shall commit the Member States in the positions they adopt and in the conduct of their activity".

203
Somewhere else the treaty says that we must not do anything that would be awkward from the point of view of the Union. I can see no reason why we should accept domination of that kind, especially from an organisation part of which, in its present form at least, seems unable to account properly for the way it is spending our money. That is what will happen if the treaty goes through. Everything will be yet more unaccountable than it is now.
6.26 p.m.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, the contribution that I wish to make is a brief footnote to the substantial statements that we have heard. I share quite a few of the doubts so clearly expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Park. I also share many of the basic sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Owen: the commitment to European co-operation, the appreciation for what has been achieved and the analysis of the various stages through which we have gone. Yet I do not share the conclusions of the noble Lord, Lord Owen, so far as concerns this text.
Let me give my reasons briefly. It has long been my view that the greatest problem of the European Union in relation to the citizens of its member states lies in the vast gap between the language of aspiration in which the Union is often described and the limited practical significance of its actions. If rhetoric and reality diverge, as they do in the case of the European Union, citizens will be, at best confused, at worst misled, and, as a result, disillusioned before long.
It does not help that in some countries, notably on the Continent, it is the advocates of the Union who exaggerate its importance and the sceptics who point out the limited and often dubious realities, whereas in other countries, such as the United Kingdom, the sceptics overstate the significance of the Union and its basic texts while the supporters play down as a mere tidying-up exercise what is clearly more than that.
The text produced by the European Convention does not help in that regard. Even the printed version—at any rate, the Brussels version—suggests that it is a constitution for Europe and puts the key phrase before those words in a much lower case—"Treaty establishing" a constitution for Europe.
The point that needs making and that has important ramifications is that the text is not a draft constitution but a draft treaty. The difference matters. Put in the simplest form, a constitution has reference to, and derives its legitimacy from, the people in a given territory. A treaty is an agreement between states through their governments.
On precise reading, the convention's text makes the difference clear. One would hardly speak of a constitution for the United States of America, but one cannot speak of a constitution of Europe. The so-called constitution is not given by or applied to the people of Europe. Even the high-flown language of the preamble avoids that claim and speaks of the "peoples of Europe" in the plural. The convention's many distinguished members—I share the appreciation of
204
the work done by those of your Lordships who were members and by other representatives of the country—never claimed to represent an imagined European people. It was a convention of appointees reporting to the European Council and to an intergovernmental conference.
Significantly and correctly, the result will be agreed according to the procedures for the ratification of treaties foreseen in national constitutions. What is more, any future changes will be made in the same way—by the unanimity of national governments and parliaments. In the words of the German constitutional lawyer, Dieter Grimm,
"It is not Europe which gives itself a basic law but such a law is given to it by its member states".
Those are not sophistic niceties, but facts of practical relevance in the months to come. For example, the convention's text has no particular status which would make it at all difficult for the IGC to change it. On the contrary, the IGC has a greater legitimacy than the convention, since its members are elected representatives of their countries. The question of the referendum should also be decided in light of the fact that this is a draft treaty.
There are countries—and situations—in which treaties require popular assent for their ratification. However, it could be argued in this case that a referendum could play into the hands of those who want to mislead citizens about the nature of the beast. Therefore, let me repeat that this is not a constitution, and no national referendum will change the fact that it is an international treaty to set up a limited number of supranational procedures and institutions.
The underlying hope and intent of these comments is to make sure that, when talking about Europe in this country, we talk about the real European Union and not some figment of Utopian or apocalyptic fantasy. That may be a vain hope, but one must never stop trying.
6.33 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I am one of those who welcome the draft constitution—or international treaty, as the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, would prefer—as a modest attempt to overhaul the EU's institutions and policies in the face of the challenges of enlargement and disturbing international events. I will concentrate my remarks on the latter aspect, because the wider issues have been comprehensively covered in speeches that we have already heard.
On foreign policy, the draft constitution proposes to establish a new post of European Union minister of foreign affairs, who would merge the roles of the current High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy and the Commissioner for External Relations. The new foreign minister will be answerable to the Council of Ministers, whose meetings on foreign policy he or she will chair. Some have objected to the phrase that member states should support the Union's common foreign policy "actively and unreservedly"—words taken from the Treaty of Maastricht. But there will be no foreign policy unless national governments want it. I

205
disagree in my interpretation with that of the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth: I take Article 1:39/7 to be overriding in this connection. It states:
"European decisions relating to the common foreign and security policy shall be adopted by the European Council and the Council of Ministers unanimously".
In other words, the unanimity rule is preserved. That is unambiguous.
On defence policy, the constitution provides for a "capablities agency" to co-ordinate defence technology research and encourage harmonised procurement. The constitution would also allow smaller groups to cooperate more closely on military matters to improve the EU's military effectiveness. In sum, I believe that the draft convention leaves foreign policy and defence firmly in the hands of national governments. Why? The reason is that there is no consensus for a common European foreign and defence policy. The veto recognises that. An autonomous EU foreign and defence policy requires Europe-wide agreement on what European interests are and, specifically, a clear view on Europe's relations with the US.
Europe is split down the middle on that question, between those led by France, who want Europe to be a counterweight to the US—I was fascinated to hear that Ernest Bevin had the same view—and those led by Britain who want Europe to be a permanent and unswerving ally of the United States, through NATO or separately. The British position, needless to say, suits the Americans very well. In the American conception of burden sharing, Europe shares the burden of supporting American foreign policy. It does not contribute to the making of it. As President Bush put it two days ago, America's allies are expected to do their duty. Of course, differences over where one's duty lies is the essence of the debate.
I am puzzled by the position of those who argue that, on the one hand, foreign and defence policy should remain in national hands—that it should not be shared in any way—and on the other hand, that the EU should not develop a foreign policy or military capacity independent of the United States. What value is sovereignty if we are never prepared to use it, but only to hoard it? It loses any potency.
Independence is not entirely illusory. Both Britain and France have national forces which are able to undertake small-scale military operations on their own. The French do so in North Africa and we fought a war over the Falkland Islands, although we probably would not have been able to win it without tacit US support. However, in the larger picture these are tiny capacities. No European national forces in Europe exist that could have brought peace to Bosnia or stopped Milosevic massacring the Albanian Kosovans. I wonder whether the British and French forces in combination could have launched the type of expedition necessary to topple Saddam Hussein. Nobody doubted in 1956 that Nasser could be overthrown, although many doubted whether it was wise to attempt to do so.
True enough, Britain and France still have their nuclear deterrents, but Britain's is not independent and both are purely symbolic, even less useful than the
206
gold that used to be buried in the vaults of their central banks. The reality is that these small national forces become effective for larger purposes only when they are part of a collective effort. The issue is whether that collective effort should ever be exerted for distinctively European purposes, even if they conflict with those of the United States, or are purposes in which the United States has no particular interest.
Our Government have championed the creation of a European rapid reaction force attached to NATO but are fiercely opposed to the French plan for an independent European rapid reaction force. Thus, we come to the conclusion that France and Britain support the unanimity rule for different reasons the French to stop the British blocking their efforts to build up an independent European foreign and defence policy and the British to stop the French doing that. Preservation of the unanimity rule is, thus, a recipe for inaction.
Is there any way out of that impasse? Not unless Britain accepts the value of multi-polarity. In an eloquent and passionate speech, my noble friend Lord Owen talked about the supreme value of national independence and the danger of a European superstate. I submit that there is only one superstate in the world: the United States. The United States must be balanced. I do not see how one can study international relations without understanding that. It is only the British who have a defect in that understanding because, perhaps, they believe that the pax Americana is a worthy successor to the pax Britannica. That is not the way that the world works; sooner or later, the balances will emerge. If it is not the European Union, it will be someone else. The idea that the British can constantly evade the issue and say that there never need be a contradiction between European commitment and support for the United States is an illusion bred of a particular British history which has much less resonance elsewhere in the world.
I believe that a group of European countries will develop a common foreign and defence policy to start to balance the preponderance of American power. That will be done outside the formal structures of the European Union. Those structures, with their unanimity rule, do not allow that development to happen. For this reason, the post of European Foreign Minister will be largely redundant. The Euro-sceptics will be able to sleep quieter in their beds, for the grand experiment of European unity will have broken down.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Tugendhat: My Lords, I am the last of the three former European commissioners to speak in the debate. As I am the youngest, that is appropriate. One of the advantages of being a Member of your Lordships' House is that it is possible to be 66 and still the youngest of something. It remains to be seen whether that brings wisdom.
I welcome the reflective and constructive tone of the debate. We are at a stage in the evolution of the constitutional treaty at which we can consider what has been done, exchange views and, most important of

207
all, recommend changes that should be taken up at the intergovernmental conference. It will be only after the intergovernmental conference that we will be able to decide whether there should be a referendum. It was a mistake by the Government to rule one out absolutely at the outset, but it would also be a mistake, at this stage, to insist on one absolutely. We should judge the issue on the basis of the outcome of the intergovernmental conference.
I believe that it was right to set up the convention. The European Union is on the verge of the biggest change in its composition since it was created, almost 50 years ago. It needs a new basic document, and it needs to rationalise and amend its procedures. It is impossible in the time at one's disposal to cover the whole range of the proposed treaty. Like others, I shall concentrate on a small number of issues.
I start from the proposition that there have always been two views about how the European Union should develop. On the one hand, there are those who think that it should be based on the member states, to which the institutions should be subservient; on the other, there are those who want the institutions to become predominant, with the member states being subordinated to them. The draft before us reflects the tension between those two views, a tension that is evident in all the treaties that have been signed since the Coal and Steel Community was set up in the early 1950s.
I have always put the member states first. My experience of serving for eight years on the European Commission confirmed to me that the European Union can be based only on the member states; it is only they that can command the loyalty and obedience on which civilised society depends. It is with them that the citizens of Europe identify themselves and define themselves. Therefore, I rejoice that the convention has based the report and draft constitution on that principle. It is explicit about that, with its statement that it is the member states that confer competencies on the European Union, as the Minister pointed out, and that the European Union can act only within the limits set by the member states.
I welcome too the clear statement that it should be the heads of state and government, meeting in the European Council, who should define the European Union's priorities and set its political direction. I consider them to be the ultimate repositories of democratic legitimacy in the European Union.
The work of the European Council will be greatly facilitated by having a permanent president or, at any rate, a president whose term will last for two and a half years or, possibly, for five years on the lines set out in the report. The present six-monthly revolving presidency is no longer suitable and will be hopeless in the context of an enlarged European Union. The Union needs someone who can act as an expression of the European Union's collective will and ensure that it is carried into effect within the Union and, to the extent that it is possible, beyond the Union. He or she should be the servant of the heads of state and government while also having the personal authority
208
to hold them to what they have agreed. One of the biggest difficulties in the management of the European Union is that, although the European Council agrees all kinds of different things, it is difficult to hold the heads of state and government to what they have agreed. One of the tasks of the permanent chairman should be to do that.
In the light of that proposal. I see no need for an EU Foreign Minister. On that point. I disagree with my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick. I accept that the present arrangement, involving Mr Solana and Mr Patten, is unsatisfactory, but a Foreign Minister is not the answer. I agree too with the noble Lord. Lord Owen, that the use of the word "Minister" in that context is objectionable and with his point that, over the 50 years or more since the Coal and Steel Community was set up, the European Union has always eschewed the use of that word.
My objection is not simply to the use of the word. If there is a president of the European Council. there is no need to have a Foreign Minister as well. It would be better for the Commissioner for External Relations to be left with the technical aid and trade tasks that fall within the Commission's purview at the moment and for the European Council president to take over the big policy and strategic issues. To do so, he should chair the Foreign Affairs Council and any other relevant council in that area.
I see two advantages in proceeding in that way. One is that it provides the continuity and consistency between the European Council and the Council of Ministers that have not always been evident in the past and, thus, provides continuity between broad strategic guidelines and specific policies. Secondly, it avoids the potential conflict and rivalry that might arise if we had a European Council president and a Foreign Minister, who would in many respects be competing for the same terrain.
One further point is that the hybrid nature of the Foreign Minister is an insuperable problem. The idea of someone chairing a council that is subordinate to the European Council while being a vice-president of the Commission—which is supposed to be independent of both—is a dog's breakfast; then, in turn, having him accountable to the European Parliament but on a different basis from his colleagues in the Commission is a recipe for a great deal of muddle.
I referred to the European Parliament. An awful lot of nonsense is talked in the European Union about a democratic deficit, as if the European Parliament were the only valid expression of democratic will within the European Union. In my view, that is not so. The two principal instruments of the will of the people of Europe are their heads of state and government who meet in the European Council on the one hand, and their national parliaments on the other. The pivotal role of the European Council has, I believe, been satisfactorily settled in the proposals before us. It needs to be matched by bringing the national parliaments much more formally and effectively into the whole process of the European Union. Therefore, I welcome the draft proposals on the role of national parliaments and the

209
application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. But I agree with those noble Lords who have said that they do not go far enough and wish to see the potential role of national parliaments considerably enhanced.
None the less, this is a welcome first step. It provides a foot in the door. Experience of constitutional development, whether within individual countries or within the European Union, is that, once a foot is in the door, it is possible to widen that opening very considerably. So I hope that the Government will press for the national parliaments to have a bigger role. But whatever role they are formally given in the document, I hope that the national parliaments will make the maximum possible use of whatever powers they are given.
Finally, I refer briefly to the charter of fundamental rights. In its present form it is an unhappy mish-mash of rights that are indeed fundamental, such as the right to life, equality between men and women, and freedom of expression and information on the one hand, and the kind of political and trade union wish-list exemplified by the right to a free placement service on the other. It is demeaning to basic human rights to put those two categories together. To have the right to life and the right to a free placement service in the same document is a reduction ad absurdum.
I believe that the whole charter should be looked at again. Like some other speakers, I confess that I am far from convinced that the constitutional treaty requires such a thing at all, but it certainly needs to be looked at again. If we are to have such a charter, it should deal only with rights that really are fundamental to our societies.
I welcome this document. As Mr Peter Hain was quoted as saying in some forum or other, it provides a very good starting-point. But there is quite a long way for the Government to go. When we have seen the final result, then we shall be in a position to judge whether a referendum is appropriate.
6.54 p.m.
Lord Rees-Mogg: My Lords, I begin by saying what a pleasure it is to be taking part in this debate and how impressed I have been by the knowledge and moderation of the contributions on all sides. I found myself in substantial agreement with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Owen, and in broad agreement with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, and the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf.
There is a group of Members of this House who have a greater degree of anxiety about the possible outcome of this document. When the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, said that he welcomed the document, it came immediately into my mind that I do not welcome it. I do not believe that it achieves the objectives it set out to achieve. The noble Lord, Lord Owen, made the point that it deliberately moves Europe closer to being a single state—whether a superstate, I am not sure, but at any rate one in which the nations are less independent and the centre is more powerful. When one reads the whole document there can be no question about that tendency.
210
I was in Denmark last month. which is to hold a referendum on the constitution when it finally emerges from the IGC. Current figures indicate that only 18 per cent of Danes are in favour and will vote "Yes"—obviously, that figure may increase. I asked one Dane why people there were so strongly against the document. It was on this very point—the creation of a single European state in which, as a very small part, they would feel that their interest was crushed and pushed down. That is a strong feeling among the smaller countries. He said: "They've got a president, a Foreign Minister and a public prosecutor. How would you have those three offices in your constitution if you did not intend to form a single state?". That is rather a plausible view. But it is not what worries me most.
The failure is of a rather different kind. Many of us have been casting round in our remarks for the key point in the discussion of this document. I believe that the key to which we ought to return is the intention of the Laeken Council. It had three or four objectives, one of which was to remedy the democratic deficit. The key question is whether this draft constitution does in fact remedy the democratic deficit. That is the question on which we should determine whether we welcome it, or do not welcome it and are concerned about it unless the Government can get major changes.
I do not see at all that this document makes things more democratic than previously. It confirms and increases powers that will be held by the non-democratic institutions, or by the partially democratic institutions, largely at the expense of the national parliaments, which are the democratic institutions of Europe.
If one looks at a recent incident, one can see just how dangerous that is—and dangerous to Europe. I do not at all want Europe to be damaged by having a bad constitution. That would be a disaster. Recently, the French Prime Minister, Mr Raffarin, said that there is a crisis of authority in Europe. What did he mean by that? He was talking about the conflict between the Commission and the French Government over the stability pact. He said that at the last election the French Government committed themselves in their policies to restoring a good level of economic growth in France and to reducing unemployment. That is the democratic decision of France. The result is that we are to have a 4 per cent GDP budget deficit in the current year. That is what must happen because we cannot see any way, if we sit inside the 3 per cent of the stability pact, in which we shall be able to restore a satisfactory level of growth to the French economy.
Why is that a crisis not between two institutions, but a crisis of authority? It is because authority rests in democracy. In this House, we are usually wiser and more prudent and in every way more loveable than in the place down there. Nevertheless, we have much less power and authority. The reason is that they are elected and we are not. The same is true of the institutions of Europe. If the French Government want to stand up to the Commission and refuse to do something to which they have agreed, and which the Commission is perfectly entitled to tell them to do,

211
there is nothing on earth which, in the end, will be able to stop them so long as they have a majority of the French electorate behind them.
Therefore, we are looking at a building up of the weakest part of Europe at the expense of what is ultimately the strongest part. There is a building up of the powers of the non-democratic institutions at the expense of the powers of the democratic institutions. If we are to have a constitution, how can we deal with this? My noble friend Lord Owen is right. Full informed consent is the test. This plainly is a different European constitution. Very important changes are being made. We may argue about precisely how great. Nevertheless, certainly they are very important. If we are to make this change the British electorate must be behind it.
There are arguments used by the Minister against having a referendum. There is the argument that we had one in 1975, which is now rather a long time ago. We cannot just say that we had a referendum 30 years ago and so that is it for all time. The situation now is that no one under 47 voted in that referendum—if they did, they did not vote legally. Whether or not we adopt this constitution, we need at some point to satisfy ourselves that people between 18 and 47 years old, as well as those over 47, genuinely want to have this type of relationship with these European institutions.
What is the other argument used? It is that Parliament can do it. We sit in Parliament and know the limitations of dealing with matters of this kind. The White Paper states:
"This means that MPs will be able to examine line by line what is in the final Treaty; and only with their assent will effect be given to the new Treaty in terms of transposition into UK law".
It is hard to conceive of a more misleading way of putting a procedural proposition to this House. We know that if it comes to us for ratification—as, presumably, eventually it will if the IGC does not get fed up with it—it will come forward as both a treaty and a Bill. The Bill will be a constitutional Bill, but the treaty will be embedded in the Bill, and treaties cannot be amended. Indeed, it is obvious why treaties cannot be amended. If the Government had to negotiate with 24 other governments, all the governments had to go back to their parliaments, and all the parliaments had 100 amendments put forward and passed, there would be an arithmetical impossibility in ever achieving a successful treaty negotiation. We all see that. It is a real difficulty.
On the other hand, there is an equally grave difficulty on the other side. This is a constitution. It is a constitution for Europe. We might say, "Well, the treaty rule applies as far as our relationship with Europe is concerned so it's unamendable". I should be unhappy about that, but perhaps we might do that. But this is also a constitution for the United Kingdom. It is something that we have never had before. At any rate, it is the biggest constitutional development since the late 17th century.
When we changed the relationship with Scotland and set up the Scottish Parliament, we had debates, amendments, Committee and Report stages, Third
212
Reading and the full scrutiny of Parliament. Subject to its relationship with the other place, there was complete freedom for this House to make changes that it thought necessary in the interests of getting that constitution right.
It is not a constitution only for the United Kingdom or for Scotland. It is also a constitution for Wales. It changes the way in which the Welsh Assembly will be able to exercise its powers. It is a constitution for Northern Ireland—a matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and my noble friend Lord Owen. In the other place it was raised by Mr David Trimble. The Northern Ireland point is not an insignificant one. It is difficult enough to get the constitution right for Northern Ireland, but to have it changed without it being possible to amend it adds a further difficulty which elected Members of Parliament from that Province have every right to feel concerned about.
We must obtain a more democratic rather than a less democratic constitution. That means that instead of the exclusive competencies going to the nondemocratic or partially democratic bodies, there are exclusive competencies for the national parliaments themselves. We need then to put it to the people. "Trust the people" is the right motto for the Government when they come to decide how to ratify this Bill.
7.9 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that was a fascinating speech. It is a great privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg. I, too, have found this a riveting debate. No one could be other than impressed by the knowledge and experiences which noble Lords have related today. I feel a sense of great humility in taking part.
Europe is at the centre of our lives, whether we like it or not and whatever our views may be. Some long to be right at the heart of it, trying to lead this group of nations in its future destiny, while others want to maintain the uniqueness of Great Britain and to he responsible for the way our country goes in the future. In a rather hopelessly vacillating manner, I tend to flop backwards and forwards like a reed in the wind, trying to understand each point of view.
Periodically, indeed frequently, the Government come up with new proposals for strengthening, advancing and widening our involvement with Europe, almost always involving greater restriction and greater bureaucracy. They are always presented very plausibly, as the noble Baroness has done today, but it is what happens some years later as a result of those proposals which is so alarming.
I have not taken part in these very fundamental debates before because if one is not a so-called "expert", one can so easily become lost in the soup. But I venture to do so today for reasons which I hope will become clear. Many years ago I started off by being, in simple black-and-white terms, anti-Europe and pro-Britain. Britain had always looked after herself well and therefore it seemed that there was much to be said for staying in charge of our own affairs and for not getting too involved.

213
Then in 1974 I had an enlightening experience, although to say that it was akin to that of Saul on the road to Damascus might be pushing things a little too far and unjustifiably elevating it. I was at the Ministry of Agriculture and Jo Godber was the Minister at the time. He could not attend the Council of Ministers and so I was sent in his place.
The experience was illuminating. There were all these people from different countries, sitting around a table trying to thrash out the problems of the day together. Yet. 30 years earlier, they had been bombing and blasting and killing each other with unbelievable hatred. Now all their energies were being spent in a common effort for the collective benefit of all.
On that occasion these previously warlike characters were giving the United Kingdom appalling stick for having raised the price of milk by a shilling a gallon without having let them know of it in advance. I floundered in defence and I did my best. but it was not very good. I thought, though, that if that was the greatest discord remaining, what a monumental change there had been. How remarkable. This must be built upon. And I became what might be described as a pro-European. But as things have progressed, in particular over the past six to 10 years, I have become increasingly disenchanted.
Of course we want Europe to succeed—economically, emotionally and politically. But in my view the leaders have been going too fast. No sooner has one political mountain been scaled, they move on to the next, apparently forgetting that they have a whole wagon-train of bemused countrymen of all the component nations to drag along with them. The leaders have never stopped to consolidate their position. They seem to have forgotten the elementary principle—and I should remind your Lordships that I never rose beyond the dizzy heights of a second lieutenant—that those fighting in the front line must not push on too quickly or their supply lines will become so distanced from the main body of the army that they will be cut off. And that is precisely what has happened. The leaders have become separated from the ordinary man in the street, who is bewildered by what is happening, most of which is beyond his comprehension.
The Government say that they do not want a referendum. Like the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, I am not a great referendum person either. The Government say that they do not want one because this is just a "tidying up exercise" and anyhow it is "too complex an issue". But if we cannot understand what the Government are doing, heaven help us. It is one thing to be part of a community where each nation trades on similar terms to one another, where there is equality of opportunity and where common resources can be put to the common good, but we have moved on from there.
We are now told that we should have a common currency, a European Minister of foreign affairs, a Union Minister and a common police force. Who wants Greek policemen arresting Englishmen in England and transporting them back to Greece for offences allegedly committed on Greek soil?
214
Who wants to be a member of the euro just because, on a certain day, we happen to have met certain financial criteria, whatever they may be? No one, short of a super-economist, seems to know or to understand what they are. But they are criteria which, six months ago, we might not have been able to meet and which, in six months' time, we might also not be able to meet. But by then we will have joined and we will have been lumbered—irrevocably, in perpetuity and for better or worse—with that decision.
Each country values and treasures its customs acutely. I well remember the row—I was in the Home Office at the time—over French gendarmes coming to England on Eurostar and landing up in London carrying guns. "British police don't carry guns", we said, "so you cannot carry guns". "Carrying guns is part of the gendarmes' uniform", said the French. "In no way will we see our gendarmes improperly dressed". An accommodation was arrived at. As usual, we gave in. But the point is that countries, not only Britain, value their traditions, their customs and their history. You cannot just tread all over them. But that increasingly is what the European Community is doing.
Who wants a common agricultural policy—I declare an interest in agriculture—where, in 2002. the price of milk in Italy was 7p per litre more than it was in the United Kingdom and where, over a decade, the average price of milk in the European Community was almost 2p per litre more than it was in the United Kingdom? What is "common" about that? The common agricultural policy is not only the greatest expense in the European budget but, in common—I hate to say—with the present Government. has virtually bust British agriculture. Try to reform it and one finds that one can never reach agreement because there are too many countries which have done so well out of it—such as Ireland—and which do not want to see the system changed. Of course there are a few attempts at reform now, but they are merely tinkering with the leaves of the tree and not getting at the trunk.
Who wants to give all the taxation of this country over to an unelected, and unsackable, bureaucrat in Brussels rather than having our financial affairs looked after by an elected Chancellor of the Exchequer? Is it really thought that there is one level of taxation, whichever level may be chosen, appropriate to each and every European country at any one time? Yet that is the way all the European Community fingers are pointing.
There are supposed to be fewer bureaucrats in the European Community than there are in the Scottish Office. Yet they churn out directives at such a rate that, if your eyes blink, you have missed them. These are directives which each country is bound to incorporate into its law. There is nothing democratic about that; it is dictatorial. Many of them are totally unnecessary and totally offensive.
Recently the Commission produced a directive banning 300 different food supplements from this country, supplements which have been on the market for years and which are regulated and totally safe. But now they have been banned. Why is that? It is not to make

215
things better, to make things safer, and it is not in response to public demand. Rather, it is to make things common throughout Europe. The cost to manufacturers and the inconvenience to purchasers is disregarded. Unelected bureaucrats in the Commission say that this must be done, and so done it is.
Let us look at the Directory Enquiries Service, 192. It was one of the best and most efficient services from British Telecom. The telephone was answered immediately and the information requested given instantaneously. It was a wonderful service. Now it has been abolished and replaced by 16 alternatives, although I understand that 80 to 100 licences have been granted. Goodness knows what is going on. Who wants 16 alternatives? How do you know which is the cheapest? Which may be the cheapest for a one-minute call may well not be the cheapest for a two-minute call. Who has the time, the desire or the mental alacrity to work it all out? Why has this been done? Article 5 of European Community Directive 2002/77 states that all exclusive directory services are to be abolished. So out they go. I suggest that that is another example of unacceptable and unnecessary interference by the Community in our daily life. It goes against the public interest and the public's wishes.
Your Lordships may say that these matters are trivia compared with the grand plan that has been discussed today. But I do not believe that they are trivia. They are the windows through which the average man in the street looks at the community and decides on his view about the European Community.
I feel fed up with the way in which the European Community meddles unnecessarily in our lives. It is turning away so many people. I am haunted by the words of a much-respected judge who, when talking about the European Community, once said to me, in the clear and succinct way that lawyers so often have, "It will all end in tears". I hope that it will not. But when the noble Baroness says, "Here is another super-duper European package for your approval. It is only a tidying up exercise and another step along this great road to European unity which will make things better", I am afraid that my reaction is, "Watch it. It may be another step into the quicksands of control, rigidity and nonentity".
This may not be a very helpful contribution to the debate. It is a sad thing to say for one who longs to be a good European—who longs to be a good European from the heart and not only from the mouth—but it is caused by the way in which the European Union has conducted itself. I fancy that I may not be alone in that opinion.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, may be surprised to know that one of the proposals to simplify the European Union contained within the new constitution is to reform the whole system of European regulations, in particular the directives to which the noble Earl referred. They will not exist any more under the proposals for the constitution.
216
It is a great privilege to speak in the debate. Many of the points that I wished to make have been made by many other speakers and by my noble friends on the Front Bench, particularly in the powerful speech made by my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire. I wholly concur with the general principles he elicited in regard to the draft constitution.
The draft constitution should not be treated like an unexploded bomb but should be embraced, not necessarily in its totality—many speakers have made that point—but for its necessary reform of the practical workings of the European Union. The draft constitution has involved a great deal of detailed work. It is a practical and sustainable compromise which should not be tossed aside by narrow interests at the IGC in October.
Any constitution of this magnitude should not be treated lightly. It must be seen in the context of an epoch-making increase in membership of the European Union from 15 members to 25 members. It paves the way for far greater European stability and democracy than ever before. The next generation will castigate us and lament if we do not grasp this opportunity.
The draft constitution addresses the issues of powers, fundamental rights, the legal bases of policies, the force of treaties and the revision of procedures. These are absolutely vital aspects for a secure and peaceful future for Europe. However, I shall not repeat what has already been said.
I wish to address a number of issues that have not been previously addressed in detail in the debate. In particular, I wish to refer to the existing treaties that will be incorporated into the new constitution as proposed in the draft. It is no secret that this aspect of reform was not given sufficient time at the convention. Indeed, there is a case for producing a Part 3 of the draft constitution to cover this particular aspect.
These treaties created the CAP, to which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, referred, into a single market. That is one issue that I wish to raise in the debate. Secondly, I wish to raise the issue of subsidiarity, which is contained in the draft constitution in the form of a protocol.
As regards the CAP, one must consider the vast rural areas of the 25 countries that will shortly be contained in the totality of the EU—not least the area contained in Poland. Its basis was originally contained in the Treaty of Rome and it impacts greatly on the budget of the EU. In fact, it forms almost half of its budget. Reforms are changing matters but agricultural spending is still nearly 50 per cent.
The Treaty of Rome set out a number of CAP principles. For example, it refers to the optimum utilisation of the factors of production, which, classically in economic terms, are land, labour and capital, with particular emphasis on labour. It also emphasises the principle of a fair standard of living for the agricultural community, which, as we have heard, does not exist in certain parts of the UK at the present time.

217
The stability of markets was also a principle contained in the CAP when it originally started. However, in the UK we have seen this stability for producers distorted in some respects by the supermarkets. Also in the Treaty of Rome is a principle in regard to the availability of the supply of food. As far as concerns consumers, this food should be provided at a reasonable price. It also guarantees the social structure of the countryside and the evening-out of geographical disparities—for example, those found in the mountainous regions of the Community.
The reforms that have recently occurred to the CAP—for example, last June there was a decoupling of production from the support given to it—clearly alter the relationship between production and support. They are no longer joined in the same way. The value of environmental goods will be an important aspect and will alter the economic input/output relationship.
No doubt this will be an improvement but only time will tell if living incomes from the land can be sustained in the European Union. The constitution when it comes—in whatever form—must underwrite economic reform to sustain a living income for all citizens, whether or not they are employed in agriculture. Indeed, this should apply wherever they operate in the European Union. It is a matter that very much needs to be addressed.
There certainly needs to be a guarantee that the sustainability of rural areas will be maintained. It is surprising to think that farmers are still abandoning land in the central massif of France. It is not surprising that sometimes the French do not wholly embrace rapid change of the CAP for those reasons, which are rarely publicised.
Indeed, we are looking forward now to the Cancun conference of the World Trade Organisation and the issues that will be raised there. It is rather trite to say that there are not problems of incomes from the land in the European Union when challenged—rightly so in principle but not necessarily in practice—by countries which feel severely disadvantaged. There needs to be an overall worldwide agreement, but that is very difficult to achieve and will be in the WTO conference that will take place soon.
The other issue is subsidiarity in the protocol. It must be agreed—and I agree with the Government here—that it must be strengthened. The convention did not focus on this in enough depth. Indeed, it looks as if the protocol is an add-on as far as the draft document is concerned.
I particularly want to raise issues that affect the area that I represented for a long time and of which I am a native—Wales. The GDP of Wales is 20 per cent less than the EU average. We have today heard the startling news that 60,000 highly skilled people of economically active age are not seeking unemployment benefit. Farmers are earning about £5,000, which is less than the national minimum wage. There are solutions in the hands of the UK Government.
218
There are a number of issues of principle in the protocol that concern me greatly. I do not know how much force a protocol will have in terms of Europe and whether it is of sufficient force to change things. However, it says in paragraph 1 about subsidiarity:
"Each Institution shall ensure constant respect for the principles of subsidiarity."
Fair enough. But it goes on to say in paragraph 3:
"The Commission shall send all its legislative proposals and its amended proposals to the national Parliaments"—
note the plural—
"of the Member States".
It goes on to say that that will be the case. However, in the United Kingdom, there is only one other Parliament apart from the one in Westminster—the Scottish Parliament. It means that the Welsh Assembly is disenfranchised in this respect, as is the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Paragraph 5 states:
"Any national Parliament or any chamber of a national Parliament of a Member State may, within six weeks from the date of transmission of the Commission's legislative proposal, send to the Presidents of the European Parliament, the Council of Ministers and the Commission a reasoned opinion stating why it considers that the proposal to question does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity".
Frankly, this is a nail in the coffin for Wales. In that context, it only has an Assembly and it will not be able to make representations except by proxy. There is a simple answer—the Government in Westminster could grant the Richard Commission proposal that Wales has a Parliament of its own and will be fully connected with the European Union from which it appears it will be excluded by this protocol. This is extremely important for Wales. That is the contribution that I wish to make to this debate.
7.34 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I believe there will be universal agreement that we have enjoyed a remarkable feast of oratory and the deployment of exceptionally wide knowledge and practical experience of the European Union. Nevertheless, wide differences still remain and some of us have to play our part in maintaining the argument. We have had a good deal of repetition but, from my point of view, not enough repetition. We have had some conscientious doubts from the Euro-sceptics and the endless easy, rather smooth reassurances from those whom I call the Euro-phorics.
We need to be rather wary of reassurances. We have been fed for some 30 years on a diet of reassurances, from a long line of Ministers and even Prime Ministers. It is not only the early reassurance of Prime Minister Heath about the limits of the Common Market which proved rather fraudulent. What about the repeated promises of successive governments, Labour and Conservative, to defend the British veto? What was all that talk from Prime Minister Major about subsidiarity? What confidence can we now have in the present Cabinet when the Minister in charge of the negotiations dismisses the whole operation as mere tidying up and unimportant?

219
Mr Blair has made a great deal of his victory in getting the word "federal" removed. To remove "federal" from this constitutional rigmarole is one thing; the trouble is that it would take nothing short of brain surgery to remove "federal" from the aims and aspirations of the French, German and Benelux ruling élites.
The draft treaty is full of extensions of what its francophone authors call "competences" which, in plain English, means "powers". "Competence" implies the ability to deliver, whereas the Commission has proved incompetent to provide the first requirement of honest, uncorrupt administration. The prospect of enlargement of its powers over national governments is defended indignantly by reference to the increased numbers of members of the European Union. Would it not be more logical to offset an increase in numbers by a diminution in powers and, in this way, to prune much of the superfluous activities that we detect and have talked about? The truth is that the Brussels fonctionnaires have a truly Napoleonic appetite for power, as flaunted by the grand, superior former President of France, who would put our own George Nathaniel Curzon in the shade.
Why should Britain not turn away from this endless game of compromise and backstage deals by cynical powerbrokers? Why not set an example in candour? Why not admit that we have fundamentally different approaches in Europe? Ours is governed by both our economic outlook and our political background, and we should not apologise because our island history, our international stance and our national character are in sharp contrast to some of those that we detect on the Continent.
My own ideal of good neighbourly relations with Europe was exactly caught by Churchill in 1953, when he declared:
"We are with Europe, but not of it. We are linked, but not comprised. We are associated. but not absorbed."
So far from being a "little Englander", this incomparable world leader constantly preached the virtues of free trade as not only promoting prosperity but as bringing nations together in peaceful intercourse.
Rather than rely, as I usually do, on Adam Smith, I shall offer a brief extract from Churchill's speech, way back in 1905. I have cribbed it from the quite outstanding biography of Winston Churchill by the late Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. I quote Churchill:
"The dangers which threaten the tranquillity of the modern world come not from those powers that have become interdependent upon others, interwoven by commerce with other States…".
He went on:
"We do not want to see the British Empire degenerate into a sullen confederacy, walled off like a medieval town".
That brought to my mind the anxieties that some of us have long expressed about the danger of the European Union moving towards a fortress Europe, to look America in the face, but to enjoy a continuing relative economic decline. The proposed constitution, undoubtedly—we have all more or less agreed—marks a huge step away from any coherent concept of a
220
vigorous straightforward free trade area. Britain's best response would now be to negotiate joining the rest of the world outside this restrictive, rather self-obsessed bloc.
Short of regaining our full freedom in one bound, what can Her Majesty's Government now do by way of damage limitation? I have a number of helpful suggestions. The first would be to follow up a proposal I first heard from the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, in an earlier debate, which was that the CAP should be repatriated. Repatriation of the CAP is a splendid wheeze. It would free Britain, first, to lift trade barriers that, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has told us. impoverish poor overseas farmers; secondly, it would save a large part of the present budget, as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, mentioned; thirdly, it would scrap a large part—perhaps the larger part—of the 100,000 rules and regulations in the ragbag known as the acquis communautaire; and, finally, it would disengage us from an odious corruption which still disfigures the common agricultural policy.
A second modification would be to insist on the restoration of our opt-out from the Social Chapter, which is already burdening our own economy with costs that have visibly borne down the German and French producers and helped to inflict unemployment of above 10 per cent.
A third requirement is now, I hope, generally accepted and will be surely implemented by the Government, which is to remove the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, for the devastating reasons, I thought, which were given earlier today by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe.
A final reflection is that unless the Government curb the aggrandisement of the over-stretched Brussels Commission, the demand for a referendum will clearly become irresistible. The reasons are robustly set forth in the current issue of the European Journal by the distinguished historian, the noble Lord, Lord Blake, whose absence from this debate through immobility and not, I should explain, through incapacity, will be widely regretted.
"Unique" is no doubt an over-used adjective in these excitable days, but one totally unique feature of the threatened new constitution is that when the final text comes before this House, we will be denied the customary right to debate its contents with a view to amendment and improvement. If we look at the agenda for the week, we see that on Friday we have before us the Second Readings of four Bills of varying significance. All of them may be transformed or rejected outright at your Lordships' pleasure. I ask the Minister: how can the country be expected to understand that, in these great matters before us, when Brussels proposes, this House, this Parliament, this nation, is impotent to dispose?
7.44 p.m.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, the description "Europe" is almost universally used as shorthand for the 15, soon to be 25, sovereign members of the European Union. In that sense I want Europe to

221
succeed. For it to succeed its further development must rest upon the whole-hearted consent of the people. This is especially true in the context of current moves towards "ever closer political union".
The imminent prospect of enlargement has understandably caused Europe to look critically at its powers and institutions. I acknowledge that attempts have been made in the direction of their clarification and definition. But a great opportunity has been missed. There has been no attempt to reduce the 97,000 pages of existing Community law; there has been no proposal to repatriate a range of powers to member states; there has been no serious intention to build in greater flexibility in the structures; and there has been little attempt to make much more effective the processes of accountability.
I took heart from the Laeken declaration when it was published. It is now reproduced in the White Paper. I quote from pages 52 and 53 of that document. It states:
"What they [the citizens] expect is more results, better responses to practical issues and not a European superstate or European institutions inveigling their way into every nook and cranny of life".
It later states that,
"there is the question of how to ensure that a redefined division of competence does not lead to a creeping expansion of the competence of the Union or to encroachment upon the exclusive areas of competence of the Member States".
I agree with those observations. But I suppose that I should not have been surprised that the familiar ratchet has been hard at work; the integrationists have got hold of the whole process and are promoting changes which, pace page 24 in the White Paper, involve fundamental changes in the relationship between the EU and member states.
This has been, as has already been said, far more than just a tidying-up exercise, as the hard work and watchfulness of the Select Committee and the questions posed in the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, clearly show.
In defining their negotiating position, the Government have put clown several markers, which they call red lines, where they will insist—their word—on changes to the draft. Paragraph 36 of the White Paper refers to the use of the veto. In what circumstances will the veto be used? Will it be used, for example, in respect of paragraph 49, referring to our Security Council membership, or paragraph 53, whether revenues should remain a matter for member states. or paragraphs 62, 66, 74 and 76, which refer to treaty changes to be made only with the assent of the national parliaments and on the basis of unanimity, especially in areas of vital national interests, such as economic policy, taxation, social security, defence, criminal law and EU revenue-rising mechanisms?
How serious are the Government when they say that they intend to oppose the European public prosecutor, or to uphold NATO? I hope that in that latter respect they will be determined, as that is of the greatest importance, particularly in our USA/European relationship. European foreign policy should be driven by Ministers of national parliaments and not by a Community representative, however eminent and
222
whatever he may be called. That is particularly sensitive surely to us in the light of recent events, bearing in mind the attitudes and ambitions of both France and Germany. So I ask the Government: will the veto actually be used? If not, they are in a weak negotiating position and that would be very serious indeed.
I turn from red lines to red herrings. Any criticism of the European Union is immediately caricatured as being "opposed to Europe"—which is one of the most facile of observations. Withdrawal from Europe, in my view, is neither realistic nor necessary. Yet, we get the usual hair-raising projections as to what would be the cost of exit from the EU, and there are plenty of them in the Government's White Paper. However, that is not under contemplation. There is loose talk about how we would lose billions in exports and millions of jobs were we to be denied access to the continental marketplace—all apparently on the basis of the calculations of one think tank. I should have thought that the Government were pretty chary about importing observations from outside organisations after a recent experience.
If, however, it ever did come to a fundamental renegotiation of our relationship with a hardcore, centrist Union, we would still have access to Europe's markets. Europe would still need and still want our goods and services. It would still look to the United Kingdom as a model of parliamentary democracy, ministerial accountability and the rule of law. I confidently predict that it would still, in international dealings, take into account our long diplomatic experiences, and it would certainly still rely on the competence and professionalism of our Armed Forces.
If it should ever be necessary because the integrationists simply will not give way, then let an inner hard core bind themselves ever more tightly together, tied down by an immovable constitution if they will. Our vision, as with our international responsibilities and our trading interests, has to be global, not just continental.
Finally, if the Government intend this to go ahead, let them fairly and honestly put it first to the British people in a referendum. Tell them that they are about to agree to a treaty that will lead to a constitution which would be unamendable and take precedence over the corpus of traditions and character of our country and would impose a formal constitution with its widespread ramifications. Tell them that as citizens of the European Union they would have not only the EU passport but an EU flag, an EU anthem and the EU currency; and they would be subject to EU laws, EU courts, EU taxation and EU economic direction, as well as diplomatic relations and defence that are more under the direction of Brussels and Strasbourg than Westminster, Edinburgh, Cardiff or Belfast. Tell that to the people. They may want it—I do not know.
However, I say to the Prime Minister that if he really does believe—to quote his words in the foreword to the White Paper—that enlargement is,
"the most significant development since the foundation of the EEC",

223
and that this constitution which is consequent upon it is of considerable significance, then it should be put to the people in a referendum. Perhaps trust is a sensitive word to the Prime Minister these days, but on this issue, which could not be more important to our country, he should trust the people to give their verdict.
7.53 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, at this stage in the debate, with a round dozen more Back-Bench speeches still to be made, I shall be very brief.
I, too, suffered a process of disillusionment, perhaps not to the extent of that described so graphically a few minutes ago by my noble friend Lord Ferrers, but from having been in my early political days a tremendous enthusiast for what we then called the Common Market. More than 40 years ago, I published an article entitled "Integration or Isolation". In the context of what was then on offer, that was a real choice, and we chose integration. Like other speakers, I campaigned for a "Yes" vote to joining the market in 1975. However, I have been progressively disillusioned—and I say this despite the supposedly reassuring words written into the draft treaty—by what seems to me to have become an inexorable march to what may eventually become a united states of Europe. That is not what we agreed to join, and that is not the Government's intention—they have been very firm about that. However, that seems to me now to be a very genuine fear.
I shall not repeat all the arguments that have been so eloquently advanced during the course of this debate. I shall refer only to one, because it seems to me to be an important touchstone of this fear that there will be a progressive centralisation of the powers of the European institutions, in defiance of the principle of "subsidiarity". That is an awful word, but I fear that we must use it.
The Government have recognised the fear very clearly and have assured us, in paragraph 57 of the White Paper, that:
"The application of an important principle of competence—'subsidiarity'—is a priority for the Government".
However, one then turns to the protocol, to which a number of speakers have referred, and it looks rather different. It is presented in the Government's White Paper, at paragraph 59, as an emphatic restatement of the principle and as being one that is reinforced by a new mechanism,
"to make sure the principle is enforced".
However, if one actually looks at the words that appear in the protocol—although they have been quoted by other noble Lords, they bear repetition—one gets an entirely different picture. They fall well short of what the Government are trying to reassure us about.
Yes, there is a procedure for the advance notification of EU legislation to national parliaments; and yes, there must be a justification for the proposal having regard to the principle of subsidiarity and
224
proportionality; and yes, there is a six-week period for national parliaments to object and give their reasons. And then there is an obligation on the Commission to review the proposal if there are enough national parliaments to reach the figures in the protocol. However, we then come to what I would describe as the killer words. The protocol states:
"After such review, the Commission may decide to maintain, amend or withdraw its proposal".
I am irresistibly reminded of the Welsh radio producer who wrote back to an aspiring author and said, "Well, we like your play very much but we are sending it back to you".
Perhaps a mention of Wales brings me to the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth—I wrote down his words—when he said that he thought that, "The Government believe that the protocol must be strengthened". With the greatest respect, there is no evidence for that at all. The Government, on the other hand, have made it very clear that they think that it is a very significant step, and they go on to argue that in practice it would be very difficult for the Commission to ignore the strongly held views of one third of the national parliaments, or indeed for governments to do so if the matter were debated in Council. If I may say so with great respect to the noble Lord, I do not detect any indication that at present the Government do recognise that that protocol needs to be strengthened. To my mind, it has to be.
Yes, the protocol gives an appeal to the Court of Justice; but, with the greatest respect, there are few people now who would take much reassurance from that. We have seen over the years again and again and again that the Court of Justice seeks to promote the European Union case in all but the most blatant infringements of the treaties. I do not feel any confidence that we can rely on that.
With so many new shared competencies written into the draft treaty, the temptation for EU institutions to whittle away what are supposed to be the reserved rights and powers of member states will be overwhelming. I do not share the Government's optimism in that regard. There must be more specific real protections in the interests of subsidiarity. The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, endorsed the view of that admirable lady, Gisela Stuart, that what is needed is not just a yellow but a red card. There must be written into the treaty a bar on any further European action if there is sufficient opposition from national Parliaments.
I wish to comment on the marvellous speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg. I am sorry that he is not present at the moment. It was a brilliant speech in which he took apart the Government's view that Parliament will have an opportunity to debate the treaty line by line. As the noble Lord pointed out, the White Paper is a very dishonest presentation. I take that one stage further. Either in this House or in another place there will be an amendment to the Bill to require a referendum. If the Government stick to their view that there should not be a referendum and if their very large majority in another place agrees with that but this House does not, will the Government invoke

225
the Parliament Acts? I should be interested to hear how the Government could possibly justify invoking the Parliament Acts to deny the people a referendum on an issue of this kind. I hope to goodness that it will not come to that, but that may turn out to be the real moment of choice. I cannot believe that Ministers would welcome that.
8.3 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, this debate is not about Europe today, but the Europe which our children and grandchildren will enjoy in 25 years' time. Similarly, the new European constitution is not only defining Europe but shaping the world in which Europe must play a leading part. What we have seen this year—largely because of our role in the US moral crusade in the Middle East—are two developments: the erosion of European foreign policy and the subservience of a global outlook, as forecast at Laeken, to narrow European and bilateral objectives.
It is worth recalling what the Laeken declaration said in December 2001 as it paved the way for a broad-based convention:
"Now that the Cold War is over and we are living in a globalised yet also highly fragmented world, Europe needs to shoulder its responsibilities in the governance of globalisation. The role it has to play is that of a power…wanting to change the course of world affairs in such a way as to benefit not just the rich countries but also the poorest. A power seeking to set globalisation within a moral framework, in other words to anchor it in solidarity and sustainable development".
I accept that some of those sentiments are reflected in the White Paper on page 51, but supporters of this Government who anticipated this policy after 1997 now feel a growing sense of betrayal. They include members of voluntary organisations and Churches, and here I declare an interest in at least four such organisations. These mainly young people are concerned at the direction of European foreign policy. They see the cynical use of the war against terrorism to follow political objectives at the expense of international development.
One obvious example of that to my mind is the impotence of the European Union and its member states as regards Israel and Iraq. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said, Britain's alliance with the US, far from boosting our world status, has compromised our position with Europe and the developing world, neutralising our claim to international liberalism. President Bush's recently late "conversion" towards the UN is more attributable to his opinion polls than to our own foreign policy. One wonders what Downing Street is currently offering in place of the heady internationalism proclaimed in 1997. Indeed, I wonder what advice the Prime Minister's own Department for International Development is offering.
There are ringing phrases in the draft treaty preamble. There are also positive proposals from the convention placing sustainable development, human rights and poverty eradication among the strategic objectives for EU external policy. Yet the treaty itself is disappointing. Aid is clearly going down the European political agenda. There is already a division
226
of responsibility between the Development and External Relations Commissions. The EU has now also abolished biannual Council meetings devoted to development issues. There are ongoing criticisms of EC aid effectiveness. There are fears that development co-operation and humanitarian aid are subservient to defence and foreign affairs and could be further manipulated through the appointment of a new foreign minister. The reality of today's foreign policy issues seems to have automatic precedence over tomorrow's looming problems of poverty eradication.
There are concerns among NGOs, too, about the inevitable effects of enlargement. How many new members will have experience of or interest in wider global issues? Will they now turn Europe inwards because of so many internal problems of adjustment, inequality and regional aid? How can the new Europe afford to look beyond its own shores when it can hardly reach the elements of a common asylum policy? As my noble friend Lord Hannay almost said, we must not let asylum one day he seen as fortress Europe's alternative to international development.
Then there is the trade agenda. As James Wolfensohn, President of the World Bank, reminded us yesterday:
"Many rich countries continue jealously to guard trade-distorting policies".
The principles of the valuable Cotonou agreement are being threatened by the new economic partnerships. The Cotonou partnership should be a model of our future relations with the Third World, not something to throw to the winds of globalisation.
In summary, the NGOs have key messages for the Government. Development must not be subordinated to EU foreign, security or commercial policy agendas. The autonomy and impartiality of aid must be safeguarded and not become an instrument for EU security policy. Finally, EC aid should be founded on a commitment to partnership in development co-operation.
8.8 p.m.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, as the day has proceeded, I have become more and more aware that those who have preceded me and those who follow me have a combined experience of European matters that is very distinguished and that I cannot hope to match. However, I am encouraged by the fact that one of the objectives of Laeken was to bring the European Union closer to the people, so perhaps it is appropriate that someone who is not and has never been a member of any political élite might express a view.
I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lords, Lord Tomlinson and Lord Maclennan, for the role that they played in the proceedings of the convention. I welcome the report of the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, which poses the important questions to be asked. Particularly, I welcome the suggestion of a written analysis showing the changes proposed in the draft constitution, compared with the existing treaties.

227
Like the Select Committee, I wonder what has happened to the existing protocols, which cover a wide variety of different subjects, from the UK's opt-out of the single currency to Greece's concerns about Mount Athos. I also note the reference to the Charter of Fundamental Rights and its incorporation as part two of the constitution. Of course, as my noble friend Lord Tugendhat said, there are some strange bedfellows within that document. Nevertheless it was, following that convention, a compromise.
The question that I want to ask is about the fact that the presidium of that convention published a document that was a commentary on each article and detailed the legal basis of the same. This present convention has looked not only at the charter itself, but at that supporting document. Relatively minor changes were made. Although the charter itself is in part two, the revised explanatory memorandum, although published on the present convention website, is nowhere to be found. It should be at least referred to in the definitive document, and not left floating around the edges.
Having been present when the United Kingdom's case for the charter was argued by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, I am satisfied that, whatever its shortcomings, the charter as prepared was addressed to and applied to the European institutions of the Union and the member states when implementing European legislation. However, the provisions of the explanatory memorandum are important. For the sake of certainty, and to avoid confusion and conflict, the Strasbourg court and its jurisprudence, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, should at least come into the document somewhere.
The protocol on national parliaments has been welcomed, but, without going into its value and what amendments need to be made, I want to ask what happened to the proposals for the congress of Europe and how they came to be dropped. Is the proposed protocol robust enough to preserve the rights of national parliaments, not against Brussels but against the increasing tendency of national governments to find reasons for overriding the scrutiny procedures of Parliament, and especially given the increasing importance of the Council as opposed to the Commission?
I turn to the draft itself. I have no problem with the concept of consolidation of the existing treaties, setting out the different roles for the different institutions and member states—with a document that tries to ensure that the institutions work more effectively, given the form into which the European Union has evolved and is expanding. Too much is being made of the perfectly sensible title given to the document. I recall saying to colleagues elsewhere that if they were going to bring forward a consolidating treaty, please would they find a word other than constitution, which would present huge difficulties in the United Kingdom.
228
I think that the people will find the discussions about the draft constitution, or whatever it should be called, somewhat unreal. On one hand it is described as a tidying-up exercise, and on the other it is said that it is of such huge constitutional importance that it threatens the independence of the realm. I am not attracted to either argument. There are of course significant proposals, such as the introduction of an elected president of the Council. Although I accept the need for changes to the six-monthly rotating presidency, and although there are welcome proposals below the level of the presidency designed to engage all member states, there is a danger that the presidency will become the preserve of large member states. I hope that account will be taken of the concerns of the smaller states, which will be expressed, I suppose, at the IGC.
Also of undoubted significance is the proposal to appoint a Foreign Minister and the concerns of noble Lords with great experience in these matters have been expressed today. The proposals for a common foreign policy are ambitious and I do not suppose for one moment that that will be achieved on all issues for a long time ahead.
But is that a reason for not endeavouring to achieve it in as many instances as possible? A united approach by Europe where possible is surely to be welcomed. Unfortunately, all too often it seems that this notion is opposed in case that policy is not on all fours with those of our US allies.
I have to say to my noble friends on my Front Bench that I find it particularly sad to hear some in my party picking up the language of Secretary of State Rumsfeld on the divide which he may not have started but certainly fostered with his "old and new Europe". He has reportedly carried on the attempts with suggestions—if now not a fact—that some accession states that supported the United States over Iraq will nevertheless be penalised in military and financial assistance because of their failure to enter into bilateral agreements with the US to exempt them from the provisions of the ICC.
I have to say to my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford—I am sorry he is not in his place—that I have yet to be convinced at this stage of the necessity of a referendum. Much of the wording of the draft is already in the treaties in substantially the same form. Even the apparently contentious sections on the foreign and security policy owe much to Articles 17 and 18 of the Treaty on European Union.
Citizenship of the Union has already been established by a previous treaty. The suggestion that the draft brings the EU into hitherto untouched regions of national preserve is not supported by the 20 titles in Part 3 of the treaty establishing the European Communities, ranging from transport, to employment, to social policy, to culture, to the environment, or indeed the references to the many activities and political developments in the Laeken declaration.
Many distinguished commentators declare that the supremacy of the UK courts is threatened by Article 10 giving supremacy to the constitution and the laws

229
adopted pursuant to the constitution. Others claim we joined a trade organisation and it has turned into something we did not expect. But are either of those new or are either of them true?
The Hansard report for the debates which took place in your Lordships' House and the other place at the time of the decision to apply for membership of the then EEC and at the conclusion of the negotiation shows these to have been matters of concern and indeed not in any way denied.
I particularly noted the words of the then Lord Chancellor who said that,
"the Treaty of Rome is more than an economic grouping. It is also a great venture in political co-operation; and we welcome this political co-operation.—[Official Report, 3/8/61; col. 305]
Almost 12 months later his successor as Lord Chancellor said:
"I fully accept that such regulations"—
referring to Community legislative Acts—
"would have to be given effect to in our law as they stand. Should they conflict with existing Statute or Case Law they would override it"—[Official Report, 2/8/62; col. 420]
Those are hardly attempts to deny what was envisaged or evidence that the matter was overlooked when the issue was debated.
If this document is a state constitution, the constitution already exists under a different name; the various treaties. If they make the EU a state, it already exists. However, I believe what we actually have is a unique organisation having some elements of an association of states, a confederation or a federation.
What would the question be in a referendum? It was simple on the previous occasion. I understand the arguments of those who say that any constitution should have the consent of the people, but in this instance I would argue that calling a document a "constitution" does not make the organisation to which it relates a state. An organisation with some elements of a state, yes, but a state, no.
Given the nature of European debates in the United Kingdom, however vigorously denied, any referendum will become a referendum on our membership of the EU in its present state and not just the EU in its post-constitution state. There is no point in holding it otherwise because we have already agreed to much of what is in the document. Even if it were agreed by QMV, we were a party to making those issues the subject of QMV. We will put our commitment to the European Union in question; we will go back to arguing for a free trade area; all the arguments will be against the main thrust of a developing European Union; and there will be no vision of wanting to be in a Europe which is anything other than a marketplace. Rejection of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice will mean, presumably, that we wish to reject that for all purposes except to protect our trade, but no other. We shall be seeking to have all the benefit and none of the burden.
I do not believe that within a developing, cooperating European Union we shall lose our own distinctive identity and independence—something which, if true, would be equally true of other ancient and proud nations, some recently liberated from
230
tyranny. Surely we are not so superior or patronising as to believe that they have not thought about that or do not care.
I do not believe that the document is sacrosanct. Many issues are to be argued during the IGC. But I hope that, in arguing them, we shall argue the issues and not give the impression that we would prefer not to be involved or that we wish we had joined a different club altogether. Ultimately, there will no doubt be some element of compromise. Is that such a bad thing? I am inclined to think that it is the hallmark of civilised friends and, indeed, the hallmark of civilised nations. The alternative is to walk away, regardless of the damage done to ourselves and others.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, I found myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Lamont—an old friend—when he said that he was basically well disposed towards the idea of a constitution for the European Union. What has been disturbing has surely been doubt as to whether the allegedly insatiable appetite of the Commission for further activities might reduce or even render illegal some old customs or activities to which we are attached.
All clubs have rules and the European club should have them as well. That is particularly the case as the European Union, however one judges it, is an exceptionally complicated arrangement of interlocking and intermeshing powers and institutions, sometimes apparently acting in what would otherwise be thought to be a federal way, sometimes acting confederally, sometimes acting as an alliance and sometimes acting as if not connected with each other at all.
I thought it was a good thing that President Giscard d'Estaing should be the person to try to produce a draft on this matter. He is, after all, a former president of our greatest European ally over many years. He is a distinguished writer and I. like other Members of your Lordships' House, have read his work on democracy, his memoirs and even his brilliant novel in which he describes how a country solicitor picks up a girl in the street, lives with her for a week or two and then she says, "Well, don't call me, I'll call you". She never calls back. Later, he explained on French television that he was the country solicitor; the girl was France. Well, someone has called back—that is, Europe.
I turn to the document before us. I hope that the Government will consider commissioning a new translation of it. It contains some terrible expressions, as I am sure anyone who has read it must agree. For example, in the preamble, we hear of something called the "central role of the human person". Surely there is a better way to express it than that. Later, we hear how one of the purposes of the Union should be to "flesh out" the Union's external powers. We hear in the charter—not, admittedly, in the text—that everyone has the right of access to a free placement service. What could that mean? The word "solidarity" is used four times on one page. At one point, the word "policies" is used three times in three lines. For the translator—perhaps for the author—there is obviously a love affair with the word "conferral". That

231
is not an English word. We want a better word than that. We never hear of authority or power; we hear of competencies. One may feel that those are minor matters, but language is extremely important. If any government want to gain public support for this document they must get the language right. The noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, touched on this matter and I believe that he is completely right. It occurs to me that perhaps it is not a matter of the pronunciation, but of the original language. Perhaps the original language was bad. I shall return to that point on another occasion.
I have two significant complaints to make about the constitution itself. As in the past in relation to the European Union, under President Giscard d'Estaing, under the convention and in the document presented to us by Her Majesty's Government, all the institutions have dry, dull names, all beginning with "C": Commission, Council of Ministers, European Council. One will not find British public opinion to be in support of this major constitutional change unless warmer words are used for the institutions that we all recognise will be significant.
My second complaint, which echoes something that the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, said, is that lists of policies or aspirations are written into the constitution as if they are a part of the structure. But a constitution should not talk of policies or matters such as solidarity; a constitution should not say that the people concerned support a social market economy. It is for the Government or the Union in the future to decide such matters. Perhaps there will be a time when the majority of member states—participants in the European Union—wish to have a more socialist policy than the words "social market" would suggest; perhaps they will prefer to have a policy of much more free enterprise than the term "social market" would suggest.
All those words, and a great many others, should be excised. A small point in relation to the document is that I noticed that the preamble contains the phrase:
"Believing that reunited Europe intends to continue",
and so on. Which Europe is being re-united? If it is Rome, then some countries were not participants in the Rome experience but they are now full and enthusiastic members of the European Union.
I refer briefly to the planned intergovernmental conference. It is essential that that conference should be used to improve the language as well as the content of the draft constitutional treaty, bearing in mind that language, even in the age of the e-mail and the Internet, is the nerve of intelligent living and freedom. Of course, we should take seriously the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that we should take the intergovernmental conference seriously and that we should be seen to do so. We should also press the important points made by the noble Lord, Lord Owen, in an extremely important speech, that we should, if necessary, insist on more time to deal with improvements that we would like to make to this document, the significance of which is probably at least as great as the noble Lord, Lord Owen, said.
232
Our European friends would certainly criticise us if we make wrecking amendments but, in my view, they will be grateful to us if we insist on spending an extra month trying to improve Article 15 on the European common foreign and security policy, or if we spend time trying to make the constitution as proposed by the convention as short as that of the United States. I am afraid that in the 21st century we cannot expect that the document could ever rival the United States constitution as a work of literature. Committees cannot write; nor can modern statesmen write as 18th century enlightened statesmen could. But we could seek hard to make what emerges from the IGC a worthy political document of which our generation can be proud.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, said that the debate had so far been in the best traditions of the House, and so it has. Perhaps he will allow me to say that the same applies to the various reports of his committee, including the latest one, which poses 16 pointed questions to the Government, to which I hope he will receive an answer later this evening.
The noble Lord made one key recommendation, which, as the Minister said, is:
"The Government…should do more to make known the content and effect of the Treaty".
The noble Baroness said that the Government would do that. I have a question for the Minister about that. Perhaps noble Lords will allow me first to put the question into a political context, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Owen, did.
I have wanted very much to solve a puzzle: why our partners in Europe have such a different attitude to us. Why are they willing to share sovereignty when our country seems unwilling? Why is there no row or fuss in their countries about the convention and the constitution, which have largely gone unnoticed in their media? One possible explanation would be that their governments, like ours, have been obscured—I think that that was the word used by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. Perhaps those governments have denied that any such sharing of sovereignty is taking place. Perhaps they have also said that the convention is just a tidying-up exercise.
In fact, that is not the explanation or the solution to the puzzle. In France and Germany, for example, sharing of sovereignty is understood, acknowledged and completely accepted. It is described by the German Foreign Minister as:
"The most important treaty since the foundation of the European Economic Community".
The Spanish Foreign Minister described it as:
"A framework for political union".
Mr Prodi, the president of the EU, says that we need,
"a single government for all countries who share the money",
because, as Monsieur Trichet, the new head of the ECB, reminds us:
"Monetary union is the essential precondition for political union".

233
There is no misunderstanding in those countries. They are not victims of a cover-up of the reality of shared sovereignty. They understand it; they accept it; they actually welcome it. Why? I asked that question in France and Germany this summer. In both cases, the first answer—the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, knows it well—was peace.
I shall start with France. I was told that France lost I million men in one year, 1915. I was told that not one family in France had escaped that loss, and that that was why President Mitterrand declared that nationalism was war.
However, if pressed, other things emerge. With a Gallic shrug of the shoulders, I was told that this constitution or convention was the way of the world and a matter of economics. In France they have accepted, ironically, the American Harvard business school notion of globalisation that unity is strength. If there is a Darwinian process of natural selection, size is all, the strong go forward and the weak go to the wall. Mergers of companies are inevitable, I was told. So, too, must be mergers of countries.
If one pressed a little more, one would certainly learn more about resentment of America. France's culture minister resents American cultural imperialism; how it paves over precious French national identity with a homogenised US version of life. France's finance minister is unhappy that seven of the top 10 banks and eight of the top 10 companies in the world arc American. I was told that that was not competitive capitalism at work, but monopoly capitalism.
The defence minister is uncomfortable that this year's increase in the US defence budget is equal to the entire defence budget of the euro-zone. France's foreign minister is dismayed by US unilateralism. Le Monde calls it the "cretinisation" of American foreign policy.
All that is why former French foreign minister, Vedrine, coined the phrase "hyperpuissance" to describe what he called the "hectoring hegemon", America.
The French Government now make it crystal clear—and one must acknowledge their consistency, as my noble friend Lord Howell said—that their aim is to create something big called Europe to rival something big called America. According to President Chirac, the explicit purpose of the recent Franco-German initiative with others in the area of military capability was to balance the US in a multi-polar international system. That is what Mr Giscard d'Estaing means when he describes his dream for Europe:
"It will be respected and listened to as a political power that will speak as an equal with the largest powers on the planet".
If we add to that the question of the environment and terrorism, we complete the rational and emotional case for a multipolar world, in Bevin's phrase, involving multilateral solutions, supranational bodies, transational due process and negotiation to adjudicate disputes and so forth. In the French view of Britain, what are we? We are exactly what we were to Charles de Gaulle—America's Trojan horse in Europe.
234
To turn to Germany, the first answer that I received concerned peace. Chancellor Kohl spelt out in his famous Louvain speech. He said,
"Integration…is a question of war and peace".
He reflected the thoughts of Hamlet, that:
"I have in me something dangerous which let thy wiseness fear".
On the other hand, the chief archivist of the German bank advised me to examine the German word "Heimat", which means homeland, to explain German thinking in the abandonment of the Mark, which he said was the equivalent of Heimat to the German people. He said that their willingness to give up the Mark and accept shared sovereignty was because Germany had always been successful when it had looked to the East, and that enlargement of the EU would fit that ancient strategy. Certainly, the seven East European countries are intertwined with Germany. Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary are in no doubt of their need to remain in step with Germany.
What do the Americans make of all this? There is a certain ambivalence, but America helped to rebuild Western Europe after 1945. Even as America promoted economic and political integration, it recognised the risk of creating the geopolitical equivalent of Frankenstein's monster. As Dean Acheson, then the Secretary of State, said, Americans wanted to prevent Europe from,
"becoming…[an] opposing force".
That is the political background to my question to the Government.
One of the main effects of the convention that is not disputed by anyone is the fact that there will be an extension of qualified majority voting. It is, therefore, reasonable to ask the Government, "What is the system of voting to achieve a majority? How many votes will we have?". When we joined the EU in 1973, it was on a "one country, one vote" basis. We were equal partners. and we had an equal share of the votes. The constitution ends that principle of equality. Now that votes will depend on population, Germany will outvote Britain for the first time. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, and today's White Paper have remained silent on that point.
The convention makes a dramatic change in the balance of power between EU members. The public should be made aware of that and allowed to consider its implications.
Lord Tugendhat: My Lords, with great respect, I think that my noble friend is mistaken. My clear recollection—the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, may bear me out on this—is that qualified majority voting has always been a feature of the European Union. When I was a European commissioner and when the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, was a European commissioner, Luxembourg and Germany did not have the same votes: Germany had rather more than Luxembourg. That has been a feature of the European Union since the beginning.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend is right. I shall go on to give the actual figures, which have emerged from research into the new voting pattern that will result from the constitution. I shall compare it with what existed in the past.
Berlin has emerged from the convention as the biggest winner. The long-held wish of German diplomacy has come true. One expert on European politics in Brussels called Germany's new voting strength,
"a major geopolitical development in the history of the Union".
It pointed, he said, to a "reassertion" of the geographical centre of Europe. Here, for my noble friend, are the figures. I am indebted to Neil O'Brien of the Vote 2004 organisation for his research. In 1973, Britain and Germany had an equal 17.2 per cent share of total votes. After the convention, Britain will be reduced to 12 per cent and Germany will have 17 per cent. In 1973, Germany and Britain had an equal share of the votes needed to block legislation—55.6 per cent each. After the convention, Britain will be reduced to 30.9 per cent of the votes needed to block legislation and Germany will have 42.6 per cent of the blocking votes. The Franco-German axis will have 73.5 per cent of the votes needed to block legislation.
Three years ago, when EU leaders met in Nice, the first attempt was made to reform the voting system for the growing Union. France's President Chirac caused consternation then, I believe, by resisting German pressure for higher voting weight. The result was a complex and rather arbitrary voting system in which the 80 million people of the reunified Germany were significantly under-represented—an obvious injustice, they said at the time. This time, during the work of the convention, it was the former French president, Mr Giscard d'Estaing, who proposed the new mathematical system, which gives more weight to countries with large populations. This time, President Chirac acquiesced.
The abolition of the weighted voting system and its replacement with a system based on population size will make it harder to block EU legislation that we oppose.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, the noble Lord's obsession with Germany is leading him a little astray. The result of the successive enlargements of the European Union was that the small member states had greater weight in the voting than they had had at the outset. That situation risked becoming even more accentuated when the Union included nine new small member states. A change was made at Nice—which has now been increased in the proposed convention—to give the larger member states a bigger say. Naturally, since that is based on population, it means that Germany has a bigger say than France and Britain; but the overall balance that is changed is that the smaller member states have less say—which is why they are making so much fuss—and the larger member states have a greater say.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, of course that is correct. What I am driving at is that this is a change from a
236
principle of equality with our senior partners to a principle of inequality. That may be justified and correct; and, if asked, people may accept it. My point is that people are not aware of that change, and they should be.
As I said, the abolition of the weighted vote system and its replacement with a system based on population size makes it much harder to block EU legislation. The system agreed three years ago meant that 74 per cent of the votes held by member states are needed to pass legislation. But under this new system—a second change—only 60 per cent of the total vote is needed to pass legislation. Taken together, those three changes—first, the expansion of the scope of majority voting to new areas; secondly, the reduction in Britain's share of the votes; and, thirdly, the reduction in the qualified majority threshold—will make a significant difference to our ability to control EU legislation.
The Foreign Secretary said this morning:
"You have a referendum when you are doing something new".
We are. We are moving from an equal partnership with our senior partners to a new partnership which is not equal among the senior members. That is not a reform; it is a major change and it strengthens the case for a referendum.
Pro-European governments elsewhere in Europe understand that the creation of a real constitution is not meaningful without popular support. This constitution fulfils the classic criteria for a referendum. It is significant; it is irreversible; and the Government can claim no mandate to sign it, as it was not mentioned in their manifesto.
According to a poll for Charter 88, 82 per cent of the public believe that,
"We are not having an open and honest debate about the future of the EU".
By not having such a debate, the Government have given birth to a new cross-party coalition that has posed an unanswerable question: if other countries are having a referendum on this matter, why cannot we? We are left to observe with some awe the wonder of democracy. With all their ministries, great departments of state and apparatus of propaganda, the Government are, I am afraid, running away from a consultation with the people.
In the end, the British people may decide to accept this—as my noble friend Lord Howell and the noble Lord, Lord Owen, called it—stupendous treaty. Perhaps they will feel that they have no choice, or that they are bullied or blackmailed, or they may simply accept it as inevitable. But if they decide to accept it—if they take a decision that will, as the Prime Minister says, last for generations—on one point we should be definite: that decision is for them. It is not a decision for the temporary office-holders seated on the Front Bench opposite.
8.48 p.m.
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, it is a long, long road a-winding from February 2002, when the member states of the European Union established the convention to prepare a new treaty, to the time when

237
the leaders of the member states decide on a text that they can all accept, when the sovereign parliaments and peoples of the member states decide that they agree to the proposals, and when the treaty itself comes into effect, in some respects not until 2009.
However, this is a very good moment to stop and examine the text that has come forward from the convention, because the next stage—the IGC that will begin shortly—is the point when the Government have the power to welcome and agree the treaty, or to decline to agree and to propose changes or deletions. Of course, at inter-governmental conferences unanimity rules. That may be a hit embarrassing from time to time, hut, none the less, it is the rule.
At this stage, I look forward to hearing as much as possible from the Minister about the approach of the Government to the inter-governmental conference, particularly in relation to the common foreign and security policy, where there are changes of significance resulting from the draft treaty. I make that point because I spent a long time today reading the White Paper, which we were privileged to receive this morning. I found seven paragraphs only on the common foreign and security policy, which is not a lot. I, too, salute the excellent reports from the Select Committee, of which I am a member, which have clarified a great number of issues.
I do not want to talk too much about the common foreign and security policy, because many people have spoken about it. I shall deal with some of the other issues arising in relation to domestic policy, which are also of considerable concern and importance for the citizens of the European Union. Underlying the whole operation are two essential questions. First, is it useful, particularly in the perspective of the substantial enlargement of the European Union, to scrap the many treaties which determine the role, the powers and the institutions of the European Union—including the Treaty of Rome, the Single European Act and the treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice—and to replace them with a consolidating treaty containing a new, first, so-called constitutional part and another part or parts containing the articles on specific matters, which for the most part are already contained in current treaties? There is some element of controversy on whether we have taken the right course, but my answer is yes.
In the European Union the treaties determine everything of importance—the law-making powers, the competences, the institutions, and so forth. We all know that we have messed the treaties about over many years because the number of miscellaneous amendments made to the founding Treaty of Rome by the subsequent treaties is very large. That is partly because the results of the past inter-governmental conferences were packages: in the European Union, beware packages at all times. The Treaty of Rome became much more difficult to understand. It is wise to present it in a clearer form.
The first part of the convention's draft treaty—the so-called constitution—certainly has the advantage of being very easy to read and to understand. I am baffled
238
by the comments that it is difficult, incomprehensible and complicated. What is most important for the citizen—the definition of the objectives of the Union, its powers and responsibilities and the elements of the institutions—is all contained in 30 pages of small-sized paper in double spacing, which can be read in five or 10 minutes. In my view, it is extremely clear. I know that some noble Lords may have some difficulty, but I am confident that our grandchildren could understand it in half an hour. So we have an advantage in having a much better text from the point of view of the citizen, although it has not yet been indicated to him that that is the case.
Secondly, we have the problem that underlies the whole of this convention: we start with two distinct ways of operating. On the one hand we have the Community system applying to traditional areas such as environment, regional policy, and so forth. On the other hand, we have the inter-governmental system—pillars 2 and 3—applying to foreign affairs and some elements of justice and home affairs. For actions under these pillars, the role of the Commission and the European Parliament is limited and member states decide and make Union laws themselves.
The convention is right to conclude that the time has come to look again at the structure, but that does not imply that the matters covered by pillars 2 and 3 should simply be transferred to Community responsibility and the traditional Community method, which the Government recognise in paragraph 46 of the White Paper. The reasons that led the member states to treat foreign affairs and defence differently from, for example, the single market, remain valid. Any improvements in the working of the system must not prejudice that—an important point on this convention which has been made by many speakers.
I conclude that the convention has been broadly on the right lines in responding to the two basic questions. and I return now to the substance of the proposals. Before I do so, however, I should like to emphasise once again that while I know the Government are making a big effort, I hope they will stress to the British public that the process has been more open and the role of national parliaments much greater than in the preparation of earlier intergovernmental conferences. I doubt very much whether the public has fully comprehended that the draft treaty has been drawn up by representatives of the people from national parliaments together with representatives of governments.
I turn to the substance. I intend to break with the great British tradition of complaining about and looking at the possible disadvantages of European Union proposals. Instead I seek to judge what are the advantages for Britain of the convention proposals in comparison with the present situation. For myself the three most important points are these: first, do we have a better definition of European Union responsibilities and competences; secondly, do we have a simpler system of European Union laws and regulations; and, thirdly, will there be more openness and a bigger democratic element in the European Union?

239
As regards European Union responsibilities and competences, the first few articles of the draft treaty deal with the values and objectives of the Union, fundamental freedoms, and relations between the Union and the member states. They reiterate the requirement that the Union shall respect the national identities of the member states and the essential state functions of those member states. I find these articles quite clear and, indeed, inspiring. I think that that is the first complimentary word I have heard used in this debate.
The treaty also deals directly with the issue of responsibilities and competences, reiterating the fundamental principle that competences not conferred on the Union in the constitution remain with the member states. For the first time, the competences which have already been conferred on the Union by past treaties are simply expressed. I find this text very simple. It covers areas of exclusive competence. Examples include the common commercial policy. Most British people will be surprised to find that the list of exclusive competences is so short. It covers areas of shared competence between the Union and the member states, such as the environment and agriculture, and areas where the Union may take supporting, co-ordinating or complementary action, such as on vocational training.
That is an improvement and is far better than what is set out in the current treaties. I believe that it will work against the possibility of "Union competence creep", which is a not very clearly defined disease that may or may not have occurred in the past, but which should certainly not occur in the future. The citizen must have confidence in the clarity of his constitutional treaty. Incidentally, that is why I am absolutely opposed to the so-called Passarelle clause, which would go against that principle.
The broad outline of competences is supported by specific articles in Part III. I do not think that any other noble Lord has referred to these articles. There are 339 of them—right reverend Prelates will note that in Europe, 39 articles are no longer sufficient—of which 324 are existing texts and only 15 new drafts. I make the point because, so far as the competences are concerned, we are carrying over to a considerable degree what has already been adopted.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, would the noble Lord give way? Does he agree that just because something has already been sewn into the difficult verbiage of the treaties and we did not understand it, that does not make it all right now? If we reach something that we now realise we do not like, are we free to object to it?
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, I did not deal in particular with that point; I sought to state factually what is the situation in the draft convention. Obviously, if we were to make changes in that respect, they would be matters for our Minister or Prime
240
Minister in the inter-governmental conference. So my reply to the noble Lord is, to use a Somerset expression, "don't tell I, tell 'ee".
I shall return to my speech. I think the terminology that has been put forward in relation to the legislation is an improvement. I prefer the new classification of legislation into European laws, European framework laws, and implementing and delegated regulations. Of course there is a further provision that would ensure that in some circumstances delegation could be revoked or limited. That also is an advantage.
Thirdly, as regards openness and the democratic element, we know that there are some changes which would go in that direction—for example, the Council, when legislating, would meet in public; decisions would be extended to a further element of co-decision with the European Parliament; and other steps in favour of national parliaments, which do not go as far as we would wish but are none the less a step forward.
I know that I have been very selective and I realise that the greater part of the changes in the convention relate to what were the second and third pillars and to foreign policy. There are quite a number of significant changes—for example, the double-hatted role of the Minister for Foreign Affairs—and we need to look at them with extreme care.
In its reports on the convention, the Select Committee pointed out certain issues in these areas—for example, the point about the European Union Minister—where it said it could not agree unless there were certain assurances and clarifications. That is what is needed now. I hope that the noble Baroness, no doubt cheered by my welcome for other issues, will comment on those observations of the Select Committee specifically.
9.2 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I believe that in our debates about the European Union we sometimes forget that it is a political system that is pointless unless it works. I dare say that some of your Lordships will say that it does not work very well. I would not necessarily dispute that—sometimes I think the miracle is that it works at all—but it is a system that works. With enlargement—which I consider will be probably the most important political event of the decade that we are now in—it will have to change the way in which it works. For me, the central question behind the debate is how.
Ever since the earliest days of the European Economic Community there has been a specific mechanism for change embedded in the treaties. It is a mechanism that is not circumscribed in any way. The idea that the European Union is in some way a static entity is simply not true. As your Lordships know, an intergovernmental conference is called, a treaty is drawn up and, if agreed by unanimity, is subsequently ratified according to a member state's own constitutional arrangements.
It follows from this of course that both the Union and its laws are subordinated to the constitutional arrangements of the member states. When national

241
law is subordinated to European law, as the European Court of Justice has ruled and as is now suggested should be spelt out specifically in the treaties, that takes place within the wider framework of European constitutional arrangements being subordinated to the member states' constitutions, of which they become a part. In short, the European Union is carved out of the member states that created it. If we are to have a European Union that is subject to the rule of law, it cannot be done in any other way unless we create a successor single state to the various member states. I do not believe that anyone in your Lordships' House—or, for that matter, across Europe as a whole—wants that to happen.
What is intriguing in the context of today's debate about the European convention is that in strict constitutional terms it has no place. Nor do I believe one can say that it is a Philadelphia. And yet. at the same time, very clearly, politically it is important in the framework of the negotiations in the forthcoming IGC. After all the convention has drawn up its conclusions. For all I know, those conclusions might have been different—possibly even significantly different—had the relatively arbitrary composition and balance in that body in turn been different. But that does not gainsay the fact that it is an important political element in the forthcoming debate.
For me, what is really interesting is what happens next. President Giscard recently said that there are basically three possibilities, and I do not disagree with him. First, we could do what is advocated by Signor Frattini, the Italian Foreign Minister—simply take it as drafted and agree to it. Secondly, it could be tinkered with: it may, perhaps, provide a general picture of what the next phase of the European Union may be like. Alternatively, it could be torn up and everyone could start again.
Having just glanced at the Government's White Paper—I have not had time to read it—I suspect that they do not subscribe to the first of those options. It is important that we hear from the Government how they think other member states will view the problem. After all, this is important; it has already been said that the IGC will be determined by unanimity. Again, we need to know what our own Parliament thinks about this. After all, the Government's authority is derived from Parliament, and Parliament will have to ratify any resulting treaty, with or without any referendum that might be held.
It is important for Parliament to make its position clear in advance of the treaty negotiations. The Government need to know what we think; they also need to know whether they command the confidence of Parliament, to whom it is ultimately answerable.
The difficulty about dealing with treaties is that when they are ratified, the Government of the day introduce legislation to which they are committed in every detail and particular before the Bill is drafted. It is a very different state of affairs from the normal process of legislation with which we deal in this House. If governments are involved in an intergovernmental conference, they must negotiate in good faith with
242
their partner governments on the basis that each can deliver what they agree. After all, if that cannot be done, the European Union itself cannot operate. If the Government are to negotiate in good faith in such a forum, they need Parliament, from whom their legislation is derived, to he comfortable with what they are doing.
Anyone fortunate enough to have been a Minister knows that all governments, whatever their political persuasion, always listen. However, the crucial question is whether they pay any attention to what Parliament is saying. It is one thing to report to Parliament what the Government are doing: it is quite another to create a relationship of mutual confidence between Parliament as a whole and the government of the day about the progress of negotiations, so that the Government and those governments with whom they are negotiating can he confident they can deliver.
Realistically, with the Government's majority in the other place, the other place is effectively stitched up, if I can put it like that. But I would not be quite so sure about your Lordships' House. I know, because I have taken advice, that there is no reason why, if circumstances demanded it, the Government could not use the Parliament Act to force through legislation ratifying a treaty. It would be rather a limp process. But would that be the Government's intention if such an eventuality arose? I do not think, from what I gather from the White Paper, that the Government will ask Parliament for a referendum. What 'ill ill their response be if political pressure in this place or another place proposes that Parliament insert a referendum provision, stipulating a positive outcome before ratification?
One of the clear consequences of the work of the convention has been to highlight various aspects of European politics, even though the reportage of quite a lot of it has been in some cases disingenuous and in others straightforwardly and wilfully inaccurate. One of the problems with the politics of the European Union—and I have discussed this with the noble Baroness on previous occasions—has been a decoupling that seems to have taken place between Brussels and the voter. An ostensible reason for the convention has been to try to bridge that gap. Paradoxically, the arcane complications to the uninitiated of the convention's report may, I suspect, have made the whole thing more, rather than less, mysterious. I hear that the grandchildren of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, will not have that problem. I am sure that if they take after their grandfather, they are prodigies. Nevertheless, I dare say that, for the grandchildren of hereditary Peers, such as myself, who are rather debased currency these days, it may be a little different.
One reason for this alienation that has taken place seems to be the way that governments of both persuasions—and it was true of the government of which I had the privilege to be part as well as of other governments—have deployed House of Commons procedures and used the might of their Whips Offices to bludgeon legislation through Parliament. But, given the absolute centrality of European Union policy to

243
politics in Britain today, would the Government do the same things if those circumstances were repeated? Surely, a government's failure to succeed in having ratified a decision reached in an intergovernmental conference is effectively a vote of confidence in the Government.
For what it is worth, my view of the outcome of the convention is that it is a slightly undefined way of publicly setting an agenda for the forthcoming IGC. My judgment is that it is highly unlikely that the outcome will not be a qualitatively and radically different Europe from that that the convention has delineated, even though I must say that it contains a number of things that I do not like.
Against the background of where we are now, it seems to me that the Government should specifically put their response to the convention formally to the House as a whole, in order to obtain, if they can, an endorsement for their approach to the forthcoming IGC. After all, it is, by any standards, one of the most important aspects of public business currently under consideration. If the Government cannot obtain support for their negotiating position, that negotiating position becomes unsustainable. Conversely, if they can and they do, they will strengthen and reinforce themselves.
Parliament can be an ally or an opponent of the Government, depending on how the Government treat Parliament. There needs to be a closer relationship between the two in the future than has been the case in the past. While, like other speakers, I welcome the establishment of the IGC Joint Standing Committee, I think that we should go further. Parliament in each of its Houses should expressly endorse the Government's "road map"—the current buzz word—and their first chapter is the Government's White Paper published today. I suggest that both this House and the other place should vote on the issue; to endorse it to ensure that the Government have a majority for the negotiating position they will take up in the IGC.
Furthermore, I believe that we should do the same for any successor documents. Thereby, we would create a single seamless link tying Parliament and Government together between the days before the IGC gets underway right through to the ratification of any treaty which may be agreed in it.
9.12 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, some of your Lordships will know that I have always taken the view that adding members to the European Union is a bad thing. I believe that admitting new members automatically causes more centralisation and more bureaucratisation.
Other people have taken a different view. People of my opinion, who are rather sceptical of the whole European Union adventure, say, "Well, of course, the more you have, the looser it will become". But the fact is that history shows that I have been right—I am sorry I am right; I would prefer that it was the other way—that the more members which have joined, the greater
244
the centralisation and bureaucracy. Indeed, Europe now looks more like an empire than a common market. It was a common market that the people of this country agreed to in 1975. Let us not forget that. That was all that they agreed to.
When one looks at the draft convention, one must ask oneself: will it be more democratic? Is it going to induce more democracy? Of course it is not. Everyone knows that. Even its supporters know that. It is a centralising treaty. To begin with, the collapsing of the intergovernmental parts of foreign policy, defence and home affairs into a single treaty means that it is more centralised and takes away the control of national parliaments and national governments. So that in itself shows that it is a centralising constitution.
What about the acquis communautaire? That remains, so that any further powers given at any time to the European Union will be held by it for ever. Those powers will never be restored. Indeed, since 1992, when we were assured that subsidiarity was going to solve the problems of the loss of power to nation states, not one item has been returned to national governments. I cannot see any prospect of it happening; indeed, the reverse will happen. So this is undoubtedly a centralising treaty, and that is most unfortunate. What we want is a decentralising treaty.
Before I go on, I wonder whether the noble Baroness can help us and help the public. It seems that Mr Hain has been reported as saying that Mr Blair believes that the constitution is absolutely fundamental and will last for generations and that the whole business—the whole constitution—is more important than Iraq. On the other hand. Mr Straw apparently has said—indeed, he said it this morning—that the constitution is important but does not fundamentally change Britain's relationship with Europe. Those are two different views of the proposed constitution. from two of the most senior politicians. I think that this House and the public are entitled to know just exactly which of those opinions is the correct one. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to help the House.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and others, I believe that it was unfortunate that the White Paper was made available only today. I have not been able to read it closely, but the parts that I have read seem to me to be entirely contentious. I shall not be contentious about it tonight, but, nevertheless, it would have been rather better if we had had a few days to look at it so that we could discuss it properly tonight.
This morning, I also heard Mr Straw on the "Today" programme claim that the Government would not give up control over tax, social security or defence and security to the European Union. However, as others have said, the draft constitution gives power over virtually everything else or a part of everything else, including employment, the economy, transport, health, energy including the control of energy resources, education, agriculture and fisheries, the internal market, justice and home affairs, and some aspects of policing, especially the EU borders. It is all there—virtually everything. Even on defence and

245
foreign policy, there will be common policies to which member states will be obliged loyally to abide, both within the EU and on international bodies including the United Nations.
I say to Ministers and to elected representatives that their first loyalty is not to the European Union; it is to the people who elect them to their positions. I just wish that they would remember that and not agree to treaties which divide that loyalty, if not take it away from the electors of this country.
In the face of Mr Straw's attitude it is doubtful whether these debates serve any useful purpose. I hope that I am wrong about that. It seems that little notice is taken—I agree here with the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, who has just spoken—of anything that is said. There were debates on 7th January and 2nd April and meetings of the House of Commons Standing Committee. I spoke in both debates and attended and spoke at every meeting of the Standing Committee. I asked questions and did my job, as did other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Howell. But all of that seemed to have no discernible effect at all on the final outcome. It seems to me that the draft constitution which we looked at during the first meeting was virtually the same as the one we looked at during the last meeting. I wonder what exactly we were doing with our time.
However, I was encouraged by the speech this afternoon of the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell. It appears that his committee will put pressure on the Government with regard to many items. I hope that it will succeed. If it does, I hope that the Government will take much more notice of what is said than did the then government in 1991 with regard to the Maastricht Treaty.
Your Lordships will be glad to hear that I have no intention of repeating all the points that I made in previous debates but there are some questions that I should like to raise. First, the German, French and Italian Governments wish to see the constitution adopted unamended. Indeed, in Prague last week Joschka Fischer, the German Foreign Minister, warned smaller countries—and I repeat "warned"—against questioning the draft constitution. The Italians want the IGC to agree the constitution unamended by the end of the year. Can we have an assurance from the noble Baroness today that the Government will not allow the IGC to be rushed and that they will not give way on the modest reservations that they have outlined in the White Paper?
Will the noble Baroness also say whether the Charter of Fundamental Rights will be enforceable in the ECJ or by any other court in the United Kingdom or any other member state? I know that the noble Baroness dealt with that matter in her opening speech but if she could say a little more on the matter, I should be most grateful. If it is not enforceable by the ECJ and other courts, what is its status and why is it being incorporated into the constitutional treaty? Will not that incorporation undermine the United Kingdom's unwritten constitution and thereby limit, not increase,
246
the rights of the citizen and undermine the very concept of our view of democracy and individual freedom?
Will the noble Baroness comment on the provisions relating to the criminal justice system. the approximation of criminal laws and penalties, the increased powers of the ECJ and the imposition of a European public prosecutor? All those matters have serious implications for our legal and justice system. Was it to accommodate those encroachments on our judicial system that the proposals to abolish the Lord Chancellorship and the High Court of Parliament were so abruptly, hastily and rudely announced in the reshuffle earlier this year without proper consultation, and is it the reason why Mr Blunkett is so determined to abolish trial by jury? With regard to voluntary withdrawal from the Union in Article 1.59, will that extend to membership of the single currency which is said to be irrevocable? I have asked many questions about that, and I have always received the reply that joining the single currency would be irrevocable.
Can we be given details of how the ratification procedure will be handled? Will Parliament—both Houses—be able to move amendments to the constitutional treaty, which after all is a completely new entity, or are we to continue with the farcical arrangements previously applying to amending treaties, whereby only negative amendments can be moved? That would be an undemocratic farce, and I hope that the noble Baroness listened very closely to what the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, said earlier this afternoon. It simply is not good enough that Parliament should not be able to amend what is a change to our constitution. Parliament ought to insist that it can treat the constitutional treaty in a proper way and be able to amend it.
In spite of Mr Straw's denial that a superstate is being created, the treaty contains all the trappings of such a superstate. The powers available to the Union embrace every aspect of policy, from defence and foreign affairs to consumers. Indeed, Part IV—the general and final provisions—states:
"The flag of the Union shall be a circle of twelve golden stars on a blue background. The anthem of the Union shall be based on the Ode to Joy from the Ninth Symphony by Ludwig van Beethoven. The motto of the Union shall be: United in diversity. The currency of the Union shall be the euro. 9 May shall be celebrated throughout the Union as Europe day".
If it has not got aspirations to be a state, why does it need all those symbols?
9.27 p.m.
Lord Blackwell: My Lords, it is a great pleasure but a daunting task to follow the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, who as always put his arguments with great force and clarity. I welcome the debate and indeed the White Paper, which, if rather belated, was perhaps longer on assertion than it was on analysis. I welcome it nevertheless as setting the stage for the debate.
Speaking at this stage, having listened to the many earlier speakers, I think that two key questions have emerged and been addressed by a number of your

247
Lordships. The first is whether the constitution is of critical importance or just a minor tidying-up. As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked, what are the Government telling us is their view on that? Secondly, if it is important, as the Government now seem to accept, will it clearly be a good thing? Will it clearly be in Britain's national interests, if, assuming that the Government achieve the concessions that they set out on red-line issues, the treaty then becomes law?
Like other noble Lords, I very much welcome the work of the European Union Committee, which is addressing many points relevant to those questions. I would like to repeat the request of the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, which I have previously made to the Government, for a detailed analysis of how the draft constitution differs from the existing treaties, so that we can be clear about what is new and what is not. On the basis of the information that we have before us and the points that have been contributed so far, I shall summarise my assessment on those issues.
I believe that the constitution is important. I do not think that much has changed since many of us debated it at the beginning of April on the basis of the draft that we had then. The draft now does not seem substantially different and, like others, I doubt that the proposed treaty as it emerges after the IGC will be fundamentally different either. Most significantly, as the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, made clear, it is important because it replaces an intergovernmental treaty base with a written constitution for an EU legal entity whose institutions and laws will have superior authority to UK institutions and laws in any area where the EU claims competence.
It is strictly true that the EU has only competences that the member states have transferred to it but I am afraid that is a meagre safety blanket. As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, pointed out, the reality is that under the constitution we will have granted the EU competence of one kind or another, whether exclusive, shared or co-ordinating, over almost every aspect of national life. Indeed, I challenge the Minister to name more than half a dozen areas in which the EU does not have some competence.
Therefore, as opposed to the EU as it has been under the control of member states, once we sign up the table is turned. National laws can then be enacted only in areas allowed by the constitution and in conformity with the principles and objectives it lays down. It is a transformation of the relationship between the member states and the EU.
The consequence of that, with its innovation of a written constitution, is that the written words of the EU constitution under Article 10—the "fine print", as Mr Hain describes it—have supremacy not only over any existing common law and constitutional arrangements in the UK, but over almost any law that the UK Parliament might in future wish to enact.
The White Paper describes this as a pooling of sovereignty. In reality, it is an absolute and complete transfer of sovereignty in almost all but a handful of areas that have been reserved for member states. Once
248
sovereignty has been transferred, once we have handed it over, although we may have done so voluntary we cannot take it back. Once it is signed, it fundamentally changes the position.
Does that matter? Is it a good deal in Britain's strategic interests? I believe that it does matter. As other noble Lords have said, one reason is the fact that the constitution includes whole paragraphs on the values and objectives of what would become our governing constitution. Those objectives include the creation of a social market economy; full employment; social progress; combating social exclusion; promoting social justice and protection; solidarity between generations; and economic, social and territorial cohesion to name but a few.
It therefore mixes the rules on how governments should operate with fashionable political views on the content of what governments should be doing. One might agree with them; one might disagree with them. But when combined with the Charter of Fundamental Rights, it would create unlimited scope for laws we might wish to pass in this country to be struck down as contravening the objectives of the constitution to which we would then be a party.
How many of the key reforms of the government of my noble friend Lady Thatcher—denationalisation, union reforms, withdrawal of subsidies from loss-making industries, sale of council houses—are likely to have passed the test of the European Court's interpretation of market economy or social cohesion? And how many of even this Government's reform measures which built on that legacy would fall equally foul? What freedom would we have to pursue our objectives if they differed from those set out in the introduction to the constitution?
This is fundamental. It is not about trimming words, or refining the fine print, or competences on the margin. We should not sign up to this constitution unless we are prepared to accept the full consequences of subjugating our law-making to that kind of EU oversight. Secondly, it not only constrains our law-making going forward, it also massively extends explicit competences of the EU to legislate over the head of the UK Parliament, as other noble Lords have pointed out. I refer noble Lords to a list of shared competences in Article 13, which includes not only internal market measures of the past but a broad remit of economic and social cohesion, social policy, transport, energy, environment, and the collapse of the previously separate pillar on justice and security.
I remind noble Lords that shared competence as defined in Article 11 means that member states can exercise their competence to the extent that the Union has not exercised its competence. In other words, the EU is free to legislate in any of those areas and states can legislate only in areas which the EU has decided to leave with them.
I further remind noble Lords that Article 22 states that decisions will be made by QMV, except in a few areas which are specifically exempted. Therefore, in all those areas there will be no power of veto. If, for example, the European Union collectively decides that

249
it wants to take control of North Sea oil under a common energy policy or mandate restrictions on the use of cars as part of a common transport policy, we would have no veto. Under Article 32, European laws passed by the European institutions may be binding on member states in their entirety and directly applicable without ever passing through the UK Parliament. Lastly, as other noble Lords have pointed out, even if national parliaments object, under this very weak protocol on subsidiarity the Commission can consider the objections and then decide to press on regardless.
I have not yet mentioned the further powers of co-ordination on economic policy, foreign policy and defence, where so much attention has been focused and where the Government are rightly concerned about the implications for competence creep progressively to threaten independent tax policy and our ability to manage our own foreign and defence policy.
But even if the Government succeeded in all the red-line objectives that the Minister set out today and succeeded in preserving national vetoes on tax, foreign policy, defence and social security, all the implications that I have set out still stand for the other areas of sovereignty. I must say to your Lordships that, given the history of treaties in the past, I believe it is very questionable whether the red lines now drawn around even these issues will prove watertight.
Some noble Lords may consider that I am interpreting the text of the constitution in the most unfavourable way. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, will take that view. But we need to recognise that we arc being asked to sign up to a legal constitution which will represent the highest legal authority on any point of issue. It is not a matter of some informal rules for joining a golf club. There will be no redress for this nation for not reading the fine print on the contract.
In his speech, my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon said that the results of these kinds of negotiation can often be seen as half full or half empty. I believe that, as the noble Lord, Lord Owen, made clear, if one considers this issue as half full, one must be naive not to recognise that the constitution brings about the opportunities to create the powers and apparatus that could evolve into a centralised European state. We have only our view versus the views of others on the Continent as to whether or not that is their intent. But I believe that the capability is there in the wording, as we are being asked to approve it.
None of this transferred sovereignty should be surprising. As the constitution makes clear, the EU sees itself as the successor to nation states as the democratic government of Europe, directly empowered by and answerable to European citizens. I point noble Lords to Article 45, which states:
"Citizens are directly represented at Union level in the European Parliament. Member States are represented in the European Council and in the Council of Ministers by their governments".
250
The implication of that—I agree with those who have raised doubts about the role given to the European Parliament—is that it is the people in the European Parliament who give democratic legitimacy to the European Union, and the national governments are in danger of being relegated to the role of special interest groups.
Therefore, the consequence is that it is these European institutions—the European Parliament, Council, Commission and Court—to which in future we shall be entrusting the protection and safeguarding of our democratic freedoms and liberties. We shall no longer be able to rely on our own constitutional conventions, our own laws, our own Parliament and our courts to protect our rights and preserve free government according to the will of the British people. Under this constitution, we shall be ceding ultimate power to the European institutions to interpret the constitution—our constitution—in their own way and to override UK laws where we differ.
I believe that we, and the British people, must ask ourselves whether we are ready to trust these European institutions to protect our liberties and whether we are ready to trust the democratic instincts of the European populations, many of which have a far shorter history of democracy than our own nation. Future generations are unlikely to see this as a trivial question, particularly if we make the wrong choice.
So, in conclusion, I argue that it does matter, and that changes it implies are fundamental and will not change as a result of a few drafting changes that the Government will claim to have wrung out of negotiations at the IGC. There is a choice. This is not about being for or against Europe. The White Paper claims that it is essential for enlargement to succeed in order to avoid decision making clogging up. That is only true if you want the EU to have decision-making powers in all these new areas of competence. If you want to keep the EU's primary role as now on a single market and areas of co-operation between states, it has all the QMV that it needs under Nice.
This is not just about extension of the scope of the number of states in the Union; it is about the extension of the powers of the Union. Nor is it right to claim that saying no to the treaty would amount to leaving; the European Union. As paragraph 26 of White Paper sets out:
"If a new Treaty cannot be agreed, or ratified, thee the EU would still carry on under its current arrangements…It would not collapse".
That is perfectly true. We have a choice. Like the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, I say to those who say that much of this has been conceded already and that it is just that people have not noticed, that that is even more reason why they should now be faced with the full picture and given a choice.
The constitution starts by stating:
"Reflecting the will of the citizens and States of Europe to build a common future".
The question that it begs is what future we want to build. That is why, if the Government bring back to Parliament a constitution based on this draft I hope

251
that Members of this House, whether or not they agree with it, will join me and others in voting for an amendment that will insist that the UK public has that choice in a referendum before the treaty is ratified.
9.41 p.m.
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I join with others in congratulating the European Union Committee on the extensive and thorough work that it has carried out in subjecting the proposals of the Convention on the Future of Europe to sustained scrutiny. The committee has been prolific in its output and I very much welcome its 35th report. The report puts key questions to the Government. In my contribution I wish to pose questions not embodied in the committee's report and not addressed in the White Paper.
Previously I criticised the process by which the draft constitution was produced. The convention was too large to be a proper drafting body and too small to be a fully representative body. The convention working groups produced reports, but the final drafting was the responsibility of the Presidium which met in private. The president has expressed the hope that the draft will form the basis of the final document, with few amendments.
In short, we are being pressed to work within a context set by the draft constitution. Given the significance of what is proposed, I believe that we must resist adopting an approach that is so confined. Discussion must necessarily be reactive, as we have a draft document before us, but it should not be unduly narrow. We have to look beyond the particular provisions of the draft constitution. We have to engage in a much wider discussion for reasons that are particular to the United Kingdom. We have to look at it in the context of the British constitution. We have to do so from two perspectives.
The first perspective is that of our basic constitutional framework. Since the United Kingdom became a member of the European Communities we have not addressed how our membership fits with our existing constitutional arrangements. We have variously changed our domestic law to meet our treaty commitments, but we have not stood back and considered the full implications for the shape of the British constitution. There is some awareness that the legal implications of membership have not been wholly compatible with the basic principles of the British constitution, but we have attempted to live with that incompatibility rather than address the matter directly and seek to resolve it.
I believe that we should grasp the opportunity that this draft constitution presents to us to stand back and to ask some fundamental questions. How does the proposed constitution fit with the basic tenets of our constitution? What are the implications for the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, once described as the cornerstone of the British constitution? What are the basic principles that should dictate our stance in assessing this document as a constitution? It is not
252
sufficient to take a narrow stance, proceeding on the basis that the proposed constitution is necessary for practical and political purposes. It may be necessary on those grounds but it is not sufficient to confine our discussion to those grounds. We must revert to first principles.
I am conscious of the argument that the draft constitution draws together existing provisions of the treaties and therefore represents no fundamental change to existing constitutional arrangements. Even if that were the case, it does not invalidate the point that I advance. We have not properly assessed the implications of EU membership for the British constitution. The draft constitution before us does not make the case for such an assessment but rather reinforces it. The need pre-dates the drafting of this document, but now that we have a draft constitution the need becomes more urgent.
The second perspective is that of the Government's own approach to constitutional change. They have introduced several measures of constitutional change. Some have been what may be termed first-order reforms to the constitution, including devolution and the Human Rights Act; others have been second order, such as changes to the internal structure of local government. Taken together, they have wrought a major change to the shape of the British constitution.
Given the scale and nature of the change, one must ask: what is the Government's basic approach to constitutional change? I put that question in the debate that I initiated at the end of last year on the constitution. In replying, the then Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, conceded that the Government did not have an overarching definition of the constitution and, by logical inference, an overarching theory. Instead he said that the Government's constitutional reforms were guided by three principles:
"The first is that we should remain a parliamentary democracy with the Westminster Parliament supreme and within that the other place the dominant partner. Secondly…we should increase public engagement in democracy, developing a maturer democracy with different centres of powers where individuals enjoy greater rights and where government is carried out closer to the people…Our third principle is that the correct road to reform was to devise a solution to each problem on its own terms".—[Official Report, 18/12/02: col. 692.]
It does not take too much reflection to recognise that those principles do not amount to an intellectually coherent approach. The Government have pursued constitutional reform on a disjointed basis. We are today debating the draft constitution, so this is a European debate. We have had debates on devolution, regional government and human rights, but what attempt has been made to consider how they relate to one another? The only attempt at linkage came in the Lord Chancellor's three principles. Given that, can the Minister tell how us the constitutional change before us fits with those principles? We also need to go beyond that. We need to know how the Government view the British constitution. How does the draft constitution fit with the Government's vision of what the British constitution should be?

253
I was going to make several other points, including one on the Charter of Fundamental Rights—the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, will not be surprised to hear that. The subject is dealt with—rather inadequately—in the White Paper. However, for reasons of time, and because other speakers have discussed the charter, I will confine myself to brief comments on democracy and the calls for a referendum.
The preface to the draft constitution states that the convention was asked to draw up proposals on,
"how to bring citizens closer to the European design and European Institutions".
I thought that the purpose was the other way round: to bring EU institutions closer to the people. The terminology, to my mind, reflects a paternalistic attitude and therefore invites critical scrutiny. To what extent do the Government believe the constitution comes anywhere near achieving that goal? There is more transparency and there are greater powers for the European Parliament. There is provision for a citizens' initiative. But what about creating such an opportunity for national parliaments? The proposals to give national parliaments a greater role are to be welcomed but, as various speakers said, they do not go far enough.
I appreciate that part of the problem is not simply the convention but also national governments. There is also much that national parliaments can do on their own initiative, independent of any formal EU provision. None the less, far more can and should be done to ensure that the representatives of the people in the member states have a greater say in the process of European law-making.
On the call for a referendum, I make one simple point. I have a principled objection to referendums. The problem for the Government is that they do not. They have conceded the case for referendums. They claim to have done so where the issue is one of whether or not one should join, or withdraw from, a particular institution. That particular claim is not sustainable, given that the Government have previously conceded the case for a referendum on the electoral system.
The draft constitution is a measure of constitutional significance. Even if it simply drew together existing provisions, the form in which it does so is itself a constitutional innovation. I engage in a rare disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, in asserting that this is a constitution for the reasons touched upon by my noble friend Lord Blackwell. In both form and content, this is much more than a tidying-up exercise.
That point brings me full circle. We need to stand back to have a much fuller understanding of the constitutional implications of what is proposed. Otherwise, we are in danger of walking into something with our eyes closed.
9.51 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and his committee on producing their report. There are 16 questions about the draft
254
constitution. They are certainly important questions, but I suggest that there was a 17th question that might have been asked; namely, do we need this constitution at all?
The noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, pointed out the gulf between rhetoric and reality in the European Union. The Laeken declaration is an example of that. It is stuffed full of windy platitudes about,
"bringing the EU closer to its citizens".
through a,
"clear, open and democratically controlled Community approach".
What this draft constitution will bring is the precise opposite: an EU in which ever more power has been handed over to the unelected centre. For example, can the Minister point to a single example in which the constitution proposes to return power from the unelected Brussels bureaucracy to the nation states and their citizens, in line with the Laeken mandate? The trouble in answering that question is that there is not one. In all the 136 pages of the draft that I have here, there is no mention of returning powers to the nation states or their citizens.
Why do the Government think it right or necessary to sign up to a constitution that gives more powers to the unaccountable, inefficient and fraudulent EU institutions? Incidentally, those powers are called "competencies" in the draft document, that is the preferred Eurojargon, although as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, pointed out, it means powers. Specifically, do the Government intend to sign up to Article 10, which states that:
"Member States shall take all appropriate measures—general or particular—to ensure fulfilment of the obligations flowing from the Constitution or resulting from Union Institution acts".
If so, why? It is simply a blank cheque made out to the European Union.
Do the Government agree with Article II, which states:
"That the union shall have the power to promote and co-ordinate the economic and employment policies of Member States"?
And in a further power-grab in the same article, do they agree:
"That the Union shall have the power to define and implement a common foreign and security policy"?
Simply translated, that means that they supply the policies and we supply the troops.
Mr Peter Hain, a worthy successor to Keith Vaz, is quoted in today's edition of The Times as saying
"We got a very good result for Britain; we achieved all of our strategic objectives."
Will the Minister confirm that it really is the Government's strategic objective to hand over economic, employment and foreign policy to the European Union? Is it one of the Government's objectives to give away the powers in the areas listed in Article 13, which is the article to which the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, referred? It involves an extensive shopping list that includes freedom, security, justice, transport, and so on and so forth, including economic and territorial cohesion—like my noble friend Lord Howell, I am puzzled about what that is. I wonder whether the Minister would care to enlighten us in her winding-up speech.

255
I must ask whether the Government believe that it is in Britain's interests to sign up to Article 14, which states that,
"Member States shall coordinate their economic policies within the Union".
Will they agree to allow the Union to,
"adopt measures to ensure coordination of the employment policies of the Member States"?
That should be a real vote-winner. I can see the manifesto already: "The Labour Party's strategic objective will be to adopt measures to bring our unemployment levels up to those of our EU competitors". It must be true; Mr Peter Hain has said so.
What about Article 15, which gives the Union power in all areas of foreign policy and adds the compulsion on all member states to "actively and unreservedly support" that policy?
How can it possibly be in Britain's strategic interest to allow France, for example, to have more say in our foreign policy?
When sad Euro-anoraks such as myself who have followed the development of the constitution question the need for it, we are told, "Don't worry. It is just setting the limits of European power". Not so. Article 17. the so-called flexibility clause, demolishes that excuse completely. It allows the Union to extend its powers under the constitution at any time in the future without having to go through the tiresome business of having that extension ratified by the parliaments of member states. That is another shining example of bringing Europe closer to its citizens.
Finally, like my noble friend Lord Tugendhat, I ask why we need the Beano, which varies from the plonkingly irrelevant, such as the reference to the right to life—since when has the right to life been in the gift of Brussels?—to the utterly inane, such as the reference to the right of access to a free placement service, which. I think, my noble friend mentioned. Are the Government still against incorporating the Beano in the constitution or are they for it? Are they sitting on the fence? We need some enlightenment on that.
All the articles that I mentioned are central to the draft constitution. In spite of Mr Hain's glib assurances, none of them advances Britain's strategic interests. On the contrary, they are profoundly damaging to them. Is it right that a Parliament voted in by less than 25 per cent of the electorate for a fixed term of five years should be able to impose a permanent and irrevocable constitution on the people of this country, without their consent in a referendum? Surely not.
In his excellent speech, the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, exploded the myth that Parliament—this House or another place—could have any role in amending the constitutional treaty. The Economist magazine of 21st June asked, after reviewing the constitution at some length, where it should be filed. It came to the conclusion that it should be filed in the waste-paper basket. I agree with that verdict.
9.57 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, it has been my great good fortune to have had the opportunity to serve as a member of the Select Committee on the European Union for the past few months. As I have, for the most part, escaped the greatest burden of work entailed in keeping your Lordships informed on the progress of the convention, I feel free to pay tribute to the noble Lords who have given so freely of their time, experience and knowledge. I also pay tribute to Mr Simon Burton and his staff on the Committee Floor for the heroic achievement of keeping abreast of such a complex and ever-changing constitutional landscape. Finally, I welcome the chance to acknowledge gratefully the energy, commitment and leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell. Enormously valuable work has emerged under his chairmanship, and more will follow.
I should declare an interest of a sort. Along with, I think, an overwhelming majority of the members of my party, I do not believe that it would be in the country's interest to leave the European Union. I am proud of the prominent contribution that my party has made over the years to the development of the European Union, especially in the sphere of the single market. As my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford said, the Foreign Secretary is, quite simply, wrong to speak of dogmatic hatred on the part of the Conservative Party towards the European Union.
Perhaps, the Foreign Secretary confused a general dislike with what we do indeed dislike. I can speak only for myself. but I am sure that others will join me in hating the features of the European Union that, for instance, encourage and condone fraud, add to the troubles and woes of the developing world or needlessly curtail freedom. There are actions that stifle enterprise and growth and things that condemn millions of fellow Europeans to unemployment and dependency.
The noble Lord, Lord Williamson, with his colossal knowledge and loyalty to the European Union. must acknowledge that there are faults as well as good points. There is a tendency in the European Union to forge ahead with new and exciting ventures without ever doing any house-cleaning in terms of some of the intractable problems that remain.
But, of course, most Conservatives wish the European enterprise well, as they should, and there is no doubt much good in the draft document. But my disappointment, having read and re-read it, is that little or nothing is offered to address the real and intractable problems that exist now, and are acknowledged to exist. On the eve of enlargement. it seems that a real opportunity has been missed.
From this constitution, huge consequences will flow for the future of this country and its people. I implore the Government to abandon the deceit of concealing from the British people the true scale of this undertaking. As the hour is late, I shall refer to just two aspects of the draft document on which I hope the Minister may shed some light. My questions relate to criminal justice and to the charter of fundamental rights.

257
Provision is made in the draft constitution for the control of significant areas of our criminal law to be handed over to Brussels. Has the Minister read, and does she accept, the opinion of the European Scrutiny Committee in another place as set out in Volume 1 of its 26th Report, for the Session 2002—namely, that in matters of criminal justice,
"It requires a degree of ownership by the public if it is to function properly, and the only forum in which such ownership can be established is the national parliament"?
The paragraph concludes:
"Equally, we do not believe that democratic legitimacy is secured by a system of voting which allows Member States to be outvoted and thereby obliged to introduce changes in their criminal law and procedure with which they do not agree".
It comes as no surprise to me that, in another place—that most ancient body of representational government—it is well understood that a diluted demos in the end becomes no demos at all; and by that means democratic government is compromised and ultimately destroyed.
Secondly. will the Minister confirm that the charter of fundamental rights as set out in the proposed constitution—in spite of the reference to subsidiarity—will affect large areas of our law? Am I right in my understanding that interpretation and enforcement of the terms of the charter are intended to rest with the European Court of Justice? I appreciate that the Minister mentioned this in her opening remarks, but rather like the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, I was not quite clear as to what she was saying. Perhaps she will enlarge on it.
I suspect that the Government will deal with the difficult points of this afternoon's debate by telling us not to worry, as this is just a draft and everything is for negotiation. But the truth is that even the concept of what we are discussing has an enormity about it, as the noble Lord, Lord Owen, said. By way of illustration, I remember being greatly struck by a powerful speech in this House on 25th January 1995 by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, on the subject of human rights. I do not have his permission, and I hope t hat he will not mind my quoting him. The noble and learned Lord said:
"I think that it is important to remember that in this country our approach to human rights is, and always has been, different from that of many others. It is a difference of which I personally am very proud. It lies in the fact that in this country the citizen does not have to identify any right to justify his conduct. He has total freedom of conduct unless restrained by law; and it is for those who complain of his conduct to identify what law it is which interferes with his freedom. He has no need of a list of freedoms, or rights of freedom. He has them anyway".—[Official Report, 25/1/95; col. 1145.]
With an eloquence that I could never hope to match, I believe that that speech of the noble and learned Lord describes to perfection the sheer enormity that I referred to. We really are in very new territory here, and therefore we need to tread carefully.
I echo my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke and others who asked: what place has this charter got in this constitution? I believe that it has none. It is a self-evident case that the British people are owed the chance to decide on their destiny through the means of
258
a referendum. I, too, have no love of a referendum. Ministers may be right to point out that my party has been hostile in the past to the practice of holding referenda. Until 1997 they were used sparingly and, I think, never by a Conservative government.
But, as my noble friend Lord Norton and others have pointed out, this Government have changed all that. They have changed the method by which we make decisions in this country. Referenda have become a much—used constitutional device. It now becomes increasingly absurd for them to pick and choose what issues should be determined through referenda and what issues should not. I understand that in my native Cumbria I shall have a vote as to the nature of future government in my region. It is a vote which I intend to use. But are the Government seriously suggesting that a European constitution, with the huge consequences discussed by so many noble Lords, is somehow less important than how my refuse is collected in Cumbria?
We were asked to accept that this was about reconnecting with the citizen. It plainly does not. Part I of the draft constitution opens with the words,
"Reflecting the will of the citizens",
as has been pointed out. At the right time, we should allow our citizens to express their will. Failure to trust them will not only further corrode their trust in the political process; I believe that they will rise in furious reaction when they come to understand what has been perpetrated in their name and without their consent. That is something which the Government must strive to avoid.
10.6 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, too, should like to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, for the work which he and his committee have done and are doing, and for the perceptive and relevant questions that they are asking on this great subject. The whole of the debate illustrates the remarkable capability which your Lordships' House has in addressing this very big issue. It would be interesting to know which other parliaments in the EU also have such a capability.
In his introduction to the White Paper, which we received this morning, the Prime Minister stated:
"It is emphatically in our national interest that Britain continues to shape the key debates, as a new Europe is born".
That says two things to me. First, I totally agree that it is. Secondly, it disposes very neatly with any suggestion that this whole operation is merely tidying up. There could not be more contrary words than that.
I should like to pay tribute to the Prime Minister. Like the most ambitious circus performer, for six years he has been riding four different horses at the same time; that is, Anglo/American relations, relations with Europe, Thatcherite economic policies and the Labour Party. None of them is an easy ride as they tend to pull in different directions. So it is quite a feat to stay mounted. The Labour Party, which ought to be the best school for this particular rider, seems not to be behaving too well. Indeed. in Brighton this week, the TUC is looking more and more like "Jurassic Park".

259
However, I congratulate the Prime Minister on his performance to date and humbly express a personal hope that he will be able to stay on board until the election.
But today we are discussing the European mount. I should like to suggest a context in which we should look at the convention that is on offer today. First, I have always been uneasy at the idea of a French-designed convention. Its architects like to refer to the analogy with Philadelphia. The convention of 1787 produced the United States constitution, which is short, clear and brilliantly drafted. It has had 24 amendments only—10 of which were the first, in the Bill of Rights in 1791—in the past 200 years. France has had far more attempts than the United States at getting itself a constitution.
The present French constitution dating from 1958 is called, I think, the Fifth Republic—and that is after a couple of empires and a short lived restoration of the monarchy. Indeed, we should bear in mind that five years after the successful American convention, another European convention was held in France. It was established in September 1792. It at once abolished the monarchy. In January of the following year it executed the king, in February it declared war on England, in May it introduced draconian economic controls and in September it launched the Terror as a method of governance. It was eventually wound up in October 1795, Robespierre having been disposed of the year before.
History fully justifies us in expressing caution at the prospects raised by this latest French convention. We must remember too that for some 700 years, a thread though French history has been the struggle to establish or to maintain French hegemony in Europe, in particular through frequent conflicts—sometimes military and sometimes political—with England. In this, since 1945, France has increasingly been able to enlist Germany as an ally.
We must remember, too, that for Europe to survive economically within a free trade world, where manufacturing will be increasingly dominated by Chinese manufacturers, it is crucial that France and Germany should reform their economic and social structures. They show little sign of doing this. Euroland's economy is in bad shape. Germany is likely to end up with zero economic growth this year, and France with only 0.7 per cent, compared with 1.8 per cent for Britain and 2.4 per cent for the USA. One of my worries is that the proposed constitution will be used to avoid this restructuring by requiring relatively efficient countries such as Britain to adjust down to a level playing field at the Franco German level. After that, there would be pressures for protectionism, which would make the outlook for the EU bleak indeed.
I, too, find the argument about a referendum particularly difficult. Given that under the Royal Prerogative the British Government have full authority to agree a new Treaty of Rome or wherever, the only formal role for Parliament is to enact the consequential legislation. I think that this arrangement needs to be
260
adjusted. The Government should have asked Parliament for a negotiating mandate, and today's White Paper could have been a good start. I should like to see that White Paper used as a draft amendable by Parliament. The Government could then go into IGC negotiations with such a mandate, which of course would have to include some flexibility. The Government would report back to Parliament and a vote in both Houses would then provide guidance. If Parliament said that the deal was not good enough, the Government could still ask for an endorsement of the agreement reached through a referendum.
However, my main worry about a referendum in the present situation in this country is that it would be seen as a referendum to quit the European Union. Very few of us—there may be one or two, but I am certainly not one—would dream of voting for that. In itself that could mean that an unacceptable new constitution would not be rejected in such a referendum—as it should be. However, clear red lines from which the Government would not budge, with the prospect of a referendum, could help their negotiating hand.
There is something of a precedent for such an approach in the negotiations which took place in 1983–84 on the future of Hong Kong. At the start, the line taken by the Foreign Office was that we want the best agreement possible, but we must have an agreement. That was not a strong negotiating position. It was only at a late stage when Mrs Thatcher sent her Minister of State, now the noble Lord, Lord Luce, and her then Secretary of State, my noble and learned friend Lord Howe, to Beijing to make it clear that she would not recommend to the House of Commons an agreement which was unacceptable to the people of Hong Kong, that the Chinese started to make some pretty crucial concessions. We ended up with a rather good agreement.
We will no doubt be told that all this is too late. I do not agree. The IGC does indeed start quite soon on 4th October, but, as a number of noble Lords—including my noble friend Lord Howell, my noble and learned friend Lord Howe and the noble Lord, Lord Owen—have said, the negotiations should go on for as long as it takes. That will be well beyond the end of the present year.
I believe that Europe should move forward on the basis of variable geometry. The original precedent for this of course was in January 1966 when France insisted on the Luxembourg compromise to allow the use of the veto on matters of crucial national interest. The more recent precedent was of course the Maastricht Treaty of 1991 when we and others secured the opt-out from EMU. Even now it is the practice. After all, when in June this year the first fumbling footsteps were taken, through the mid-term review, to reform the CAP, special concessions were agreed for the French.
I do not have time to go through all the particularly objectionable clauses, but I would certainly go along with all of those who emphasised the total unacceptability of Section 4 of Article 24. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that that part at least has double red lines around it.

261
I should like to make two points. Like the noble Lords, Lord Harris of High Cross and Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, I hate the sloppy transliteration of the French word "competence" into "competence". The correct translation is of course "powers". That would make the implication of the present proposals much clearer, at least to the public. I would not go quite as far as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and say that the whole thing is frightfully badly drafted, but I am reminded that one of the first things that Winston Churchill did when he became Prime Minister in 1940 was to change the name of the LDV—the Local Defence Volunteers—to the Home Guard.
My other worry is the way in which the Single European Act has already been used to undermine the application of subsidiarity. I imagine that your Lordships know that even the British system of hallmarking precious metals, which dates from Edward I in 1300, is under threat from a new draft directive.
Finally, I must say to the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, that I was a little surprised at the relish with which she mentioned the additional £1.9 billion to our GDP as the prize for a successful conclusion of this great enterprise. That is less than 0.2 per cent of GDP—much less than the error that even the best economic forecasters expect in their estimates of GDP. If that is really the juiciest apple that Eve can offer, I am not sure that I shall be tempted to take a bite.
I hope that the Government will use the views expressed in the debate as part of their negotiating hand next month.
10.18 p.m.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, as responsibility passes to the Government to take forward the reshaping of Europe's governance to take into account the demands of enlargement, I hope that Ministers will have found the debate helpful. Certainly the speech of the noble Lord. Lord Grenfell, speaking on behalf of the Select Committee of the House, was properly questioning although not at all querulous. He and his committee have provided a great service both to the convention directly and to the House. The prospect of his continuing scrutiny of the forthcoming inter-governmental debates gives encouragement to us all.
Speaking as the only participant in the debate who has had the very great privilege of serving on the convention, I can say that the debate itself reflects some of the difficulties of seeking to represent the House, there being a spectrum of views which is quite broad, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, said, the debate has been constructive throughout.
We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, how suspicious—perhaps even contemptuous—he is of the thought of having any protection for children's freedom of speech. By contrast, we heard from my noble friend Lord Watson of Richmond how, out of the mouths of babes and sucklings, came forth the wisdom of the European Union's proposed motto "United in Diversity".
262
The debate has also indicated what extraordinary diversities of expectation of the convention there have been in this House. I have to express some dissent from one which was expressed in a number of quarters that we should at least aspire to the work of the founding fathers of the United States. It seems to me that one can have too romantic a view of that constitution. Although my children carry American passports, I cannot forget that the United States constitution did not prevent the bloodiest civil war in the 19th century. Nor, more recently, can I overlook the fact that the choice of the United States President—its chief executive—was decided not by the United States citizens but by the Supreme Court. That constitution may have some attractiveness, but it is certainly not a model to be followed.
The difficulties of serving on this convention and meeting the task set by the Laeken council were certainly daunting. How could some 200 representatives of 25 countries of widely differing political persuasions sit down together and reach consensual conclusions on how to improve the governance of the European Union? That this was achieved with a mere handful of dissenters owes much, I believe, to the statesmanlike guidance of the convention's chairman from France, Valery Giscard d'Estaing, supported by the high professionalism of the convention's Secretary-General, Sir John Kerr.
The conclusions of the convention also owe a great deal, I believe, to the well judged readiness of its members to give and take in the interests of achieving the shared purposes. The result was, as Giscard put it, not a series of compromises so much as a synthesis of the members' views. No one achieved everything., but I believe that the end product provides an acceptable framework for future Union action.
I was greatly heartened by the words of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton. He, almost alone in the debate—perhaps because he, almost alone in the debate, had read the relevant sections completely—praised the first part of the convention for its clarity, simplicity and brevity.
As the convention has now to pass over its work to the IGC, it is proper to consider whether it has contributed to the achievement of the two necessities which dominated our consideration throughout. Will it allow the European Union to act more effectively across a wider front, and will it allow it to act more democratically? I use the word "allow" advisedly. The constitution of a polity cannot ensure effectiveness of action any more than it can ensure democracy against wilful neglect, but it can make more likely the attainment of the agreed policy goals by providing suitable instrumentalities to devise, to revise and to execute these policies. It can offer systems of accountability which give the members of that polity—its citizens—some confidence that their views, their priorities, are informing the decisions of those whom they have entrusted with power to act on their behalf.
The proposed constitution in my judgment offers the opportunity to member states to make real advances on both fronts: effectiveness and democracy.

263
If those two requirements are met—and the first is not possible without the second—we may look forward to a new era in which the role of the Union is accepted by its citizens as the natural and beneficent way of achieving what the European nation states are quite unable to achieve on their own.
How significant are these proposed constitutional changes? I think that of all today's contributions the nearest to the mark was that of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, in expressing the view that the proposed constitution is more fundamental than Amsterdam and Nice, but less significant than Maastricht and the Single European Act. It is in part a consolidation of existing Union law. Those who, for example, represent the clause embodying the supremacy of European law over our own domestic law as a remarkable departure are simply unhistorical, for that was decided by the European Court of Justice seven years before this country had a referendum on whether we should remain in the Union.
Nonetheless, it seems that there is a major problem which faces the Union and which contributes to some extent to the lack of acceptance, not only in this country but in a number of others. Although it was not the centre point of his speech, my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf referred to it. In the 10 years which have elapsed since the entry into force of the Maastricht Treaty the critics of the Union—and they are to be found in all member countries—have made their strongest point when they have highlighted the great gaps between the Union's promise and performance. Notwithstanding the developments of the single market and the widespread entry into force of monetary union, itself of historic significance, the perception has grown that the Union is long on rhetoric and short on delivery. European citizenship was proclaimed at Maastricht, but its attributes remained undefined; a charter of rights was declared but given no legal effect; an area of justice, freedom and security was announced; but, in terms of limiting cross-border crime, in checking of illegal immigration, in arresting the trafficking in people across the Union, the consequences of these new spheres of Union activity seemed exiguous.
As for the proposed common foreign and security policy, the presence of 120 troops in Macedonia and some contribution to the concept of the quartet to advance the Middle East peace process seems scarcely to justify the grandiloquent claims of the advocates of the Union's second pillar.
If the Union will not do more to give effect to these proclaimed purposes, doubts will give way to disbelief. That, in turn, could even erode public support for the very institutions, all of which have delivered so much of benefit in the economic sphere to this country and to the other members of the Union.
There was no conspiracy within the convention to enlarge the scope of the Union's powers at the expense of the member states. There was a widespread perception of the need to strengthen the Union's ability to do what its members have long agreed that it should do. That concern explains such proposed
264
innovations as the more durable presidency of the Council and the appointment of a Union foreign minister to underwrite the ministers' will to act and to link to that the capabilities of the Commission. I heard the dissenting voice of the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, on that point, but I have to say that to pile all the hopes for foreign policy on to the shoulders of the already heavily burdened chairman of the Council seems to me unwise and that what is proposed is more likely to achieve success.
The concern about a gap between achievement and rhetoric also underlies the proposed simplification of the Union's procedures as well as the reduction in the number of members of the Commission. That concern prompted the redefinition of qualified majority voting—which does indeed reflect to a truer extent the greater weight of the larger countries and will no doubt have to be defended against criticism from some of the smaller countries. That concern led to the adoption in Article 43 of the proposals for enhanced co operation between member states to further the objectives of the Union. It is not the best way of proceeding, but it is the way that will be followed if there cannot he wider agreement unanimously arrived at.
Ultimately, the Union's effectiveness must depend upon the will of Europe's citizens to support it. That will, along with that of the member states, is recognised in the first article of the proposed treaty as the foundation of the Union's legitimacy. The Union is primarily for its own citizens. That is why the convention sought better to define their rights and obligations as citizens by incorporating the charter of rights as the second part of the treaty. On that point, I thought that the words of the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, were compelling and persuasive. I hope that that is the view that is adopted by Her Majesty's Government at the IGC.
Recognition that the will of the citizen must be sustained underlines the steps proposed to strengthen the democratic workings of the Union. That recognition led to recommendations to fortify the powers and responsibilities of the European Parliament—the citizens' Parliament. It also explains the insistence on greater openness, particularly of the Council in lawmaking. It also explains steps taken to clarify and simplify the legislative processes. It is the reason for enabling national parliaments to work more closely with the European institutions and for strengthening the procedures to secure recognition of subsidiarity in all the institutions.
Earlier I spoke of the constitution "allowing" the Union to act more democratically. I would choose two issues to illustrate the point. Our citizens will feel less disconnected if they have some influence over the choice of Europe's leaders. That is why I hope that the proposals for the election of the European Commission will encourage political parties standing for election to the European Parliament across Europe to indicate to their electors who if elected their preferred choice would be for the presidency of the Commission. Similarly, while leaving responsibility for devising policy proposals to the Union's executive bodies, the Council and the Commission, I would hope

265
that these same political parties seeking election would explain to their electors how if elected they would seek to alter, add to or prioritise the rolling multi annual strategic programme of the Union. Citizens' involvement in these matters is not in my judgment a second-order priority.
I conclude by briefly addressing what might be called the "British problem". Every European debate in this country seems to be contained within a wider question—do we want to go forward within a more integrated Europe? It seems probable that the 21st century will be the century of continental powers. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, was right in envisaging multi-polarity as our future, with China, South Asia, America and Europe as the great poles. We could choose to hold ourselves at arm's length from that, but to do so we should have to be willing to be less the masters of our own destiny. To be uncommitted is not the historic role of Britain. I hope that with the adoption of the proposed constitution broadly as it has been advanced, although certainly there will be some changes, my Government and my country will cast their uncertainty aside for good.
10.35 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, for introducing this very important, long-awaited government White Paper so clearly, and for the opportunity to debate the questioning report of the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell. We look forward to the noble Baroness's answers. It is always a privilege to contribute to these impressive debates. I feel very humble replying to the debate from our side after such a long list of distinguished speakers.
This debate is important as the constitutional treaty will be stupendous in its effect, as my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford said. It will inevitably have a far-reaching effect on the lives of everyone in this country as well as throughout Europe. I am saddened, though, at the show of disrespect to your Lordships by the Government in that we received a document of such great importance at 9.30 this morning. Perhaps with a great team of researchers it could have been scrutinised properly. However, I do not consider that to be a serious way of conducting business, as many of your Lordships have said. Alas, I am not the speed reader mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay.
As my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford so rightly said at the beginning, there may not be enormous public interest at the moment but what interests the public and the media is not the same as what is in the public interest. I feel that the real debate that we hope to have before a referendum will come too late when all will have been decided. We may well end up with not a debate, but just a mobilisation of prejudices.
At this late stage I shall try to be brief. We are enormously grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, chairman of the European Union Committee, for the knowledge and expertise he brings to this House, and for his committee's 14 reports. We welcome the
266
searching questions which are essential, and 'A ill need answers, for the IGC in October and if the constitutional treaty comes before the British public for a referendum. Those questions are also probably relevant to any other country that holds a referendum. Without most of those answers it is difficult to know how the final paper will look.
From studying the speeches in previous debates on this subject I must confess to being not at all surprised at the way in which the debate developed today. The chairman, Valery Giscard d'Estaing, had the discernment to refer to the constitution-making at Philadelphia in 1787. He stated from the beginning that the one main objective was to shorten and simplify the treaty to make it a more comprehensible document and to bring it nearer to the people. I am afraid that that is an old mantra that we have all heard for years. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is right that with each enlargement there has been more centralisation. But enlargement is agreed by most people to be the right way forward for too many reasons to go into this evening.
I fully agree with my noble friend Lord Inglewood; I often wonder whether we have lost sight of the original aim of the treaty. It was not to centralise further the European Union but to create a workable framework for the enlargement to take place. One does not preclude the other.
I was deeply involved with the applicant nations, from the great moment when each one elected for the first time for years a democratic government of their own. The freedoms that they subsequently enjoyed mean more than words can say. They do not want to join a European Union to be dominated all over again.
Fifteen of the 25 nations of the enlarged Union met in Prague last week to plead for changes in the constitutional treaty, to make it more democratic, so that they could join a decentralised democratic institution for their future stability. That is the aspiration for the new member states. Countries such as Poland and the Czech Republic, as well as the applicant countries such as Bulgaria, are all still full of the dynamism and hope for those ideals.
As my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford said so eloquently, if this constitutional treaty of the European Union overrides our own unwritten one and is to be approved in a broadly unaltered state, it is almost certain that a national referendum s really necessary. It is the people who have given their Parliament and the executive certain powers, and it is from the people that any approval for a radical transfer in those powers, as now proposed, must come. I hope that the Minister can answer the question from my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding and the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, on the possible use of the Parliament Act if an amendment were voted through in this House.
I am not at all surprised at the widely divergent opinions from the debate. Many noble Lords have welcomed the constitutional shift. Others have feared the subjugation of Britain's sovereignty and the creation of a less accountable bureaucracy.

267
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, asked, what purpose does the charter of human rights serve? It casts doubts in the minds of many noble Lords, understandably when they read pieces such as that on the rights of the child, with the demand for children expressing their views. Those are important subjects, but surely not for this document.
Many noble Lords were unhappy about the QMV changes. My noble friend Lord Saatchi, in a fascinating speech, mentioned the weighting of the votes. I am worried about the references to changes in weights. I remember clearly when I was in the European Parliament that the agreement with Germany at the time of reunification was that it would receive more MEPs, raising its number to 99, but that it would never increase its votes in Council. Can the Minister shed light on that?
I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and others touched on development assistance. He wondered, rightly, if insensitive trade policies were to be addressed. The trade policies towards future applicant countries such as Albania, Bulgaria and Romania are of the utmost importance as they approach membership.
We could have debated few more important subjects this afternoon and evening for the future of this country. Contrary to this White Paper's assertions—assertions that would not be believed elsewhere in Europe and are not believed here—this constitution will fundamentally change the nature of the European Union and all member states, including our own, and our relationship with it. No one can doubt that our relationship with the European Union is vital for our future. Our shared cultural heritage and attachment to democracy is far greater than all the differences. We cannot forget that the European Union forms part of the bedrock of the western alliances.
At the IGC, the European Union will be endowed with a written constitution, a single legal personality, a permanent President of the European Council, a legally binding Charter of Fundamental Rights and a Foreign Minister served by a diplomatic service. Its powers may well be extended in competences from economic management, through energy policy, to justice and home affairs. Let no one doubt that this will have a direct impact on people's everyday lives.
As my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford said at the start of this debate quoting from the foreword of the White Paper, the Prime Minister wrote that the reforms proposed,
"do not alter the fundamental…relationship between the Member States and the Union".
Yet in private, according to Mr Peter Hain and as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, the Prime Minister really thinks that the European Union constitutional treaty is, first, absolutely fundamental; secondly, more important than Iraq; and, thirdly, will define our relationship with the rest of Europe for generations. I wonder how the Minister reconciles the
268
public versus the private views of the Prime Minister. Those are according to an article in the Evening Standard, to which I have just referred.
Many noble Lords have stressed that the European Union's institutions are losing touch with the peoples of Europe. Laeken recognised that. Yet this constitutional treaty does little to rectify this disconnection between Europe's elites and its voters. More centralisation will certainly not be the answer.
The Conservative Party wants the European Union to succeed in the 21st century and it is vital for Britain that it should do so. That is why we have urged that we should start building Europe from bottom up, not from top down; that national parliaments should have increased powers in the EU; and that the Union should develop flexibly, not through a tight uniformity for an EU of 25 nation states.
But since this constitutional treaty is the answer that was given to the questions posed at Laeken, should it now be for the people to judge whether they are satisfied with it? Finally, as we cannot amend this document and will be reliant on the Government to carry out the changes needed at the IGC, I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that she has taken on board and will use the interesting suggestions delivered so eloquently and passionately by noble Lords today for the Government's negotiating position.
10.48 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we have had a good debate. The intergovernmental conference, considering the draft constitutional treaty, will consider many important issues in an effort to mould a Union that will serve us well for years to come. I say to the noble Baroness who has just wound up for her party that I am very pleased that Her Majesty's Government will have the collective wisdom of your Lordships to inform the views that we take and will draw upon them in discussions at the IGC.
As always, the subject of Europe has excited some of the most articulate contributors in your Lordships' House. It has also brought out some strongly held views, expressed with passion not often seen on other subjects which your Lordships consider. So in the time available I shall do my best to respond to the many comments and questions that have been raised. If I am not able to respond to everything, I shall do so in writing in the next few days.
I start with the noble Lord, Lord Howell, who attacked the view expressed by my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary that the proposals would not change the fundamental relationship between the European Union and the member states. The challenge was reiterated particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont of Lerwick, and the point was made again by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings. I again direct your Lordships' attention to the House of Lords European Union Committee, which concluded that if the proposals were followed the balance of power in the

269
European Union would shift from the Commission in favour of the member states. I believe that that point is worth re-reading in our own committee's report.
Again, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, feared that some in the European Union are motivated towards the proposals in the document because of a desire to balance American power. Perhaps I may say emphatically that that is not the position of the British Government. We believe that these reforms are necessary for the proper working of the European Union itself. But the noble Lord must surely accept that the EU needs to reform, built as it is at present on procedures which were appropriate for a Union of six countries rather than the 25 which we hope to be during the course of next year.
Therefore, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. was right: changes are needed if we are to operate effectively. That point was also emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. However, although I heard the noble Lord, Lord Howell, say that one of his main objectives was, indeed, reform, I did not hear him tell us how reform of the EU could take place so that the Union would operate effectively with 25 members or—Perhaps just as pertinently—how to persuade other EU states to accept his way of thinking.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. was right. A Union of 25 nation states simply will not work without changes to the voting procedures. I agree strongly with the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, concerning the importance of seizing the opportunity now to set our own house in order. I believe that the three points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, were broadly right, particularly, if I may say so, on the question of the competencies. However, I must confess that I am a little ambivalent about his reference to the notion of "competence creep", of which I am sure we shall hear more in the coming weeks.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, then went on to doubt what he described as the Government's "red lines". For as long as I can remember, speaking from this Dispatch Box, the Government have been consistent: unanimity must remain on taxation, on social security, on key areas of criminal law and on policy in terms of what we decide in relation to common and foreign security. Neither the noble Lord, Lord Howell, nor the noble Lord, Lord Eden of Winton, have reason to doubt the Government's intentions. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, was not sure whether there were red lines, as opposed to the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Richmond, who was very sure that they existed but he was sorry about it.
They do exist and I believe it is right that they do. I also believe that they are well understood, not only in your Lordships' House but, if I may say so, on a broader basis. They are the embodiment of the straightforward position urged upon us so eloquently by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. The noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, said that he did not know whether or not they existed but it did not really matter because he
270
was against the proposals either way, whatever the Government ultimately managed to achieve during the course of the negotiations.
I turn to the subject of the White Paper. I am not sure what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and, indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, were criticising—whether it was the time available to read the White Paper or the brevity of the White Paper. I am hound to say that if it had been published earlier, I could just hear the cries of the parties opposite that it had been released to the press before being presented to Parliament. If it had been longer, the criticisms would be that it was over-lengthy, over-complex and impenetrable and a document that no one really wanted to read. It is 59 pages long. I believe that, for most of us, 59 pages was probably not too much to read during the course of six hours.
However, I understand the powerfully argued points of the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, concerning further opportunities to discuss the White Paper on the IGC issues. I listened very carefully to the noble Lord's points about procedural matters and the engagement of Ministers with both Houses of Parliament. I know that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will want to be as helpful as possible to the noble Lord and his committee, and I undertake to draw the noble Lord's points to his attention as quickly as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, wanted more powers for national parliaments, as, indeed, did the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. That was an issue on which the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, my noble friend Lord Judd and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, also concentrated. The convention strengthens the role of national parliaments in shaping EU decisions. Parliament will have a mechanism to send back proposals for EU laws if those laws do not add value.
Some noble Lords clearly remain dissatisfied with the role accorded by the convention to the national parliaments. The noble Lords, Lord Jenkin of Roding and Lord Blackwell, made their dissatisfaction in that respect very clear indeed. But this has been a significant achievement; it has been an important step forward as the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, said. I hope that your Lordships will take advantage of that new mechanism, if it is brought in, to demonstrate your extensive knowledge and interest in European affairs in the scrutiny process that is proposed and to make maximum use of the powers accorded to national parliaments exactly in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, suggested.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, supported—
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, before the Minister leaves that point, will she at least admit on the record that the sixth point of the protocol on subsidiarity says that after the review to which she has referred the Commission may decide to maintain,

271
amend or withdraw its proposal and give its reasons. What real power is that? That is what the protocol says.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, that is what the protocol says and I do not make the claim that it says anything more than that. I made that point clearly in my opening speech and I make no greater claim now. Having waited about eight hours to reply to the debate, if there are to be many such exchanges we shall be here for at least another hour. I say to the noble Lord that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, supported the return of the powers to national parliaments and subsidiarity, although I believe that both the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, came to rather different judgments about the way in which their wishes had been met in the proposals.
Another point that most of your Lordships overlooked—it perhaps adds more to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch—is that it is disappointing that there has not been much interest in partner countries in the principle of proportionality. That refers to how detailed and intrusive legislation—like subsidiarity—was introduced in the Maastricht Treaty. It is a shame that there has not been a concentration on that issue, and I wish that we could have engaged partner countries more on that because I believe that both issues are essentially political issues. Given the natural linkage between the two, we, the British Government, are trying to generate support for proportionality to be considered by national parliamentarians in the same way envisaged for subsidiarity. That adds to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, and I hope that he will take it on board and argue for it because I believe that it is an important point for us to consider.
I assure my noble friend Lord Judd that there is a greater role for national parliamentarians in shaping EU decisions, but I do not make inflated claims for it. I believe that it will increase the EU's democratic legitimacy and accountability. That is as it should be. National parliamentarians are the closest and most visible link hack to their citizens.
I turn to the remarks of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough. He found much to work on in the proposals. I agree strongly with him that a remote political mechanism is not helpful. He spoke very powerfully about making the treaty accessible to people, as did the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, about the terminology in terms of trying to gain support for the proposals as a whole.
The right reverend Prelate was also concerned about the regions. Perhaps I may point out to him that the draft treaty articles and the draft protocols contain a number of references that formally recognise the role of the regions in the EU. That is a major advance and indeed a welcome one. The Government submitted a paper to the convention drawn up in co-operation with the devolved administrations setting out a number of ideas for enhancing the role of the regions, including a more explicit acknowledgement of the role that many
272
regions already play in EU affairs. As with all the government papers on the convention, it is available in the Library of the House.
My noble friend Lord Haskel moved away from the national interest or regional interests to concentrate his remarks on connecting with individuals within the European Union and he asked about the outward looking nature of the EU in commercial relationships. Of course we want a Europe that is outward looking and that continues our progress economically and commercially. We want to encourage efforts towards greater European competitiveness in the global market. This applies to the Government's own achievements in working for British competitiveness.
On a broader basis. the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, asked how many of the proposals are new. He asked for a comprehensive written analysis of how treaty changes compare with previous treaty changes and, in particular, for an analysis of the QMV proposals. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, wanted the Government to spell out how many of the proposals are questions of constitutional consolidation. I hope that there will be a chance to reply to the request of the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, in the Government's response to his committee's report in October. He will know that the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, wrote to my right honourable friend Peter Hain to request a similar analysis before the Recess. I hope that the matter will be resolved very shortly, and that it will answer at least some of the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, on relative voting weights.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, we do not expect formal records of the IGC deliberations to be kept or published. But I repeat the assurances of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary that Ministers will appear before the Standing Committee of the IGC as regularly as requested. Like the noble Lord. Lord Maclennan of Rogart, we welcome the continuing debate in that respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Watson of Richmond, made a very persuasive argument on the need for a president elected by the European Parliament. Of course I share with him the desire to make the Commission as democratic and as accountable as possible. But the great strength of the Commission, and what enables it to be a real guardian of the treaties and guarantor of the rights of all, is its independence from the influence of member states and political groups. Making the president dependent on one or more political groups in the European Parliament does not seem to the Government the best way of ensuring the independence, effectiveness and authority of the Commission.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, was exercised on the question of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The charter attracted caustic criticism from the noble Lords, Lord Lamont, Lord Harris of High Cross, Lord Bowness, Lord Blackwell and Lord Cavendish of Furness. The UK's position has always been that the charter, although welcome as a political declaration, was not drafted in a suitable form for incorporation in the treaties. That remains the case, so in some respects I

273
have sympathy with the points made by some of the noble Lords I mentioned, including some of those made by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings.
The charter is not clear about what our citizens may expect or from whom they may expect it. Such ambiguity and uncertainty is unsatisfactory for the law. The charter was not intended to change the competencies of the Union, and we need to ensure that an incorporated charter is faithful to that. But we have not been afraid to look at ideas about how to give the charter legal status. The challenge has been to find ways to give our citizens legal security and certainty in relation to the charter's ambiguous and conflicting tests.
In answer to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, the status of the charter will be decided at the IGC. The noble Lord raised questions about justice and home affairs. I shall write to him about those because I do not believe that they were very widespread questions. Perhaps he would be kind enough to accept a letter from me on the matter.
I shall now deal with the questions raised by the noble Lords, Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Owen, and the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, who I was very pleased to see back in her place after her absence from your Lordships' House. Let me be positive in this respect, as I was urged to be by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. Britain is committed to playing a leading role in the ESDP. We want to tackle real problems and to deliver capabilities; we want increasing co-operation with partners and to ensure that we have the military force to back up our policies. We want to develop a capabilities agency; we want to update the Petersberg tasks and to create a solidarity clause—three very important proposals.
We do not support the introduction of a common defence, either at 25 or through enhanced co-operation. It is divisive and a duplication of NATO. We do not support anything such as the creation of a standing in a group, or in a corps—call it what you will—on ESDP which would undermine the inclusive, flexible model of ESDP that the EU and NATO have agreed. My noble friend Lord Judd was very exercised, not so much on defence but on the common foreign policy, a theme that engaged the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, who reminded us very eloquently that the CFSP was an innovation under the government led by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. It is also a question that interested the noble Lords, Lord Bowness and Lord Skidelsky.
We said right from the start of the convention that we must focus on making CFSP and the EU external action more coherent and effective. That inevitably involves some discussion of institutional issues, but the matter is not just about institutions. So far, the discussion about the convention has been about practical ways to improve the effectiveness of the CFSP. To do that. we have to be more effective and efficient. We want to improve the coherence of the EU external action and CFSP.
274
Foreign policy co-operation will remain subject to its own distinct procedures, just as it has been since the common foreign policy was set up in the Maastricht Treaty. Common foreign policy can of course be a very positive thing. It certainly helped our missions in Bosnia, the DRC and Macedonia. Of course, we do not agree on everything, which was evidenced recently over Iraq. However, when we can agree, we can have a more influential voice.
I began to think that the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, had read a rather different set of proposals. For example, I hope that he welcomes, as we do, the retention in the convention's draft constitutional treaty—the language makes it clear—that the common foreign and security policy is indeed conducted by member states, the European Council, and the Council of Ministers, as the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said when he described his pleasure on hearing that the unanimity principle had been preserved.
The noble Lord, Lord Lamont of Lerwick, raised the question of the European foreign minister. The creation of a European foreign minister should improve coherence of EU external action across the board. In the IGC, we will need to tackle issues such as whether a European foreign minister would be subject to Commission collegiality, what sort of staff he or she would need and the exact nature of the role. We welcome the clarity of Part I of the constitution and the fact that he or she would be accountable to the council on CFSP.
I wish to make it clear to the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, and, indeed, to the noble Lords, Lord Owen and Lord Tugendhat, that we do not like the job title. We do not like the proposal for the job title of European foreign minister. We think that it is misleading because there is no European government. We created the term "Commissioner" instead of Minister decades ago in order to deal with that very issue. The noble Lord, Lord Owen, also asked about the consolidation of power in the President of the Council and the President to the Commission.
We have repeatedly made it clear that we could not accept the concept of double—hatting unless the person concerned was clearly accountable to the council on CFSP and not subject to Commission collegiality. I hope that that deals with the point raised by the noble Lord. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Owen, that the President of the Council must have the confidence of European heads of government. He suggested that that had to be on the basis of having been a past head of government, but the crucial issue is that the individual concerned must have that confidence. Incidentally, on the question of treaties, which was raised by one of your Lordships during the course of the debate—I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Lamont—of course we will still be able to sign treaties.
The noble Lord. Lord Judd, and the noble Earl. Lord Sandwich, gave us some powerful expositions on global thinking and development issues. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, gently chided me on references that I have made to the national interest. I am sure that he

275
would acknowledge that there is an inherent tension in global thinking in the multilateral forums—whether the EU, the UN or the WTO—and the national interest. However, their global thinking has to be a shared objective if it is to succeed. If only we the British think globally, whilst all others around us think in terms of their national interest, we run a real risk for our people—to whom we have the primary responsibility—in terms of jobs, trade and prosperity.
Of course global thinking is more widespread than it used to be, but we are engaged in an evolving process, not one that can be fixed overnight. There are French farmers, German steelworkers, Gulf oil businessmen and Caribbean sugar producers. None of them forgets the national interest and, in the real world, neither do their governments.
I am sorry to say to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, whose commitment on development issues is second to none, that I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, was right: national interests will prevail, while democratic governments act in what they and those who elect them believe to be the national interest. That is the nature of democracy, as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, reminded us so clearly, with regard to reform of the common agricultural policy. That point was re-emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon.
Of course, it is a hugely interesting debate. The points on national interest were developed by the noble Lord, Lord Owen. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, made some thought-provoking predictions about how our national interest will develop over the next few years in the context of European co-operation on foreign and defence policy. I wish that we had time to debate that.
What next? I listened carefully to the exposition given by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, on how Parliament should deal with the proposals. I thought that his thesis that party politics should be subverted to common sense was an intriguing one. If he can tell us that his own party will espouse his view, I will be surprised. Meanwhile, the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, raised the fundamental issues of the constitution. He believes that the debate defined by the elected parliamentarians in the 15 countries of the EU and the accession countries does not adequately cover the issues. Elected representatives of all parties had the opportunity to argue their case. It was a reasonable way to define our agenda. I agree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart, that, despite the difficulties, 200 representatives from all the EU countries, representing a huge range of political views, achieved something remarkable—an agenda and a set of proposals for a way forward.
The noble Lords, Lord Owen, Lord Tugendhat, Lord Rees-Mogg, Lord Eden of Winton, Lord Inglewood, Lord Norton of Louth, Lord Marlesford, and many others spoke about a referendum. As is well known, the final recommendations of the convention will form the basis of discussions by leaders at the intergovernmental conference. That is where decisions will be taken—by unanimity. The noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, suggested
276
that the Government's argument against a referendum was partly based on the legitimacy of the 1975 referendum. That was not my argument: my argument was that a referendum might be right if we needed to consult on creating or joining a new institution, not on reform of an existing institution of which we are already a member.
The crux of the argument will be the nature of the treaty. How radical is it? How fundamental is it? How constitutionally ground-breaking will it be? Some have argued that it will be unprecedented. The Government's view is that it will not. The Government believe that the convention's outcome will not create a new tier of government, as the introduction of regional assemblies in England would. Nor does the convention offer a once-in-a-lifetime choice, such as whether to join the euro.
The noble Lord, Lord Owen, accused the Government of cowardice in not going for a referendum. I thought that, uncharacteristically, he over-egged his pudding. The view of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary is no more based on cowardice that that of Mrs Thatcher, when she did not go for a referendum on the Single European Act, or that of Mr Major, when he did not go for one on Maastricht. I have heard no compelling reason to change the way in which the country ratifies treaties. We have a strong tradition of parliamentary democracy, and the Government believe that it provides the best way to ensure that there is detailed scrutiny and accountability to ensure a real democratic legitimacy.
I hope that the Conservative Party will listen to the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon. I am sorry if that destroys his credibility. Sadly, I doubt that it will listen to him. He has real experience of European treaties, past and present, as does the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, who was a participant at previous conferences. Their experience is matched by that of another of your Lordships: the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick. He exhorted us to move forward with the IGC and asked what those who opposed the text would achieve. Like the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick. It will be an important treaty, but it will not be as far-reaching as the Single European Act or the Maastricht Treaty. On neither of those issues—rightly—did the party opposite hold a referendum.
I was asked specifically about the Parliament Act, in particular by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings. I believe that the Act could be used, but I shall confirm that advice in a written response to the noble Baroness on that important question.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has led many a negotiating team in his time—some of them very recent. He knows that the United Kingdom team on the IGC is fully engaged. It will be proposing ideas, persuading others and listening very closely. Our efforts are focused on delivering the Europe that British citizens want—safer, stronger, richer.

277
There can he no question of us not pursuing the arguments that we have espoused. I say that with all the force at my command to members of the party opposite who have cast doubt upon it. We have made some promising gains in devising a new political architecture for a Europe of 25 and more, and there will new responsibilities for this House as part of a national parliament to take up an enhanced role in European affairs. There is a great deal left to do.
I conclude by reminding your Lordships of the wide-ranging and powerful contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf. He exhorted us to talk about the real European Union—not a utopian fantasy, nor an apocalyptic nightmare. He doubted our ability to have such a balanced dialogue. I am bound to say that I understand why. But the noble Lord encouraged us, none the less, to go forward on that basis. He made his remarks with far greater wisdom and far greater experience than I have. But I agree strongly with the sentiments that he expressed. I hope that that vision—the vision of a real European Union—will characterise our approach to the IGC.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

The Future of Europe: Progress Report on the draft Constitutional Treaty and the IGC (EUC Report)
11.16 p.m.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Union Committee on The Future of Europe: Progress Report on the draft Constitutional Treaty and the IGC (35th Report, HL Paper 150).—(Lord Grenfell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Vienna Document 1999 (Privileges and Immunities) Order 2003
11.17 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd July be approved [26th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this order was laid before the House on 3rd July 2003, together with an Explanatory Memorandum, now required for all affirmative statutory instruments.
The purpose of the order is to confer privileges and immunities on observers, inspectors, evaluators and auxiliary personnel in accordance with the United Kingdom's political commitments under the Vienna Document 1999 on the negotiations on confidence and security building measures.
The order is necessary for the United Kingdom to give effect in domestic law to these provisions and it is being made under Section 1(2) of the Arms Control and Disarmament (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1988.
278
Adopted on 16th November 1999, the Vienna Document, which came into effect on 1st January 2000, is the latest version of a package of measures that first took shape in the Stockholm Document 1986. Its purpose is to increase military transparency and predictability. The original competence and security building measures agreed in Stockholm were primarily concerned with the monitoring of certain military activities of the Warsaw Pact and the NATO countries. The Vienna Document 1990, which was followed by the Vienna documents of 1992, 1994 and 1999, built up, upon those confidences, security building measures. The Vienna Documents have evolved since 1986 and keep pace with the changing political map of Europe.
The Vienna Document 1999 contains a number of revisions and enhancements, including expanding the possibilities for exchange of information between states, encouraging states to promote regional measures tailored to specific regional needs, and promoting a wide range of military contact activities and seminars between states parties.
The Vienna Document deals with conventional but, I stress, not nuclear forces, and applies to all 55 of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe states. As the House is well aware, a necessary component of any arms control regime is the ability to monitor compliance with the regime's obligations. Under the Vienna Document that is done by means of observations, evaluations and short-notice on-site challenge inspections carried out by representatives of participating states.
The document requires that certain persons are granted privileges and immunities in accordance with the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The number of missions to the United Kingdom is not likely to be high. Since the competence and security measures began in 1987, the UK has received three inspections, hosted three observations and received 15 evaluation visits. These events were completed successfully, without any complaints or objections from participating states.
The present order gives effect to the provisions of the latest version of the Vienna document. However, the privileges and immunities accorded to the observers, inspectors, evaluators and others are unchanged from those provided in the earlier documents. Those privileges were conferred by a 1992 Order in Council, which the present order revokes. It has regrettably taken a while to implement the privileges and immunity provisions of the 1999 document, but, as far as we are aware, the delay has not caused any practical difficulties. There have been no instances where inspections or evaluation teams have sought to invoke immunity. The present order ensures that there can be no doubt about the status of individuals involved in carrying out the inspections, evaluations and observations in the United Kingdom.
I am satisfied that the order is compatible with the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. Accordingly, I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.

279
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd July be approved [26th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.)
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, the noble Baroness will be relieved to hear at this late hour that I have no objections to and no queries about this order. It is part of a confidence and security-building set of measures which we must fully support to allow the process to go forward and be implemented. That is all I have to say on the matter.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, resisting with difficulty the temptation to ask the noble Baroness to recite at speed the names of the 55 states which are members of the OSCE, on these Benches we welcome this document, which extends a very useful process of peace confidence-building among an important number of states.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Fireworks Bill
11.22 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Power to make regulations about fireworks]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line I, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
"(b) for mitigating the risks that the use of fireworks will have those consequences."
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 1, with the leave of the Committee, I shall speak to all my amendments tabled today. I note that it is about 23 minutes past the proposed curfew so I hope that there will be no fireworks this evening and that we shall proceed to a gentle and colourful end in not too many minutes. First, I apologise to Guide Dogs for the Blind. At Second Reading, I doubted some of the figures mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay. I was entirely wrong and they were right.
I still have major reservations about the Bill, which I shall turn to later. However, I recognise that many Members of the Committee and many people outside are keen that this measure should proceed. Technicalities at the other end mean that we cannot amend this Bill if it is to proceed. Therefore, faced with the choice of opposing the Bill with the objective of
280
killing it or negotiating with the Minister, I have chosen to negotiate with the Minister. Perhaps more importantly, the Minister has chosen to negotiate with me. Although I have had no sight of his speech, I hope that we shall prove to have reached an amicable conclusion.
There is an unresolved—indeed, largely unheld—debate between animal charities, who want great restrictions on the use of fireworks, and the general public, who enjoy them. The principal lobbying leaflet which we have all received quotes one case of an animal injured by a vicious assault with a firework, which could have been dealt with no change in legislation. Statistics indicate that tens of thousands of pets are frightened by what most of us regard as the ordinary use of fireworks; that is, home use, 5th November, birthday parties and so forth. Most of the distress complained of by animal charities is caused by this normal use. Their ambition is to restrict firework use to defined dates and to licensed public displays, making firework use predictable and something that could be prepared for.
The Government's proposed regulations as outlined so far would do nothing of the kind. They seem to reflect the more general understanding and public mood by proposing a number of sensible restrictions on who can sell fireworks, on the availability of the most dangerous kinds and so forth. To the extent that I understand them and as the Government have explained them, the measures in this Bill appear thoroughly praiseworthy.
However, the first difficulty I have is that Clause 2(1)(b) does not allow the Government to make the kind of regulations they seek. Clause 2(1) gives the Government powers. Subsection (1)(a) allows the Government to ban fireworks outright, while subsection (1)(b)—here I elide the words in the Bill—allows regulations,
"securing that the risk that the use of fireworks [will cause distress to animals] with the minimum that is compatible with their being used".
That is very much in line with the position taken by the animal charities; namely, that fireworks can he used, but only in strictly regulated ways so that their use causes minimum distress.
Clearly the Government's proposals do not secure that the risk that the use of fireworks will cause distress to animals is the minimum compatible with their being used; far from it. So in my view the Bill does not give the Government the power to make the regulations they say they wish to make. If such regulations are made, they could be open to challenge. My Amendment No. I would remedy this defect but, as I have said, passing it would result in the Bill being lost.
In another place this is a purely procedural matter: it chooses not to consider amendments made to Private Members' Bills at this stage of the Session. It can be done quite easily and without any great effluxion of time. I hope that this is a matter about which we might persuade either the Procedure Committee or another body of this House to talk to the other place. Indeed, the same may be said for a number of other Bills

281
coming forward towards the end of this Session. The procedure prevents us from giving them effective scrutiny. This is a minor change for the other place and I hope that in due course it will be considered.
My second difficulty with the Bill is the extent of the powers given to the Government when there is great uncertainty about how the Government would wish to use them, and that there has been no real public consultation. With one or two minor exceptions, regulations are to be made using the negative procedure. I do not think that we would let the Government get away with one of their own Bills in this state. We would demand a long explanation of what they wanted to do and seek to tie them down with limitations on what they would be able to do while there was still so much uncertainty. As I have pointed out, this is a Private Member's Bill and we are considerably restricted in how we deal with it. I still feel extremely queasy about letting a Bill through in this state, but given the past difficulties in securing legislation on this matter, I understand why this is being done.
I have a number of questions that I want to put to the Minister. Given that he has had notice of them, I hope that he will be able to say "yes" to all them so that we can proceed home to bed. First, I want to ensure that we shall not get any trouble from the Minister or from the Chief Whip, who is in his place, if the regulations that come before the House are greatly different from what the Government have said they intend. and we then try to push through a resolution under the negative procedure to have done with them. I am sure that the Chief Whip and his predecessor will agree that that is an unusual step, but under circumstances where we have no idea of what will be the results of the consultation and in theory the regulations could be quite different from what has been outlined by the Government, we would be justified. Although I would expect the Government to seek to defeat such a resolution, I hope that they will not squeak that that is an extraordinary and inappropriate thing to do.
Secondly, if I am right about Clause 2(1)(b)—I fully accept that the Government may think I am not—I hope that the Government will say that they will support a Peer's private measure to put it right; that is, that it is their intention that the Bill should enable them to do what they have said they wish to do. If it does not do so. they should confirm that they would like to see the error corrected.
I wish now to clarify what is the Government's present thinking on the regulations that they would like to introduce. Am I correct in thinking that the Government intend to impose an 11 p.m. curfew for ordinary firework use with the exception of celebrations of recognised New Year's days? Am I correct in thinking that the Government propose to allow non-specialist shops to supply fireworks to the public only between specified dates and that these dates will allow for all festivals commonly celebrated with fireworks?
282
As to the decibel limits that the Government currently intend to impose, are these 120 decibels for domestic fireworks and 130 decibels for public displays, measured from the point of hearing of an ordinary observer? By contrast, the animal charities would like the limit to he 90 decibels, which is between 1,000 and 10,000 times less loud if measured in absolute energy terms, the decibel being a logarithmic scale.
Do the Government envisage that the public will be able to buy the ordinary kinds of fireworks that we associate with private displays—that is, rockets for high altitude displays and roman candle types for low altitude displays—at any time of the year from specialist shops? Will we be able to use such fireworks in private displays on private land subject only to the curfew?
Lastly, will the Government undertake to put in place effective controls on fireworks imports at the point of entry so that we can stop the trade in dangerous or unsuitable fireworks at source?
Those are the matters on which I seek comfort. I hope very much that I shall receive it. I beg to move.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I should like to take the opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for his helpful comments and thoughts during the. Recess which have allowed us to consider his particular concerns. I believe I shall be able to give him the assurances he requires. I shall deal first with Amendment No. I and then deal with Clauses 4, 5, 7 and 9, which cover his main concerns.
I would also like to remind both the noble Lord and other Members of the Committee that the Bill cannot be amended because the time set aside for consideration of Private Members' Bills in the other place has expired. I hope that we can all agree that the Bill is a good piece of legislation and is much needed given the widespread support from the public, the industry and various interested groups.
I should like to take the opportunity to clarify to both the noble Lord and the other Members of the Committee exactly what is the nature of Clause 2. As it stands, Clause 2 sets out the basis on which the Secretary of State can make fireworks regulations and the procedures which must be followed. We believe that such regulations allow the Government to make sensible regulations in order to achieve the stated aims under Clause 2(2).
The noble Lord interprets Clause 2(1)(b) as conferring on the Secretary of State the power to ban fireworks outright. This is neither the intention of the Government nor is such a draconian measure possible under the clause. It is a purpose test and should be read in conjunction with the other clauses in the Bill. What it does allow, however, is the banning of particular fireworks when read in conjunction with Clause 5. The clause would thus enable the Government to ban particular types rather than fireworks in general. Furthermore, category one and category two fireworks—indoor and garden fireworks respectively—are excluded from the scope of the clause altogether,

283
thereby restricting the Government to prohibit only the supply of particular fireworks in category three, which are defined as consumer display fireworks.
It is worth noting that the Government have no plans to take action under the clause when enacted, although the clause might apply to any specific new fireworks on the market in the future that are regarded as either a particular nuisance or dangerous.
We are confident that Clause 2(1)(b) allows the Government to make the desired regulations for the purposes of minimising the risk of the consequences set out in Clause 2(2) but without, as I believe is the noble Lord's suggestion, having to adopt rather draconian killjoy measures to avert the possibility of a judicial challenge.
Any measures that we take in the regulations to minimise risks, either directly or indirectly—an example of the latter being the formalisation of a 120 decibel limit by the replacement of the British standard with the new harmonised European standard—will be made in the context of the stated risks in mind. All such regulations will be subject to consultation prior to reaching the statute book to ensure the Government have got it right.
With this in mind, regarding the noble Lord's amendment to substitute "minimise" for "mitigate", while there is a theoretical difference in the substitution, we believe that there will be little difference in practice. When one considers minimising risk with the last part of the sentence,
"compatible with their being used",
the underlying sense that emerges is that the risk should be minimised but considered in the context that many people use them and enjoy using them. For example, if we read the provision as simply aimed at reducing risk to a minimum, it would perhaps be reasonable to suggest that safety distances for spectators should be, say, a minimum radius of 100 metres. We could also imagine that in keeping the risk of damage to a minimum, firework use could be restricted to places such as fields, away from areas with a high building density. But I think we can all agree that such examples would be unreasonable, and that is the reason why "compatibility of use" is an important counterweight here. It is also part of the reason it would be difficult for groups successfully to challenge the Government in a judicial review.
With regard to the noble Lord's questions as to whether the Government would look favourably on a private Peer's Bill to amend the fireworks legislation, I think, as I have indicated, that there will be little reason for this to emerge as an issue for the Government to consider as any judicial challenge is unlikely to be successful so long as the Government have followed all the relevant consultative procedures. However, should such an improbable event occur, the Government would consider the most sensible legislative route to correct it.
I hope that the noble Lord can accept this assurance and, on that basis, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
284
Let me now deal with the various other questions posed by the noble Lord on the clauses standing part. Clause 4 covers the prohibition of supply in certain circumstances. It allows for the inclusion in fireworks regulations of restrictions on the supply, purchase, possession or use of fireworks, or specified fireworks. at particular times or in particular places or circumstances.
On the noble Lord's specific question on curfew times, we believe that an 11 o'clock curfew is a good contender among the possibilities that we are considering. Were the Bill to become law, we will begin consulting on this shortly. The reason I emphasise the consultation here is that some issues will require careful consideration, particularly those involving considerations of ethnic, religious and cultural diversity.
Clause 5 concerns the prohibition of supply of certain fireworks. It provides that fireworks regulations may include prohibitions on the supply, purchase or possession of specified fireworks. The powers in the Consumer Protection Act 1987 are not wide enough to enable, for example, the satisfactory completion of a training course to be cited as entitling a person to be supplied with powerful and hazardous fireworks.
Regarding the noble Lord's specific question on the decibel limit, the measuring distance of noise emission for domestic fireworks under the new British Standard is set at a distance that is specific to each type. So the specified distance to measure noise emitted from an air bomb, for example, is different from that of a fountain. These differences are set out in the standard, so I will not list them here.
I would also like to make it clear that while it is true that the Government agree with the noise level for domestic fireworks that will be set out in the new Standard, it has never been their intention to place a noise level emitted from category 4 fireworks—that is, the professional display fireworks used at public displays. That being so, to my knowledge there has been no discussion of a decibel level restriction of 130 decibels.
The noble Lord raised the question of the availability of those fireworks used for private displays. Under the Bill, we have no plans to prohibit the public from buying particular fireworks in any of the defined consumer categories—that is, categories 1 to 3. Additionally, people may let such fireworks off on private land during any time of the year save the specified curfew time in the evenings, subject, of course, to the landowner's approval.
Clause 7 deals with the licensing of suppliers. There may be a need to ensure that the more powerful and hazardous types of fireworks should not be sold by non-specialist retailers who have no real knowledge of what they are selling. While the Explosives Act 1875 deals with the storage requirements for explosives, including fireworks, it does not allow for differentiation between fireworks by type or power. It is therefore open to any retailer to stock and sell both the smallest and the largest fireworks available

285
without having adequate knowledge of their product. This situation has long caused concern to enforcement authorities and safety organisations. Clause 7 would therefore allow for the introduction of a licensing system for retailers and/or their premises to sell fireworks with the benefit of training—and with the ability to revoke a licence to sell were they to contravene any of the regulations such as supplying fireworks to minors.
The way that a licence will work is being developed. I cannot therefore be as helpful as I would wish in answering the noble Lord's question. At this stage we are not ruling anything out. But, on the face of it, restricting all year round supply to specialist shops could be damaging to particular retailers and involve issues of fairness with regard to religious and cultural minorities. Thus, in principle, any licence to supply fireworks made under the Bill should be open to all to apply for, and not just those considered to be specialist suppliers.
I turn to Clause 9, which is essentially concerned with the prohibition of imports of fireworks. We would not have introduced the issue if we did not think that there is a problem. In answer to the concerns of the noble Lord, as soon as necessary regulations have been passed, we will look at what measures we need and can take to stop the trade in dangerous and unsuitable fireworks.
I hope that I have dealt with all the points of the noble Lord. Lord Lucas, on these clauses and that I have clarified the points to the noble Lord and the Committee and the reasons why the Bill should not be emasculated by the exclusion of these clauses, which I hope that all can agree should remain part of the Bill.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for the very generous statement he
286
made about the statistics from the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association. I think that perhaps we should agree to disagree on his interpretation of parts of the Bill. I hope that he has been reassured by my noble friend's replies to his questions and that he is satisfied that he has received the assurances that he was seeking.
Lord Lucas: I am very grateful to the noble Baroness and to the Minister. Yes, the Minister has gone further than I thought he reasonably could. I am extremely grateful to him. He has satisfied me on every point. Under those circumstances I am happy to beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Prohibition of supply etc. of certain fireworks]:
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Licensing of suppliers]:
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Parliamentary procedure for regulations]:
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clauses 17 to 19 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
House adjourned at fifteen minutes before midnight.

  Judicial Appointments
  Judicial Appointments
  Northern Ireland: Underspending
  Northern Ireland: Underspending
  Northern Ireland: Manhole Covers
  Northern Ireland: Manhole Covers
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Acts of Parliament since 1997: Prohibited Activities
  Acts of Parliament since 1997: Prohibited Activities
  Interception of Communications Commissioner, Intelligence Services Commissioner and Chief Surveillance Commissioner: Annual Reports
  Interception of Communications Commissioner, Intelligence Services Commissioner and Chief Surveillance Commissioner: Annual Reports
  East Belfast: Drinking Water
  East Belfast: Drinking Water
  Northern Ireland: Devolving Powers to Local Authorities
  Northern Ireland: Devolving Powers to Local Authorities
  Northern Ireland: Dyslexia
  Northern Ireland: Dyslexia
  Northern Ireland: Dyspraxia
  Northern Ireland: Dyspraxia
  North/South Ministerial Council
  North/South Ministerial Council
  Ulster-Scots Agency
  Ulster-Scots Agency
  North/South Language Body
  North/South Language Body
  North/South Implementation Bodies
  North/South Implementation Bodies
  Belfast Agreement: Human Rights
  Belfast Agreement: Human Rights
  "Rhyming Around Belfast" DVD
  "Rhyming Around Belfast" DVD
  Northern Ireland: Tourism
  Northern Ireland: Tourism
  Special European Union Programmes Body
  Special European Union Programmes Body
  Belfast Education and Library Board
  Belfast Education and Library Board
  Ulster Scots Language and Culture: Support
  Ulster Scots Language and Culture: Support
  Northern Ireland: Unemployment Data
  Northern Ireland: Unemployment Data
  Northern Ireland: Amnesties
  Northern Ireland: Amnesties
  Northern Ireland: Housing Stock
  Northern Ireland: Housing Stock
  Toomebridge Bypass
  Toomebridge Bypass
  Northern Ireland: Police Overtime
  Northern Ireland: Police Overtime
  UN Convention Against Torture: Optional Protocol
  UN Convention Against Torture: Optional Protocol
  European Union: Forthcoming Council Business
  European Union: Forthcoming Council Business
  Wilton Park: Annual Report
  Wilton Park: Annual Report
  Public Collections: Licensing
  Public Collections: Licensing
  British Sign Language
  British Sign Language
  Agriculture: Self-sufficiency
  Agriculture: Self-sufficiency