Sitting of 16 September 2003

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND TRANSPORT FOR LONDON BILL [LORDS]
  Considered; amendments agreed to.

  MERSEY TUNNELS BILL (By Order)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered on Tuesday 14 October.

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

    Foundation Hospitals
    Mr. David Cameron: What recent representations he has received from NHS trusts about the Government's plan for foundation hospitals; and if he will make a statement. [129948]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Dr. John Reid): My ministerial colleagues and I have had a number of discussions with the chairs and chief executives of NHS trusts, and this dialogue will continue.
    Mr. Cameron: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. If foundation status is really about giving hospitals greater freedom, will he look again at the strict rule under which no hospital can increase its income from private patients? Is he aware that Nuffield Orthopaedic hospital in Oxford, where NHS patients will always come first, has used private income to subsidise the NHS and help to pay for investment? It wants to continue to do so, but the base year is very restrictive. Will the Secretary of State ensure that foundation status will not make things worse in that regard?
    Dr. Reid: I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a deep interest in health care and the health service. He will understand that we are trying to achieve a balance between the power that we decentralise and the maintenance of a balanced benefit for all the people of this country through the national health service. The cap that has been put on the proportion of patients who
    702
    can be treated privately in the new foundation hospitals is intentionally set to be fair to the vast majority who rely on the NHS. It will be fixed as a percentage of the income derived from private patient activity that applied to each NHS foundation trust in the financial year ending April 2003. That will ensure that the cap applies fairly to all trusts, irrespective of when they make the transition to NHS foundation trust status.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: What representations has the Secretary of State received about the Government's proposals, which I think are very opaque? Will people be able to vote if they have paid £1, or if they have pledged to pay £1? What estimates have NHS trusts made about the likely turn-out in the elections?
    Dr. Reid: Discussions are under way in this House and in another place about the exact details, but let me make it clear that it is a good thing that we should reduce the amount of diktats from the centre and pass more control to people in local areas. If we are truly going to have a national health service capable of meeting the differentiated needs, ambitions and expectations of 60 million of our fellow citizens today, we shall have to decentralise. I commend to my hon. Friend the authority on these matters who said that he was deeply conscious that one of the great dangers of a Government health service was over-centralisation, and that the wider the decentralisation that could be achieved, the better it would be for everyone. That authority was, of course, the founder of the national health service, Nye Bevan, speaking in 1946.
    Mrs. Patsy Calton: Does the Secretary of State intend to ensure that the regulator gives precise instructions about the cap? Clause 15 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, which is currently going through the other place, has confused people with regard to the capping of private health care. As it stands, the clause does not insist that the regulator should cap private health care.
    Dr. Reid: I think that this issue is pretty clear to everyone, whatever opinion they may hold, except the Liberal Democrats. If the hon. Lady can show me anyone outside the Liberal Democrats who is confused about it, I will certainly consider their case. This is, however, a refreshing change for me. Having listened all week to objections from the trade unions, the producers organised, it is nice to hear the comments of the Lib Dems—the producers disorganized.

    Elderly Care
    Jeff Ennis: What steps he is taking to increase support available for older people to stay in their own homes. [129949]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): Our published priorities set attainable but challenging targets for health and social care bodies to increase the support available for older people living in their own homes. We are

    703
    supporting that with an average 6 per cent. annual increase in real terms in resources for personal social services between 2003 and 2006.
    Jeff Ennis: What steps could the Government take for people suffering from dementia and other long-term illnesses who are occupying hospital beds to help them to move back into their own homes rather than into a nursing home, if that is what they wish? There is definitely a demand from elderly people to stay in their own homes for as long as possible.
    Dr. Ladyman: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We are getting the message loud and clear from older people that they want to have the choice of staying in their own homes. When people are awaiting discharge, a package of care should be put together that is based on their choices and their needs. The delayed discharge grants that we have made available are for improving services in a person's home. Discharge into their home should be every bit as real a choice as discharge into a nursing home.
    Mr. Richard Bacon: Sir Nigel Crisp recently acknowledged before the Public Accounts Committee that planning for the discharge of older patients from NHS acute hospitals, which is related to the support available for older people in their own homes, is now worse than it was four years ago. Why is that?
    Dr. Ladyman: If Sir Nigel Crisp said that, he is wrong. Delayed discharge grants have given resources to local councils and local health authorities to put in place a mechanism by which delayed discharges can be eradicated from our hospital system. Any local council that has been doing a reasonable job of planning for this eventuality will make a profit from the delayed discharge grants, because it will receive more in grant than it is having to pay in fines.
    Andy King: I welcome what my hon. Friend has said about extra resources for this purpose. In the past, people's perception has all too often been that they have been forced to remain in their own homes. Will he assure us that people will have real choice, and that it will be based on sound assessments of their needs?
    Dr. Ladyman: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. He is right that in the past it was assumed that people would go into nursing homes or residential care. We are getting away from that. It is sad that the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives are devising policies to return to a system whereby people are forced into nursing homes instead of being given the choice of care in their own homes.
    Mr. Simon Burns: Why will domiciliary care workers in this sector from 1 October face an increase since July of 142 per cent. in the fees they have to pay for their Criminal Records Bureau check?
    Dr. Ladyman: They will have to pay an increase because we intend to ensure that those who care for old and vulnerable people are of suitable character and
    704
    reputation. Surely that is something with which the Conservative party would agree. We intend the CRB checks on care workers to be self-funding, but the employers will pay the bills for them.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: I noted the reply that the Minister gave my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis) on support for people in their own homes. Will he comment on the divide between medical and social care? Strategic regional health authorities have set up a matrix to guide people, because that division causes problems and has an impact on the care of people in their own homes and in nursing homes.
    Dr. Ladyman: I think that the issue to which my hon. Friend refers—if I am wrong I would welcome a meeting with him afterwards—is the dispute that arose because the ombudsman discovered that certain people were not being properly assessed for NHS continuing care. The Government have acknowledged that there were some failures in some areas. Different criteria were being used and were not being properly applied. We have instructed all the strategic health authorities to come up with consistent criteria, and to review the cases of those who may not have been properly assessed for continuing care. Those people will be fully compensated for any financial losses that they incurred as a result of any decision.

    Long-term Care
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: If he will take steps to increase funding for the provision of long-term care. [129950]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): The Government are committed to providing the investment that is needed to secure real improvements in long-term care. We are determined to see that older people get the support that they need to lead life with respect and dignity. We have announced an overall real-terms increase of £1 billion for older people's social services by 2006.
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: Does the Minister not accept that capacity across all sectors is approximately 74,000 places lower than it was at the peak of provision in 1996, and that in the 15 months leading up to April this year 13,400 elderly persons' places have been lost in residential homes—primarily independent and private homes? While the new minimum standards have clearly made a contribution to that by placing substantial burdens on small homes, the Minister must surely admit that underfunding is part of the problem. Will he please direct further attention to the situation, and try to ensure that the places that are required are provided?
    Dr. Ladyman: I can give the hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance that we will look at the issues carefully; but the market contains 10,000 more care home places than there are people waiting for them, according to Laing and Buisson's figures.

    705
    As the hon. Gentleman says, there has been a contraction of the care home market since 1996. The implementation in the early 1990s of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 created a change in the market, which has continued to contract at a fairly steady pace ever since.
    If the hon. Gentleman would like some advice, let me refer him to the Minister who oversaw the start of the contraction—the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns).
    Mr. Mark Todd: Aston Hall hospital in my constituency provides long-term care for people with learning disabilities. I have corresponded with my hon. Friend about delays in its reprovisioning programme. Will he ask his officials to turn their minds again to the need for urgent solutions and assistance for a reprovisioning process that, although tortuously and complexly designed, has won the support of all concerned?
    Dr. Ladyman: I will certainly undertake to look again at the details of that case. Support for learning-disabled people is one of my highest priorities in my new portfolio, and I intend to ensure that the substantial extra resources made available by the Government for their care will indeed go to them.
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Does the Minister think it right for Birmingham city council to pay twice as much for places in its own residential homes as it pays for places in the private sector? Is that not a massive abuse of the taxpayer, as well as an abuse of the hard-working small business people employed in that sector?
    Dr. Ladyman: We trust local authorities to make decisions about their areas. It is they who are in a position to assess the needs of their local care home markets, and they will pay the price set by those markets for the services that they require. They will tender for places, the marketplace will offer a price, and they will deal at that price. Why should they be expected to pay more than the market is asking them to pay?
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Will my hon. Friend ensure that any increased funding that finds its way into private care homes leads to extra controls and regulations governing the standards operating in those homes? Is he happy that we are currently receiving value for money?
    Dr. Ladyman: If my hon. Friend can give specific examples of our not receiving value for money, I shall be pleased if he brings them to me and I shall take them up with him. I am happy that in general we are receiving value for money. I think that the new standards we have set are a vital resource, ensuring that we drive up the quality of care for older people and for anyone who must live in a care home or nursing home. They are, I believe, an essential tool in the Government's armoury, enabling us to improve services for everyone everywhere.

    Paddington Health Campus
    Mr. John Randall: What the latest estimate is of the costs of the Paddington Health Campus. [129951]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): £800 million.
    Mr. Randall: The Minister will be aware that three years ago the estimated cost was £360 million. Three years later, when we have still not even seen outlined planning permission, why have the costs spiralled out of control?
    Mr. Hutton: Costs have risen because the new development at Paddington Health Campus will be bigger than the one originally proposed in 2000, so that we can provide more treatment for NHS patients in London—including in the hon. Gentleman's own constituency—better facilities and expanded research facilities. Most people in London will surely regard an £800 million investment in the NHS as good news.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Does the Minister realise that this is the most grotesque waste of public money, inasmuch as facilities of outstanding excellence exist at Harefield hospital, which the local community continues to support? As my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) knows, only yesterday the Moor Park Lions gave £37,000 of their own money to the Heart Science Foundation. It would cost only £18 million fully to modernise Harefield hospital; is that not what the people want and deserve?
    Mr. Hutton: I genuinely understand the concern of the hon. Gentleman and of the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) about Harefield hospital; indeed, all hon. Members will have some sympathy with the points made. However, the Government have to decide what is best for the NHS across the capital as a whole, and I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the investment in the Paddington Health Campus will produce for the NHS in London some of the best facilities to be found anywhere in the world. That is money well spent.

    Ambulatory Care Units
    Kevin Brennan: If he will make a statement on the development of ambulatory care units in the NHS. [129952]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Dr. John Reid): The prevention of preventable pain for patients will always be this Government's top priority. That is why the national health service is developing a large number of new treatment centres, which will enable more patients to receive more operations more quickly. Some will be run by NHS providers and others by independent sector providers under contract with the NHS, but all will contribute to the relief of preventable pain.
    Kevin Brennan: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer. In developing his plans for England, will he look at the example of the ambulatory care centre in the University hospital of Wales, in Cardiff, which is providing excellent, state-of-the-art treatment for patients very quickly? That is an example of the treatment that all of us would like to see from a world-class national health service. If the centres that he is developing in England are of the same standard as the one serving my Cardiff constituents, I am sure that hon. Members throughout the House will welcome this development.
    Dr. Reid: I am grateful for those comments. What my hon. Friend says is true, and I have seen with my own eyes the results that treatment centres can produce. A centre in Bradford—it is part of the NHS; it is not in the independent sector—has reduced the waiting time for minor operations from about 12 months to six weeks. If we consider the vast reduction in the time that 22,000 patients in the Thames valley needing cataract operations will have to wait in pain, we can see the real benefits.
    All these new systems are being introduced on top of the huge investment in resources that we are making in the NHS itself, which is already producing more doctors, more nurses and more staff. I am delighted to tell the House that, according to figures released this morning, in the past three months the number of GPs increased by another 293, and the number of consultants rose by 321. We still have a long way to go, but we are getting there.
    Dr. Richard Taylor: Will the Secretary of State explain the dual tariff, whereby the NHS pays more for operations and procedures in privately run treatment centres than in NHS treatment centres?
    Dr. Reid: If such an unfair tariff existed, I would explain it; it does not, but I shall explain the mechanism, which has perhaps confused the hon. Gentleman. The tariff that will be paid to treatment centres, whether they are NHS treatment centres or centres in the independent sector, will be exactly the same as that paid by primary care trusts to normal, traditional hospitals inside the NHS. It is true that in the case of NHS establishments, we also pay other costs, including building costs; but we will pay the independent sector an additional premium from the centre, in order that it can set up quickly, acquire staff and maintain the buildings.
    So the tariff is exactly the same, and the important point that I ask the hon. Gentleman to stress is this. In the past week, I have heard the views of consultants, some of whom appear not to want us to reduce waiting lists. I can understand why, because doing so reduces the demand for private care. I have heard some trade union leaders standing up against these changes and I have heard a range of producers and providers doing the same. For goodness sake, could we for once think of the people whom the health service exists to serve—the patients? About 250,000 of them will have extra operations from the new treatment centres, in addition to the 300,000 more operations that the NHS is already providing, so many people are suffering much less pain as a result of our changes.

    NHS Services
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: What plans the Department has to extend the private sector's role in the provision of NHS services in the coming year. [129953]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): We will use independent providers where it represents good value for money, increases NHS capacity and reduces the amount of time that NHS patients would otherwise have to wait for their treatment. In line with our manifesto commitments, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced last week the preferred providers who will operate 26 new treatment centres for NHS patients, some of which will begin to operate later this year.
    Mr. Brown: The national health service has entered into a contract with the American company, UnitedHealthcare, to pilot its Evercare system of care for the elderly in 10 pilot areas. Now that the pilots have been up and running for a while, will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether the Americans are achieving the substantial growth that they forecast in the annual report, and whether the NHS is achieving the 50 per cent. reductions and consequent savings in the pilot areas?
    Mr. Hutton: I am afraid that I do not have that information to give to my right hon. Friend, but I shall certainly arrange to send it to him. On the Evercare arrangements, the American company is providing primary care trusts with a consultancy—a service and systems redesign service—to allow NHS staff to improve the care that they provide to NHS patients. It is a sensible and useful arrangement that has been entered into at a local level. All the research data in the US show the success of the Evercare model and I am confident that it will have a similar effect in England.
    Dr. Evan Harris: The Minister said that good value for money was a necessary factor for private sector operations, so does he accept that the cost per case at the Oxford eye hospital is less than £400 per cataract, whereas purchasers who want to buy services for patients at the best possible value are being forced to pay more than £750 per case under the private sector scheme, not counting the market forces premium? Why did the Secretary of State say that 20,000 people in the Thames valley were waiting for cataract operations when the Department's own website says that it is only 6,000? Is it not the case that only the dodgy figures make the position anything like value for money, and is not the proposal ideological rather than one that gives quality, value-for-money care for patients?
    Mr. Hutton: No. I have had many questions from the hon. Gentleman, but I have yet to hear him put one sensible question to any Minister in the Department of Health. He is in the unique position of agreeing with everything in principle, but opposing everything in practice. Labour Members have one simple word to characterise that—opportunism.

    709
    On the specific example that the hon. Gentleman provided, if 6,000 people are waiting for their operation, that is 6,000 too many. By getting additional capacity into Oxfordshire, we are freeing the other capacity of the Oxford eye hospital so that it can concentrate on more specific procedures. The hon. Gentleman needs to get his act—and his figures—together, because he is talking complete and utter cobblers.
    Mr. David Hinchliffe: Will the Government undertake a review of the concordat with the private sector and examine the extent to which NHS consultants who have private practices are seeing NHS patients in those practices and are being paid substantial amounts to do so? Some of my constituents have raised concerns about how they have had to wait to see an NHS consultant. They find it bizarre then to see them in private hospitals and private clinics paid for by the NHS, especially when many of the NHS waiting list problems arise as a direct consequence of consultants' private practice.
    Mr. Hutton: We keep all those systems and arrangements under careful and close review. It might also be of some help to hon. Members, especially my hon. Friends, if I draw their attention to the new arrangements that I hope will apply in the new consultants contract, should consultants agree it, which would try to provide a better way to regulate the relationship between private and NHS practice. That is an important development that the NHS should seek to bring to a closure.
    Tim Loughton: In a debate just before the recess, the Chancellor positively frothed at the mouth at the thought of moving patients into the private sector and he brandished a price list that claimed that operations by independent sector providers typically cost twice as much as in the NHS. If so, why have the Minister and the Chancellor already signed a concordat for 100,000 operations with private providers such as BUPA this year? Why are they now accelerating that process by signing up mostly foreign providers to perform an additional 250,000 operations in the new diagnostic and treatment centres? Or were the Chancellor's figures completely misleading? Will the Minister now publish the real comparable cost of all operations in the NHS, those purchased by the NHS from the independent sector in DTCs, and those performed on those NHS escapees sent to hospitals on the continent?
    Mr. Hutton: The hon. Gentleman has moved from using the language of total politics last week to talking complete rubbish this week. The treatment centre programme will introduce significant additional capacity into the NHS at good value for money prices—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman does not want to listen, and for good reason, because I will put him right on those matters. The big difference that he should recognise—the Opposition like to think of themselves as people of business—is that the NHS obtains a better price for the operations if they are bought in bulk, instead of being purchased on the spot market. The prices will be significantly lower. The final prices have still to be agreed, but my right hon. Friend and I are of
    710
    the one view that this approach represents a sensible direction for the NHS that will provide value for money for NHS patients.

    Private Health Insurance
    Shona McIsaac: What plans he has to introduce private health insurance for non-emergency health care; and if he will make a statement. [129954]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Dr. John Reid): I have no plans to introduce private health insurance for non-emergency health care as it would be inefficient and unfair, and would prolong pain for many people who could not afford it. The Government stand by the founding principle of the national health service of providing equal access to health care, free at the point of need.
    Shona McIsaac: I am glad that my right hon. Friend has put it on the record that the Government have no plans to introduce such a grossly unfair system into our NHS, or to introduce any barmy ideas such as the patient passport, which would destroy the NHS. Apart from being philosophically flawed, are not such plans financially flawed, because they would put an extra burden on the taxpayer to the tune of millions of pounds?
    Dr. Reid: Indeed, my hon. Friend is right. Those plans would divert up to £2 billion from the NHS to subsidise those who, in many cases, are already paying for private health care. The difference between what we are doing by using the spare capacity of the private sector to supplement the big increases in capacity in the NHS, and what the Opposition would do, is that we are buying in bulk at a price that is near, at or below the NHS tariff and we are providing the service free to everyone. The Opposition would create a position—[Interruption.] Let us ask the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). Why should old-age pensioners have to pay £5,300 for a hip operation, which is what they would have to pay if the patient passport were introduced? Perhaps he could tell us why someone should have to pay £6,700—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could tell us another time.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the Secretary of State now regret scrapping, in 1997, the tax rebate on private insurance—taken out voluntarily in many cases—for those over 65, and thus placing a huge burden on the NHS and adding to the increase in waiting lists when the Government came to power?
    Dr. Reid: No, I do not. I have cited previously the US example, where 40 per cent. of all personal bankruptcies are related to the inability to pay medical costs. That reinforces my point. I repeat: this Government will not charge up to £1,700 for a cataract operation, or £9,000 for a heart bypass. People in this country should have their health care provided free at the point of need. This Government will provide that.

    NHS Recruitment
    Sir Sydney Chapman: What his strategy is for recruiting professionals in the NHS. [129955]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson): The Government are implementing a range of measures to recruit more health care professionals. They include improving pay and conditions, encouraging the NHS to become a better, more flexible and more diverse employer, increasing training, investing in child care, and attracting back returners.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: May I direct the Minister's attention to the serious shortage of midwives in the NHS? Will she confirm that today there are 5,000 fewer midwives than there were 10 years ago? That has led the prestigious Royal College of Midwives to say, with typical professional restraint, that that is putting mothers at unnecessary risk. Will she describe the Government's strategy for overcoming this undoubted crisis?
    Miss Johnson: Our target is to take on an extra 5,000 midwives, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to learn that so far we have taken on an additional 3,000 towards that target.
    Mrs. Louise Ellman: Will my hon. Friend support the work being done by the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, which is training medically qualified refugees and asylum seekers to enable them to work in our health service?
    Miss Johnson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the information about that training programme. It is important to get new input into the NHS from people from diverse backgrounds. They will bring new ideas into the NHS, and some of them will be able to return to their own countries and take some of our best practice back with them. We welcome a diverse work force, and we are working to encourage that. I congratulate Liverpool on the scheme being run there.
    Dr. Liam Fox: In an earlier answer, the Secretary of State said that consultants do not want the Government's diagnostic and treatment centres because they will reduce their private practice income. Does the Minister really believe that that is consultants' main objection to the scheme? Is such rhetoric likely to help or hinder acceptance of the consultant contract, which is so crucial to the Government's delivery of their health plans?
    Miss Johnson: My right hon. Friend did not say that. He made a comment about some consultants, and the hon. Gentleman is seriously distorting that remark. The hon. Gentleman does not mention patients in this matter. We believe that we need to nurture staff in the NHS, but most of all we need to ensure that the service provides the best treatment for patients, free at the point of need. The needs, pain and conditions of those patients are our first and foremost concerns. We are meeting that target. I appreciate that the hon.
    712
    Gentleman may have difficulty with that, as neither he nor his party supported the investment that makes many of those developments possible.
    Dr. Fox: One difference is that I have worked in the NHS and treated NHS patients. That is a lot more than any member of the Government Front Bench has done. The Government's attempt to characterise the medical profession in the way that they do is deeply disturbing. They lack understanding of the motivation of many staff. For example, I draw the Minister's attention to the proposed ophthalmology DTC in Thames valley. Nine consultants have written to say that the Thames Valley health authority assessment
    "shows that there is no mismatch between capacity and demand for cataract surgery"
    in Buckinghamshire. They add:
    "Nevertheless managers in Wycombe PCT…have taken the lead in discussions with the Department…about a cataract surgery private DTC, based on information"
    that is erroneous. They say
    "Throughout these discussions there has been no reference to the Buckinghamshire Hospitals NHS Trust ophthalmic department".
    The consultants in that department were clearly not consulted, and they say—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We are going a long way from recruitment. If the hon. Gentleman can mention recruitment, that might help me.
    Dr. Fox: The essential point is that, without professional satisfaction, there will be no further recruitment of any staff. When consultants, talking about their patients, say:
    "Our ability to manage chronic ocular disease, provide sub-specialty care and an ophthalmic casualty will be severely curtailed",
    that is not improving patient care—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister might manage an answer.
    Miss Johnson: First, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) is completely wrong in his first assertion. I have worked in the national health service—not treating patients, it is true, but I have worked in the NHS. Perhaps he would like to research a few more of his facts so that he gets something right.
    Secondly, the hon. Gentleman's preoccupation with what is happening in Thames valley only highlights the fact that the area has some of the longest waiting lists in the specialties that he is talking about. Patients are experiencing the problem, not consultants. It is the experience of patients, the fact that they need treatment and that we want them to have that treatment as soon as possible that drive the sensible changes and developments that we are undertaking. I remind him that we have more consultants in the NHS, which is something that his party could not afford to do. We have had over 4,500 more between September 1999 and March of this year, and many more are in training. We have 55,000 more nurses since 1997 and more of many of the other professions and therapists who work in the NHS. The overall picture is focused on the needs of

    713
    patients and actually delivering for those patients. The hon. Gentleman and his team seem to have entirely lost sight of that objective.
    Andrew Mackinlay: What work has been done regarding the accreditation of health service professionals who gained their qualifications in European Union applicant countries, especially, but not exclusively, in relation to dentistry and stomatology? Is there not a chance that some of the UK royal colleges will drag their feet and not facilitate things so that such people can work in this country from 1 May to our benefit and theirs? What is the position for professionals from EU applicant countries?
    Miss Johnson: We need to make sure that the quality of people coming to work in our NHS is up to our standards. I am sure that my hon. Friend entirely shares that view. We also need to ensure that recruitment of professionals from elsewhere is not to the detriment of countries that are experiencing difficulties, which is why we have agreements, for example, with the Governments of the Philippines, Spain and India on those issues.
    Andrew Mackinlay: What about the European Union?
    Miss Johnson: I was just coming to that. Within the EU, we are recruiting a lot of general practitioners and other doctors, but that tends to be where there are surpluses. My understanding is that there is no major difficulty, but if my hon. Friend has evidence of difficulties we shall, of course, look into them, to cut them down and make things easier.
    Angela Watkinson: How will the Minister encourage GP recruitment in outer-London boroughs such as Havering, where the primary care trust has found that newly qualified GPs are attracted either to inner cities or to rural areas but not to suburban areas? In Upminster, in particular, GP practices offer salaries well in excess of the average yet still cannot recruit.
    Miss Johnson: Over the past few months, we have recruited another 300 GPs. We recognise that there is an issue in London. For the first time, we are improving the standard of primary care right across the capital in a marked and systematic way. A lot of investment is going in. For example, there are golden hellos for GPs returning to or coming into the NHS. There is also the LIFT—local improvement finance trust—scheme, which is especially designed to improve recruitment and retention in the London area.

    NHS Dentistry
    Mr. Peter Pike: What progress his Department is making with improving NHS dental service provision. [129956]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Ms Rosie Winterton): The Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill will give new duties for primary care trusts to secure primary dental
    714
    services using the £1.2 billion currently held centrally. In the meantime, an NHS support team has started work with primary care trusts to overcome problems in areas where it is hardest to find an NHS dentist.
    Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend will know that two additional NHS funded dentists' posts were announced for Burnley last month, but that is just one small step in dealing with a major serious problem in Burnley. Does she recognise that 20 per cent. of calls to NHS Direct in Lancashire are about dental health problems? Where are those people who are entitled to free dental treatment supposed to get the care that maintains their dental health, rather than emergency care, which they can get when it is absolutely essential?
    Ms Winterton: I am very much aware of the problems that my hon. Friend mentions. I think that the new support team has already been once to Burnley, but it will return there with an action plan to look at how the situation can be improved. There are short-term measures, but, as I say, in the longer term we have a comprehensive programme in place to ensure that local commissioning of dental services can take place and that the £1.2 billion can be used locally, rather than centrally.
    Mr. John Baron: The Minister will be aware from recent figures that 1.5 million fewer people are registered for NHS dental treatment than in 1998. Only last month, the British Dental Association said that
    "millions of people are unable to register with an NHS dentist."
    Last year, the Audit Commission stated that
    "40 per cent. of dental practices do not accept children or adults for continuing care."
    The Prime Minister pledged in his 1999 party conference speech that everyone would be able to see an NHS dentist within two years. Four years later, it is obvious to everyone that that is not happening. I ask the Minister one question: why have the Government so disastrously failed to fulfil their promise to dental patients?
    Ms Winterton: One of the problems that we face is clearing up the mess left by the previous Tory Government. Conservative spokesmen should know very well that the contract that they introduced, and the way in which they implemented it, led NHS dentists to walk away. We are putting that right. We recognise that there is a short-term problem and we are backing that up with proper resources, while in the longer term we have a comprehensive plan to provide proper primary care dental services, commissioned locally.
    Diana Organ: Is the Minister aware that it is impossible for a new patient in the Forest of Dean to find an NHS dentist? That problem has been exacerbated recently by the fact that two very good NHS dentists have transferred to the private sector because they say that they cannot cope on their fee level. Is she aware that that is a particular problem for the disabled, the unemployed, children and people on low incomes? If we believe, as we do, that health care should

    715
    be free at the point of need and that we should build capacity in that NHS service, why are we not doing so in dentistry?
    Ms Winterton: If my hon. Friend's constituents are facing problems with NHS dentists, she might like to consider whether emergency facilities and dental access services are available, and I certainly undertake to write to her about that. She is right to suggest that, of course, we want a proper system of dental care provision in the longer term. One of the other problems that we have to consider is the number of dentists who are being trained. We have undertaken a dental work force review, so that, in the longer term, working with the professions and the British Dental Association, we can ensure that we improve the number of dentists who come forward in the first place.

    Health Care Assistants
    Helen Jones: What progress has been made in encouraging health care assistants to retrain as nurses; and if he will make a statement. [129957]
    The Minister of State, Department of Healthmember (Ms Rosie Winterton): We have increased the training commissions for health care assistants to retrain as nurses from 1,249 in 1999, to a planned 3,340, starting training this year. That will be matched by an increase in salary support from £11.8 million in 1999 to £122.9 million this year.
    Helen Jones: That is very encouraging news and an excellent Government policy initiative. However, may I point out to the Minister that my local trust has simply stopped all secondments for health care assistants to train as nurses without any negotiation or proper communication with its staff? What would she say to the women in my constituency who have paid for their access to higher education courses, got themselves places on nurse training and then found themselves blocked? Are not those exactly the kind of dedicated people whom we want to encourage into nursing? Is it not a short-sighted policy for a trust to be doing that when it is having to recruit nurses from abroad?
    Ms Winterton: I can well understand my hon. Friend's concern about this matter. I understand that the trust is reviewing the current situation following the appointment of a new chief executive and a new finance director—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Opposition Front-Bench Members are being very rough in not allowing the Minister to address the House.
    Ms Winterton: I also understand that the idea is to start the secondments again from next year. The strategic health authority is working with the trust to try to resolve the problem. In the meantime, I will certainly
    716
    ask the local work force confederation development group to keep in touch with my hon. Friend about the situation.
    Mrs. Marion Roe: Will the Minister tell the House what action the children's national service framework care group work force team is taking to address the current and projected deficiency in the children's nursing work force, and what measures are being taken to address the retention of specialised nurses in areas such as neonatal and children's intensive care?
    Ms Winterton: The hon. Lady is right to raise the issue of specialist nurses, what more we can do to encourage those specialisms, and ensuring a career development path so that when shortages exist we can look at constructive ways of filling them. With regard to the point about the national service framework, I undertake to write to her about the details of the question that she asked.

    Nurse Practitioners/Community Pharmacists
    Dr. Doug Naysmith: If he will make a statement on the enhanced role that he plans for (a) nurse practitioners and (b) community pharmacists in the provision of health care. [129958]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Ms Rosie Winterton): Nurses and community pharmacists are central to our plans to modernise and improve access to high-quality NHS services. We have a comprehensive strategy to increase the numbers and skills of nurses, developing new roles such as nurse consultants, extending prescribing responsibilities for both professions and expanding the services that pharmacies provide.
    Dr. Naysmith: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of using the skills of those two professions much more effectively in the national health service. In the case of community pharmacy in particular, what plans does she have to encourage pharmacists to provide places for confidential consultations on their premises, which will go a long way to ensuring that patients are willing to seek the excellent advice that is available and that is currently underused?
    Ms Winterton: My hon. Friend is right to raise that issue. There are a number of ways in which pharmacists can play a greater role in primary health care. In our vision for pharmacy, in the new contractual framework that we are designing and in our response to the recent Office of Fair Trading report, we are putting together a series of measures to give primary care trusts, too, the ability to talk with local pharmacists about commissioning services so that exactly that kind of project can be undertaken.
    Mr. David Heath: May I ask the Minister to add optometrists to the list of professions that she uses in that way? is it not sensible not only to use the skills of those professionals both pre-operatively and post-operatively in the management of

    717
    patients, but to extend the use of those professionals, and particularly their high-street facilities, for minor diagnostic tests and screening?
    Ms Winterton: There are a number of ways in which we can examine the roles of such professionals, especially through the delivery of primary and preventive health care. Obviously, we are considering closely how that may be done through community pharmacists, but the opportunity to consider other areas that could make exactly such a contribution is always open.

    General Practitioners
    Mr. Eric Illsley: If he will make a statement on the measures taken by the Government to reduce shortages of general practitioners. [129959]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): As part of our commitment to increase the number of GPs, a range of measures have been implemented including financial incentives, extended opportunities for flexible working and improved family-friendly working practices. The latest figures show that the total number of GPs working in the NHS has increased by 1,500 in the past three years. In addition, we have met our target of recruiting an extra 550 GP registrars a year ahead of schedule.
    Mr. Illsley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. May I recommend to him a report that has been compiled by Barnsley council on the acute GP shortage there, which is one of the worst in the country? The report draws attention to an ageing population of GPs and list sizes that border on the excessive. It makes several recommendations including a mixture of independent and salaried GPs, golden hellos, retention bursaries, training and recruitment and assistance with administration and premises. Will he work with Barnsley council to try to address the shortage as soon as possible?
    Mr. Hutton: Yes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing the House's attention to that piece of work by Barnsley council, which is a model of the contribution that local authority scrutiny committees may make. He is right in his analysis—the council's view is right, too—that there is a specific problem in Barnsley, which the primary care trusts and the strategic health authority are trying to resolve. The report to which he draws attention points in the right direction. Additional resources have been made available this year to try to improve GP recruitment. We are recruiting more GP registrars—GPs in training—this year in Barnsley than we have been able to do in the past. I think that investment in the local LIFT scheme will help to improve premises and the infrastructure of primary care, which will all help the recruitment and retention efforts that are necessary.
    Finally, the new GMS—general medical services—contract will especially address what I am sure that my hon. Friend considers an anomaly in the present funding arrangements: money flows to primary care depending on the number of GPs employed locally. If there is a shortage of GPs in Barnsley and other parts of country, clearly the money does not flow in the way in which he
    718
    and I would like. That will change under the GMS contract and the additional investment will significantly benefit Barnsley primary care trust.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: What estimate has the Minister made of the additional number of GPs who will have to be recruited to meet the requirements of the working time directive? If those doctors are not available because there has not been long-term planning, does he expect that the shortage will result in cuts to patient provision or that the directive might not be implemented in some instances?
    Mr. Hutton: I do not think that there will be a particular problem with primary care and the working time directive. Obviously, we talk closely with the British Medical Association and the NHS locally to resolve those issues; I do not underestimate the fact that they are serious for the NHS. The principal concern about the working time directive is focused on emergency out-of-hours care, maternity and paediatrics, which is where the bulk of the work is being done. The growth in the GP work force will help to ease the pressure. I am sure that all hon. Members share our desire to ensure that GPs work fewer hours in a more family-friendly environment. That would be good for doctors and, certainly, for NHS patients.
    Joan Walley: I welcome the work that the Government are doing to train more people and I am sure that it will reap benefits. However, as in Barnsley, there is an acute shortage of GPs in Stoke-on-Trent, North. It is a short-term problem because so many GPs are retiring at the same time. Will my right hon. Friend visit us to discuss specific things that could add to schemes such as the LIFT project and others because we cannot tolerate the present situation?
    Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As I said, I do not underestimate the issues that must be addressed. There is a shortage of GPs and we are actively trying to recruit more, with some success. I hear what she says about Stoke and I am happy to discuss her worries further. However, we should not lose sight of the important fact that more GPs are working in the NHS than at any time in its history.

    Contaminated Blood Products
    Mr. Michael Connarty: If he will meet the Haemophilia Society to discuss the proposed financial compensation scheme for those who contracted hepatitis C from contaminated blood products. [129960]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson): I am meeting my hon. Friend and the Haemophilia Society on 29 October when the ex-gratia payment scheme announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 29 August will be discussed.
    Mr. Connarty: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I put on record what I said when the Secretary of State announced the scheme—that it was a marvellous step forward and a very compassionate move by this Government after 20 years of campaigning. She will recall that we met her predecessor to present the Haemophilia Society's expert working group's analysis of a proper compensation scheme for the harm that is caused by hepatitis C to people with haemophilia. Can she assure me that the structure of any payments will be based not just on a token payment, but on a logical analysis of the loss that is suffered by people, in order to
    720
    ensure that we do not draw negative comment from the haemophiliac community regarding what should be a very welcome scheme?
    Miss Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments about the scheme and recognise in return his contribution, along with those of several other hon. Members, to recent campaigns on this front. It is an ex gratia scheme, and we shall work out the details in relation to eligibility, size of awards, payments and so forth. I look forward to a dialogue with my hon. Friend and others on how it should proceed.

Transport (Concessionary Fares)
12.30 pm
Joyce Quin: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to allow pensioners and disabled persons in England to benefit from free travel on buses in current travel concession authority areas and in the vicinity of those areas; and for connected purposes.
The lobby of Parliament by the National Pensioners Convention last week will, I am sure, have focused the minds of hon. Members on many of the issues that are currently of concern to pensioners. I welcome the new measures that have helped pensioners over recent years—the winter fuel allowance, the increase in pensions, the reduction of VAT on domestic heating. TV licence concessions, and so on. However, one issue on which older people consistently place importance is that of the cost, availability and accessibility of public transport and the link between the affordability of such transport and their quality of life. Indeed, that was recognised in a Government publication stating that
"transport for older people provides an essential link to friends, family and the wider community—a vital lifeline to maintaining independence."
The situation in England regarding travel concessions for pensioners and the disabled remains far from satisfactory. The concessions that a person enjoys depend very much on the area in which they live. Unfortunately, England has what amounts to a postcode lottery, with some areas offering free bus and other local travel, some charging a flat rate, some charging a half fare and some applying other arrangements. The Government's approach is to achieve a system of half fares as a minimum throughout England. By contrast, the purpose of the Bill is to achieve the goal of free bus passes throughout England, as is the case in Wales. So far, the devolved territories have a much better record than does England. In addition to the national free bus system in Wales for all pensioners over 60, more generous schemes exist in Scotland and in Northern Ireland than in England. Although it is right that Scotland and Wales can decide such issues for themselves under the devolution settlement, I do not want England to end up as the least enlightened part of the United Kingdom in this respect.
The ultimate aim of my Bill is nationwide free bus travel for pensioners, but it is worded so as to allow the Government to reach that goal by stages. In the first stage, the travel concession authorities would need to provide free bus travel within their areas. The Bill would provide the framework for those authorities to reach agreement with neighbouring authorities on cross-border travel, with the clear aim of extending the scheme
722
more widely until universal coverage is achieved. My Bill would allow the Government, working with the relevant authorities, to assume the cost of the scheme gradually—although the overall cost of moving towards full coverage straight away is far from inordinate at some £300 million, according to the calculations of Help the Aged.
The Bill would also, while fully respecting the devolution settlement that the House has approved, enable co-ordination between the national authorities and, indeed, local and regional authorities, if established, to facilitate cross-border arrangements. It is based on concessions being available to pensioners of both sexes at age 60 and would have many benefits additional to those that I described earlier. There would be environmental benefits in encouraging car-owning pensioners to use public transport in preference to private transport, thereby easing congestion and pollution. It would also particularly benefit large numbers of women pensioners who, according to the statistics, are less likely to be car owners and therefore especially dependent on public transport.
In short, I believe that what I am proposing is a sensible yet radical measure that can bring immediate practical benefits. I am grateful for the assistance in introducing these proposals that I have received from Help the Aged, which, this summer, produced an excellent report on the subject entitled "Fair Fares" in which it called for freedom of travel for older people in the UK. I am also pleased to have the support of pensioners in my own area, particularly from the North East Pensioners Association, who feel strongly that sufficient funding for full fare freedom passes in their area should be provided. This Bill has the important aim of improving the quality of life of some of the least well-off people in our society. It aims to tackle the inequality of provision and the patchiness of current transport concessions that characterise the situation at present. For all those reasons, I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Joyce Quin, Valerie Davey, Mr. Jim Cousins, Mr. Chris Smith, Lynne Jones, Angela Eagle, Mr. Win Griffiths, Mrs. Jackie Lawrence, Mr. Ian Davidson, Alan Keen, Mr. Parmjit Dhanda and Vera Baird.

TRANSPORT (CONCESSIONARY FARES)
Joyce Quin accordingly presented a Bill to allow pensioners and disabled persons in England to benefit from free travel on buses in current travel concession authority areas and in the vicinity of those areas; 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 159].
Opposition Day
[17TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Electricity Supply
  Mr. Speaker: We now come to the main business. I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  12.38 pm
  Mr. Tim Yeo: I beg to move,
  That this House is greatly concerned about the security of the electricity supply; recognises the crucial importance of reliable supplies to every aspect of domestic and business life, including transport; believes that the Government is neglecting the risk of power cuts this winter and in the longer term; condemns the Government's Energy White Paper for planning to make Britain dependent on gas imports from unreliable sources and for not balancing the need for secure supplies with environmental responsibilities; notes that the consequences of the recent power cut on the London Underground may have been worsened by the inadequacies of the Public Private Partnership negotiated and imposed by the Government; and calls for urgent action to ensure no repetition of the alarming experiences endured by hundreds of thousands of people in London and the South East.
  Nineteen days ago, the first that I knew of the chaos that was about to strike London was when the lights flickered in my office here in Westminster—in the middle of the recess, I should add. Over the next hour or so, hundreds of thousands of Londoners and their neighbours in Kent received an unpleasant reminder that the electricity supply, which we have come to regard in the past 20 years as extremely reliable, is prone to failure. Just eight days later, hundreds of thousands of people in the midlands were similarly warned of the fallibility of the system. Last month, New York and much of north-east America were plunged into total chaos as power failed across a wide area. Last autumn, my constituency and other parts of East Anglia suffered power cuts following storms that brought down power lines and left some homes without electricity for over a week. Disgracefully, on that occasion, the then Minister for Energy and Construction refused to act to help many of the victims of that crisis, leaving them without compensation.
  Only in the past month has the company concerned—EDF—made a belated gesture in the form of payments to the customers that it let down so badly.
  Even though the causes of each failure appear to have been different, this pattern of events is very disturbing, because a continuous, reliable and uninterrupted supply of electricity is essential for domestic and business life. Ensuring that the lights stay on and that power is available to every home and every business is an important duty of Government, alongside defending the borders, policing the streets and ensuring that health care and education are available to all. It is a duty that the Government show every sign of shirking, as Ministers bury their heads firmly in the sand, determined to ignore the problems that loom this winter and beyond, hoping against hope that no major crisis will occur before the next election or, in the case of the Secretary of State, before her free transfer from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Ministry of Defence.
  Even more irresponsible than the Government's attitude to these immediate risks is their approach to Britain's long-term energy needs. No wonder they have been so reluctant to debate the vacuous White Paper. Seldom has a document that was so eagerly anticipated delivered so little and disappeared so quickly—a document notable for its wishful thinking on renewable energy and for its utter disregard of the national interest, as Ministers prepare to make Britain dependent on gas imported from Russia, Algeria and Iran—
  The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services (Mr. Stephen Timms): And Norway.
  Mr. Yeo: Indeed.
  Let us consider the short-term problem first. There are growing concerns about the risk of power cuts in the next year or two. Professor Ian Fells of the New and Renewable Energy Centre at Newcastle university said:
  "A black-out could happen here…I have come to the conclusion that there is a 20 per cent. chance of power cuts this winter…In January and February, there are vulnerable weeks when they"—
  the National Grid—
  "might not be able to meet their obligations…The amount of spare capacity has been cut back dangerously."
  Generating capacity, according to figures from the House of Commons Library, is almost 15 per cent. less than it was two years ago. The Ofgem fact sheet 31 published last week confirms that the margin of spare capacity is now only 16 per cent., though that will rise to 18 per cent. when the Isle of Grain comes back on stream. Ofgem itself admits that this margin is lower than it has been in the past and a margin of 20 per cent. has previously been considered the minimum acceptable. No wonder the well-respected Dieter Helm, director of Oxford Economic Research Associates and an adviser to the DTI, earlier this month commented:
  "I have always been much more concerned about the conventional bad scenario—when there is a cold spell in winter, and there is a failure at a nuclear power station. Suddenly, there is a shortage and you're getting within capacity boundaries you shouldn't get inside. The risk of an outage is very great indeed."
  David Porter, chief executive of the Association of Electricity Producers, warned just after the London power failure what might happen if there was a cold snap and a couple of power stations broke down. He stated:
  "If something like that happened this winter, the prospects would look considerably blacker…I don't think you'll find many people in the industry who will tell you now—at the end of August—that they can guarantee there won't be blackouts this winter."
  Jonathan Stern, director at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, points out:
  "Equipment is just getting old and is getting less reliable."
  Despite all these warnings from a variety of authoritative sources, the Government's attitude continues to veer between complacency and carelessness. In the section of the DTI departmental report for 2003 entitled, encouragingly, "Security of Supply", we read:
  "Emergency arrangements for the energy sector continue to be reviewed and updated in the light of lessons learnt from the fuel crisis of 2000 and the events of 11 September 2001."

  725
  Those lessons are being learned somewhat slowly, as the document was published in May 2003. It adds that:
  "the Joint DTI and Ofgem Energy Security of Supply Working Group…was established to assess risks to Britain's future gas and electricity supplies: specifically developing indicators for energy security to make information more widely available."
  I am not sure how comforting it is to all the customers who may be horrendously inconvenienced to know that the Government are developing indicators to make information more available. For this Government, indicators seem even lower down the pecking order than the targets to which many Ministers are addicted.
  The report goes on to state that, after the October 2002 storms, the DTI "launched an investigation"—
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Oh good.
  Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend will like this one. The investigation
  "confirmed that companies which had carried out effective network maintenance and had anticipated the storms well suffered fewer incidents and got customers back on supply more quickly."
  Well, there is a bit of rocket science. The Minister might want to step ahead of his civil servants in taking credit for that. The report goes on to assure us that Ministers are not considering undertaking any activity, but
  "considering along with Ofgem and the industry the best means of ensuring that the resultant recommendations are implemented."
  We do not quite know what those recommendations are.
  Of course, the report was published when Britain still had a full-time Energy Minister. Now, the Minister of State, whom I welcome to his place, has to double up as the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services. The latter is another area that may be claiming some of his attention right now.
  Mr. Eric Forth: He has to triple up.
  Mr. Yeo: Exactly.
  As the Minister has so many duties to perform, perhaps it is not so surprising that the written statement about London power cuts that he gave to the House last Monday was pretty thin gruel. However, he said that he was
  "determined to ensure that the necessary lessons are learned."—[Official Report, 8 September 2003; Vol. 410, c. 10WS.]
  As an action plan for one of the world's greatest capital cities, more than half of whose underground network had to be closed down and where 410,000 electricity customers suffered a power cut, his response fell some way short of what the situation demands. Anxious consumers, and especially those with elderly or disabled people in their families, wonder how they would survive as some of my constituents had to survive last year in coping for eight days without electricity. Single parents out at work wonder what will happen if their children are sent home from schools that are forced to close because of power cuts. No doubt, the Minister's office at the DTI has an emergency generator. Even if it does not, he can always rely on the plentiful supply of hot air from the energy White Paper.
  Mr. McLoughlin: Is not my hon. Friend being a little too harsh on the Government? Is he aware that I
  726
  received from the Minister and the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths), an unusual letter informing me that an energy Bill would be introduced next year and that they were in consultation with the Chief Whip as to whether it would be introduced in January? I thought that that was unusual, as I did not realise that junior Ministers were supposed to tell us what the Queen's Speech would contain. However, we have been told by those Ministers that there will be an energy Bill. The Government are obviously waiting until January as that is when they expect problems to arise. Presumably, that Bill will address all the problems that we are facing.
  Mr. Yeo: The House and the nation have cause to be grateful to my hon. Friend for revealing that information, of which I was aware. I dare say that the Minister will rely heavily on the forthcoming Bill, just as Ministers relied heavily last winter on the forthcoming energy White Paper as the fount of all future wisdom. No doubt, the Bill will contain the solution to all the problems that I have mentioned.
  I think that we should draw some reassurance from the fact that the Minister, with his triple responsibilities, is sufficiently on the case to make such an announcement. Those of us who can recall the battles for parliamentary time that occur inside government may also wonder whether he is trying to pre-empt some disagreement in the Cabinet about which Bills are included in the Queen's Speech. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us later.
  Mr. Peter Luff: I am glad that my hon. Friend has broadened the subject of security of supply to cover the regular shortages of power that rural parts of the country, including my constituency, suffer. Will he take the opportunity to remind the Government that the problem must be better controlled, and that that applies not only to the impact on residential customers that he has already rightly highlighted but to the serious impact on the rural economy? Significant firms are often located in remote rural locations and they must have security of supply.
  Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend is right. The issue is extremely serious, especially for smaller businesses, which will not normally have the opportunity to invest in back-up generating capacity. Businesses can suffer not only great inconvenience but harm and severe financial loss when power is cut off. The experience in East Anglia last year was devastating, and my hon. Friend's constituency obviously suffered a similar experience.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: The problem does not apply only to rural areas. In Narborough on the edge of Leicester in my constituency, there is a marked deterioration in service. I received a letter last week that complained about the number of power cuts and pointed out that Britain was not Iraq. What responsibilities do the Government have for the deterioration of service and the failure of power supply?
  Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, to which I hope that the Minister will respond. Perhaps it

  727
  would not be out of order if I referred to my hon. Friend's close interest in the energy industry. When I visited his constituency earlier this year, I had the opportunity of inspecting a possible site for a wind farm, to which, I believe, my hon. Friend is sympathetic.
  Mr. Kevin Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman answer a question about privatisation? He is right that our generation capacity is becoming aged, but it is not surprising that private companies are unwilling to invest heavily in replacing it. Did the Conservative party consider that when it privatised the generating industry? It is an important point.
  Mr. Yeo: I thought that it would not be long before the hoary old chestnut of privatisation was mentioned. It would have happened previously had not the Labour Benches been so thinly populated for a debate on an extremely important subject. The disregard of London Labour Members for the devastating effects of last month's power cuts is clearly reflected in the absence of the majority of them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Harry's here"] Of course, there are honourable exceptions. The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) is in his place, as he is frequently. However, other London Labour Members are absent and the only explanation I can devise is that the Labour party is in a panic about the Brent, East by-election and that Members have been drafted there.
  Let me deal with the point about privatisation. For almost all industries, privatisation gave us the opportunity to set in law requirements for higher environmental and safety standards than those that existed when they were in public ownership. All the privatised industries yield example after example of higher standards as a direct result of the transfer of enterprises from public to private ownership. Of course, the issues to which the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) referred were considered when the electricity industry was privatised. Evidence clearly shows that, for example, investment in the national grid has increased substantially following privatisation. In the past, successive Chancellors of the Exchequer were keen to find public expenditure savings. The easy way to do that was through axing the capital programmes for public sector industries. That happily no longer happens. However, the Government's ambivalence about specific energy decisions is having an effect in deterring investment.
  When the Minister replies, he will doubtless point out that a contraction in generating capacity has occurred through the operation of the market in the form of the new electricity trading arrangements. Of course, NETA has achieved a reduction in the prices that are paid to generators. However, it is worth pointing out that consumers have not enjoyed such a big cut in the prices that they pay. Nevertheless, as NETA metamorphoses next year into something that we may call "better" rather than "BETA", that will provide us with an opportunity to examine Ofgem's remit. In the light of the concerns about security of supply that are now more widely expressed than ever, it is not clear that the current remit gives a sufficiently strong market signal to ensure that long-term investment in, for example, gas storage capacity, will happen.
  728
  The Government's inaction in the face of short-term risks is matched by their refusal to rise to the medium and longer-term challenge. We have reached an historic moment in energy policy. For the first time in a generation, Britain faces the prospect of becoming a net importer of gas. In less than a decade, our ability to generate enough electricity to meet the nation's needs will depend on imports. The change is occurring at the very moment when international environmental commitments start to bite more sharply. Given the accumulating evidence of climate change, we should set an example by honouring those commitments. In seven years, half our gas may be imported. By 2020, 90 per cent. is likely to come from abroad, as North sea reserves dwindle.
  Increasing amounts of gas will come from Russia, which has an even bigger customer on its doorstep: Germany. The gas that Russia sends to Britain may travel through a pipeline that runs across Germany. There are no prizes for guessing the country that will have priority if there are problems with supply. The Minister will say, "Never mind. There are other countries that can meet any shortfall." Indeed, there are: pillars of political stability such as Algeria and Iran. I suppose that Ministers have cynically calculated that they will have long left office and that the risks that they run with the security of the British economy and the safety and convenience of the British people do not matter a damn because they will not be around to be held accountable.
  Mr. Timms: The hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that Norway will supply gas to the United Kingdom. I hope that he will not describe Norway as an unstable source. However, the wording of the motion and his point suggest that he believes that there are other sources that we do not propose to access. What are they?
  Mr. Yeo: I shall deal with the solutions shortly. The arrangements that could make it possible for us to import more gas from Norway are not fully in place, although I hope that they will be. Even when they are, the need to import substantial amounts of gas from other countries will remain.
  Mr. Kevin Hughes: I accept the hon. Gentleman's comments about our future gas supply, but does he agree that it is time to stop wasting natural gas through using it to generate electricity? We do not need to do that and we should deploy it for domestic use.
  Mr. Yeo: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman's view reflects the Minister's, but I perceive that the point is probably about coal. The dash for gas was driven significantly by environmental considerations. Britain has important commitments, which it needs to honour.
  The irresponsibility of the current generation of Ministers may be cursed by the next generation of citizens. As the Institution of Civil Engineers, in its recent, rather damning report, pointed out:
  "If future gas supplies were interrupted, this country would have major difficulty in keeping the lights on."
  Richard Ottaway: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is also a political risk? He drew attention to the fact that we would depend on gas that

  729
  originated from Russia. As he knows, Russia is a member of the United Nations Security Council and was deeply opposed to the war in Iraq. It would be conceivable for Russia to say that if we went ahead with an invasion, it would cut off our gas supply. Does he therefore acknowledge the political as well as the practical risk of interruption of supply?
  Mr. Yeo: I absolutely acknowledge that. My hon. Friend is quite right to point out that exposing Britain's future energy capability to the whim of Governments in countries such as Russia, with whom we might have profound disagreements about foreign policy in relation to different parts of the world, is a reckless policy that only a grossly irresponsible Government would even contemplate.
  The environmental picture is also worrying. Britain is already in danger of missing the target of cutting carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by 2010. Under Labour, carbon dioxide emissions are now actually increasing. The energy industry is central to our progress in honouring this important commitment, but the nuclear power stations—the biggest source of non-carbon-dioxide-emitting electricity generation—are due to be phased out over the next few years. Most will have been decommissioned within a decade, and the Government do not have a clue what to do about this. Their White Paper completely ducked the question of whether the nuclear energy industry should have a future. This indecision means that Britain is likely to lose much of its nuclear expertise quite soon. It also means that meeting our Kyoto targets will become very hard indeed.
  Instead, the Government plan a massive expansion of the electricity to be generated from renewable sources. I must stress that I wholly share the view that every possible effort should be made to promote greater use of renewable energy. At a time when the need for sustainability is widely recognised, the importance of exercising great care over how the world consumes finite resources, including fossil fuels, is obvious. But that need should not involve the unquestioning assumption that renewable energy is always and automatically environmentally superior.
  Wind power is a technology particularly favoured by the Government and, in theory, by the Liberal Democrats. I say "in theory" because, in spite of their slavish endorsement of more wind farms in general, it is almost impossible to find a specific proposal for an onshore wind farm that the Liberal Democrats locally are prepared to support. Furthermore, wind power's lack of reliability means that it will usually require back-up generating capacity, and the remoteness of many offshore wind farms from where the electricity is to be consumed will involve very high transmission costs. The case for renewables must therefore be backed by an honest, hard-headed appraisal of their merits and a careful analysis of their total environmental impact, as well as their effect on electricity prices.
  Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: A large wind farm is about to be sited just offshore near my constituency, and the only people who have opposed that development are the Conservatives. Access to the grid will be approximately half a mile from it. I cannot imagine a more effective use of renewable energy, and I
  730
  am delighted that the Government have announced an extension of the scheme right along the north-west coast.
  Mr. Yeo: Our position on renewables is exactly as I have stated. We would like to see greater use of renewables, but we do not approach this in some kind of dreamy fashion, imagining that they will always deliver environmental benefits. In some cases, they will not do so. I am not familiar with the proposal that the hon. Lady mentioned, but I have no doubt that the Conservatives who opposed it locally did so for very good reasons, and could not be accused of hypocrisy in the way that Liberals who oppose wind farms locally can, because their whole energy policy is based on a massive and unquestioned expansion of wind power.
  We have called this debate for two reasons. The first is to highlight the need for action now, to reduce the risk of repeated power failures in the coming winters. The second is to expose the risks that Ministers are running with Britain's longer-term energy policy. We want to find out what the Minister intends to do about these issues.
  Mr. Andrew Stunell: Did I understand the hon. Gentleman to be giving an undertaking that local Conservatives will not oppose nuclear power generators when they are proposed in their areas? That seemed to be the logic behind the point that he was making.
  Mr. Yeo: I am grateful to be given the opportunity to repeat for the third time our position on these issues. It obviously requires quite a lot of repetition for the Liberal Democrats to understand it. When a party says that the energy problems of Britain can be solved only by a massive expansion of wind power, but opposes every single measure designed to achieve that national objective, that party is not fit to be considered seriously as a political organisation. That is the position of the Liberal Democrats on energy.
  The Conservatives believe in diverse sources of energy supply. We believe that there is a role for renewables, but that it needs to be justified on environmental and economic grounds. We also believe that there is a role for gas, and that it will involve some imports. There is a role for coal, and, in my view, almost certainly a role for nuclear power. We are not slavishly saying that all energy has to be generated from a single source. Because of that, there will be some areas in which it is suitable to invest in new power stations—of whatever sort—and some in which it is not. I am confident that the attitude of Conservatives in those areas, whether they are for or against the proposals, will be honest, will respect local concerns and will be entirely consistent—unlike that of the Liberal Democrats—with the position that their party takes from the Front Bench in the House.
  Mr. Robathan: My hon. Friend has already referred to my enthusiasm for renewable energy. Does he agree that the Government's target of 10 per cent. of electricity generation from renewable sources by 2010, as stated in their manifesto in 2001, is almost impossible to meet?
  Mr. Yeo: That is certainly my view, and the view of almost any objective analyst with a serious record of

  731
  studying the industry. The Government go further than that target, however. They also want 20 per cent. of electricity generation to come from renewable sources by 2020. In case the Minister does not wish to refer to this later, I should like to point out that he recently said of the 20 per cent. figure that it was not some pie-in-the-sky figure, but a realistic expectation.
  Mr. Forth: Or target.
  Mr. Yeo: Indeed.
  I hope that the Minister will now explain to the House what practical steps the Government are proposing to address the risk of repeated power failures. Will he increase the mandatory compensation payable by the industry to the victims of power cuts? Will he tighten up the conditions under which such compensation becomes payable? Does he agree that energy efficiency could still make a much bigger contribution to alleviating the security problems that we have been debating? Will he review the remit of Ofgem to see whether changes are needed to give greater emphasis to ensuring security of supply? Does he recognise that there are serious flaws in the Government's White Paper? Will he remedy them by publishing as soon as possible—ahead of the Bill that we have been promised in the next parliamentary Session—a revised version of that White Paper that addresses the issues of excessive dependence on gas imports, unrealistic expectations for renewables and the damaging indecision over the future of nuclear power?
  By their nature, decisions about electricity generation are very long term. Enormous lead times are involved in planning, building and bringing on stream new capacity of any kind. It is not good enough to say that these decisions can be put off until the next Parliament. Dither and delay put British consumers at risk, harm the environment and increase the cost of the measures that will eventually have to be taken. That is a particular anxiety in the light of reports this week that more and more consumers are having trouble paying their bills.
  The Minister must know that the figures are not going to change. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is not going to return from her fruitless sojourn in the sun like a fairy godmother with a magic wand. The Minister should face up to his responsibilities even if his colleagues are unable to do so. Families, businesses and commuters are all looking to him for answers. Every man, woman and child is a consumer of electricity every day of their lives. What the Minister tells the House today, and what he decides to do or not to do tomorrow, will affect the comfort and safety of every citizen. I commend this motion to the House.
  1.9 pm
  The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services (Mr. Stephen Timms): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "regrets the problems that have recently occurred on the National Grid and the disruption that was caused particularly to transport services; further notes that the report published by the National Grid last Wednesday shows that the problem was not caused by under-investment on the network, shortage of capacity or its contractual relationship with any of its customers but rather by a
  732
  local transmission failure; notes that security of supply is one of the key responsibilities of the regulator, that Ofgem is considering the incident in the light of the National Grid's licence obligations And will be reporting at the end of September; and further notes that the Government's engineering inspectorate will also be conducting its own investigation."
  I welcome the opportunity that this debate gives us. As the House will know, on 14 August a large area of eastern Canada and the north-east United States, including New York, was hit by cascading power cuts. Sixty million people were affected, trains and subways in New York ground to a halt, thousands were left stranded, and some people slept in the streets. No one expected that to happen here, but in the early evening on 28 August electricity supply was lost to parts of south-east London and Kent. What followed was not comparable with the failures in the United States. Here, power was restored everywhere within 41 minutes, but there were serious consequences: disruption to overground and underground rail in particular, but other disruption as well. I agree that it was a powerful reminder of how dependent we all are on electricity. That is why we placed maintaining the reliability of energy supplies at the heart of the energy White Paper in February. The hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) made some disparaging comments about the White Paper, but people in the energy industry to whom I have spoken have warmly welcomed it, not least for the coherence of its analysis and the fact that it has provided us with a coherent energy policy, which the party that he represented in government never did.
  Mr. McLoughlin: I am disturbed by the Minister's comment that there was no comparison with what happened in the United States. He went on to say that power was restored within 41 minutes. Does he accept that 41 minutes was a long time for people who were travelling on the underground? The power was not returned to the underground within 41 minutes, because the emergency procedures had to be carried out. The Minister's complacent attitude is not acceptable.
  Mr. Timms: There will be no complacency in what I have to say to the House. Like the Minister of State, Department for Transport, I shall deal in particular with what happened to the underground. However, to begin with it is important that we focus on the energy issues—specifically electricity.
  Supplies were restored within 41 minutes. Nevertheless, it is essential that maintaining the reliability of energy supplies be at the heart of our energy policy. It was one of the four key goals at the heart of the White Paper published in February. The other goals were: promoting competitive markets; ensuring that every home is adequately and affordably heated; and putting the United Kingdom on a path towards a reduction in CO2 emissions of 60 per cent. below current levels by 2050.
  Since the publication of the White Paper, much attention has understandably been placed on the fourth of those goals. However, all four of them need to be achieved in order to deliver our aims. I welcome the opportunity that this debate gives us to focus specifically on electricity reliability and supply security.
  Competitive and transparent markets are best for maintaining security. We need diversity across the energy supply chain, a mix of fuel types at the generation

  733
  end of the chain, and diversity in terms of where fuels come from and how they are transported. We need a robust infrastructure. One of the few points that the hon. Member for South Suffolk made with which I agreed was about the need to reduce overall demand for energy through increased energy efficiency, which is another important part of the strategy. We need short-term contingency plans to protect against unforeseen events, and long-term plans to cope with the challenges presented by the change in our fuel mix in the years ahead and to meet our environmental objectives.
  Our role is to establish a competitive marketplace. including through good international relations within which liberalised markets will deliver energy reliability. When short-term problems arise, we will, with the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets where appropriate, evaluate what has happened and take action accordingly. At the moment, about 38 per cent. of our electricity is produced from gas. We need flexibility in the gas system to cope with shocks. That is true today while we produce more gas than we consume, and it will be true in the future as we import gas.
  Gas storage can help, and so will importing and storing liquefied natural gas and increasing our connections with north-west Europe, where there are large gas storage facilities. There is an encouraging list of major infrastructure projects being implemented by the industry. Growing interdependence means that reliable energy supplies will become an important part of our foreign policy. We need to have diverse sources of supply and a diversity of fuels.
  Mr. Kevin Hughes: I agree and accept what the Minister says about diversity of supply, because it is good sense. This island is built on coal and surrounded by natural gas and oil, so why does the White Paper take us towards being a net importer of energy? That bit of the White Paper puzzled me and makes no sense to me at all.
  Mr. Timms: Gas and oil production from the North sea is reaching a plateau, and it will not grow in the future at the rate at which demand will grow, so we will need to import those fuels. I can see where my hon. Friend's argument is going. I think there is a role for coal in the future, and I shall refer to some of the issues that we need to address to ensure that coal can play its role. As he well knows, there are some big, technological challenges ahead. For the medium term at least, gas will be dominant in electricity generation.
  The White Paper set out a vision of a future in which renewables will contribute 20 per cent. to our energy mix by 2020. That is our aim, and the hon. Member for South Suffolk referred to that. Some renewables, such as wind power, will be intermittent, but not all of them. Diversity in renewable fuel sources, such as in the location of wind farms, will allow us to manage the risk of intermittency—for example, when the wind does not blow. Technological developments make it likely that the costs of managing that intermittency will fall substantially by 2020. There needs to be a major programme between now and then to achieve the aspiration that we have set.
  The hon. Member for South Suffolk referred to the decline of nuclear power. His argument was that if we really want low carbon emissions and security of supply,
  734
  new nuclear capacity is the only solution. I am not sure that that is the official policy of his party, but I think that it was at least his own position. The truth is that at the moment new nuclear build is uneconomic, and the vital issue of nuclear waste still needs to be resolved. As we set out in the White Paper, it is right to concentrate our efforts on energy efficiency and renewables for the next few years while ensuring—as we are doing—that we keep the nuclear option open for the period beyond that.
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: The Minister made the sweeping statement that new investment in nuclear energy is uneconomic. How can anyone proposing to make that investment possibly know what the cost will be when the Government have not even begun to put a price on the pollution that comes from nuclear-generated electricity set alongside the benefits that should come from electricity that is carbon-free? Until the Government establish that framework, his remark is not testable, and he could not expect anyone to invest in the industry.
  Mr. Timms: The hon. Gentleman has helpfully set out the difficulties and uncertainties, not about Government policy but about the issues around nuclear waste that still have to be resolved. For that reason and others, this is not a good climate for people proposing to invest in nuclear energy. Our view is that we need to keep that option open for the longer term, because at some stage it may become clear that we need new nuclear capacity, but that is not the position at the moment.
  Richard Ottaway: The Minister referred to the uneconomic nature of the nuclear industry. How does he know whether it is economic or uneconomic? In 10, 15 or 20 years, the price levels could be very different. He must have some projections of prices in the future. All the nuclear options could turn out to be economic in the long term.
  Mr. Timms: Those are precisely the uncertainties that face anyone with a proposal for investment in new nuclear capacity at this stage. Some investment is being made, but there is still a great deal of uncertainty about the economics of nuclear energy, particularly given the nuclear waste issue. I therefore do not consider this a good time to look seriously at such investments, although the position may change.
  Many people are concerned about the decline in coal-fired generation. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes), there can be no doubt of the importance of coal in the generation mix, but I know my hon. Friend will agree that coal generation must be low-carbon if it is to have a long-term future. That is why we are investigating in depth the feasibility of carbon capture and storage, and considering the possibilities of international collaboration to support the substantial investment that it will require.
  Mr. Kevin Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that the new integrated gasification combined cycle technology—as he knows, there is a proposal for the building of a power plant of that type in my

  735
  constituency—provides the best way of using coal to generate electricity without the toxic emissions normally associated with that process?
  Mr. Timms: I know of my hon. Friend's interest in that project and that technology, and I agree that there is some promising technology ahead of us, but I think it will be some time before we can say that we have the necessary means to deliver the low-carbon coal-fired generation that will in due course be part of our mix.
  Forecasts for generating capacity margins are lower for the coming winter. Total generating capacity is currently expected to exceed forecast peak demand by about 18 per cent. this year—as the hon. Member for South Suffolk said—compared with figures in the low 20s in recent years. There is already evidence, however, that, as would be expected, the markets are responding to the higher price signals. That, and the signals themselves, is why the indicators from the joint energy security of supply working group are so important.
  Forward prices for peak power this winter are 60 per cent. higher than they were in early August last year. Higher prices may well encourage some currently mothballed plants to return to the system, and there is plenty of time for that. As the hon. Gentleman said, one generator has already announced the return of a mothballed plant on the Isle of Grain for the coming winter, and there may well be more. I expect the market to deliver adequate generating capacity this winter. With Ofgem, we will continue to monitor the situation closely through the joint energy security of supply working group. The group will ensure that the information is disseminated to the market so that participants can respond appropriately. The hon. Gentleman did not seem to understand the role of the group, but markets need information to function well.
  Both the Secretary of State and the regulator, Ofgem, have duties in law to ensure that reasonable demands for electricity and gas are met. Those duties are carried forward into conditions in the licences held by energy providers, and we look to Ofgem to enforce the conditions consistent with its duties. We also need the right regulatory environment to encourage the market to invest in the right infrastructure. The infrastructure will have to change in the years ahead.
  National Grid Transco already has an incentive, through its licence conditions, to invest in the transmission network. It has assured me firmly that under-investment was not a cause of the recent power cut, and its report seems to confirm that. Ofgem will work with National Grid and the distribution companies through the forthcoming price control reviews to ensure that companies are given incentives to invest appropriately in our networks, and to invest in a way that will specifically support the more decentralised generation patterns of coming decades.
  The industry has a good record. We are committed to maintaining energy security. The failure of 28 August, however, serves as a reminder that risks to such complex systems cannot be entirely eliminated. On 10 September, National Grid Transco published its report on what happened. I am grateful for its speed, and the report is in the Library of the House.
  736
  Normal demands of about 1,100 MW are drawn from the national grid by EDF Energy in south London to supply domestic customers, the underground and other large users, including Network Rail. Four national grid sub-stations were involved. On 28 August scheduled maintenance was under way on one circuit between two of them, Wimbledon and New Cross, and on another between the other two, Littlebrook and Hurst. That level of maintenance is usual during the summer, when demand for electricity is generally lower, and the arrangement had been agreed with EDF Energy well in advance, in July last year.
  The sequence of events began at 6.11 pm. Engineers at the electricity national control centre received an alarm indicating that a transformer at the Hurst sub-station was in distress and could fail, potentially with significant safety and environmental impacts. It was what is known as a Buchholz alarm, showing that gas had accumulated in the oil inside the equipment, causing the risk of a major failure. National Grid has some 1,000 transformers with associated equipment, and an average of 13 Buchholz alarms are received each year.
  The control centre contacted EDF Energy and asked it to disconnect the distribution system from the transformer. As is normal practice, national control initiated a switching sequence to disconnect the transformer from the system. That left supplies temporarily dependent on a single transmission circuit from Wimbledon to New Cross and Hurst. Under national grid procedures, a Buchholz alarm is serious enough to warrant the isolation of equipment, and reduced security is acceptable for what is known as switching time—a period of five to 10 minutes during which the transmission system is rearranged by the connection and disconnection of circuits so that the affected equipment can be taken out of service.
  The switching sequence to remove the transformer began at 6.20 pm, disconnecting Hurst sub-station from Littlebrook. That enabled the transformer to be shut down safely with the alarm, but left Hurst supplied only from Wimbledon via New Cross. Unexpectedly, a few seconds after the switching, the automatic protection equipment on the number two circuit from Wimbledon to New Cross operated, interpreting the change of power flows due to the switching as a fault.
  On the national grid there are some 43,000 pieces of automatic protection equipment, each with its individual settings to meet local requirements. The automatic protection relay disconnected the circuit from Wimbledon to New Cross. That disconnected New Cross, Hurst and part of Wimbledon from the rest of the transmission system, causing the loss of supply. Some 724 MW were lost, about 20 per cent. of London's supplies at the time, and 410,000 of EDF Energy's customers were affected.
  Harry Cohen: There was a good deal of distress among Londoners caught up in the power cut. The Minister will know that the London underground had its own generating supply at Lots road for 100 years. When it was closed, assurances were given that the underground's supply would be secure. The Minister tells us that some 43,000 automatic mechanisms could turn off the secondary supply on which the underground now relies. Is there not a case for returning to the argument that the underground should

  737
  have its own back-up supply in case the national grid fails? If that is deemed necessary, will the Government invest in it?
  Mr. Timms: I agree about the distress and, at the least, great inconvenience caused to a large number of Londoners that night. If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I will deal shortly with the question of the resilience of the underground's power supply.
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to confirm that some emergency capacity is still retained at Lots road for running the underground in the event of a failure, which would allow the escalators and lights to work and the trains to move rather slowly, and that this capacity continues to be maintained?
  Mr. Timms: I shall talk more about that in a moment. The back-up supply is now at Greenwich, not Lots road, but my hon. Friend is right to point out that some back-up for the underground is available.
  Returning to the night of 28 August, an incorrect protection relay—1-amp rated, rather than 5-amp rated—had been installed at Wimbledon when the old equipment was replaced in 2001, which was the immediate cause of the loss of supply. Although all supplies were restored in 41 minutes, the consequences, as a number of Members have rightly pointed out, lasted a great deal longer. In particular, there was an immediate loss of supply to some 60 per cent. of the underground, which in effect brought the whole system to a halt. Each London Underground control centre lost the ability to see diagrams of the position of trains for the duration of the failure, so they began to speak to train operators in order to collate positions manually. Some 57 trains had stopped inside tunnels, eight of which—carrying 1,200 passengers between them—were evacuated via the tracks.
  Each evacuation, I am pleased to say, was carried out according to standard arrangements, but that of course meant that the underground network could not be switched back on until it was absolutely certain that all passengers and staff were safely away from the tracks. There was no risk to passenger safety, and the whole House will want to express thanks to all those involved for their calm and safe response. Although the emergency back-up power supply available to the underground, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) has just referred, is not of a sufficiently high capacity to keep the trains moving, it did ensure that emergency lighting was available at all the affected stations, and that the evacuation could be carried out safely.
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I acknowledge what my hon. Friend says about the safe execution of the procedures provided by London Underground, but surely one of the main issues is the time that it took to bring the service up to speed. Is he satisfied that the procedures provided by London Underground are effective, as well as efficient?
  Mr. Timms: They were certainly safe, which was the overriding priority. I shall discuss in a moment the wider question of whether they were necessarily the most
  738
  appropriate action to take on the day, but we need to pay tribute to the fact that the operation was conducted safely, and that the procedures worked well in terms of protecting passenger safety.
  Patrick Mercer: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Timms: I will give way in a moment, if the hon. Gentleman will just bear with me. I should make it clear that the failure in London had nothing to do with any lack of generation capacity. The National Grid Company pointed out that since 1990 it has invested more than £3.5 billion in nominal terms in the system—a significantly higher rate than before. Its performance, measured against the security and quality standards required by its licence, is reported annually to Ofgem and made public. Performance has improved since 1990, and the level of customer demand lost has been extremely low. It can justly point to a good record in terms of meeting the demands made of it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) asked a question that many people ask: why does the London underground no longer have its own power supply, following the closure of Lots road last year? The underground consumes half of 1 per cent. of total UK power consumption. In fact, before Lots road was closed last November, it had been supplying no more that 60 per cent. of the underground's power for some time. Power for the underground has been bought in from the national grid for 20 years or more.
  The Lots road power station opened in 1905. At the time, it was the biggest in the world, and when it closed it was the oldest working power station in the world—reflecting the previous Government's woeful failure in terms of investing in the London underground. London Underground had considered options for upgrading it or replacing it since the mid-1980s. It was finally decided—before 1997, in fact—to close Lots road and buy in power from the national grid through the private finance initiative deal. It is worth noting that between 1969 and 2002, Lots road failed 13 times, and the national grid supply to the underground just twice.
  London Underground will of course be looking very carefully at how its power PFI worked and what lessons need to be learned. In addition, as part of the investigation that I have announced, the Department of Trade and Industry's engineering inspectorate will look at the London underground's power supplies, and may make recommendations if that seems appropriate in the light of that investigation.
  The incident was the biggest loss of supply from the national grid for more than 10 years. I announced on 10 September that the Government and Ofgem will undertake further investigations into the failure's causes and impact. We are determined to learn any lessons that might help us to prevent such distress in future. The joint Ofgem-DTI investigation and the engineering inspectorate's investigation will also look into the power cuts that took place in the west midlands on 5 September, when a loss of power occurred at 10.10 am at the national grid's Hams Hall sub-station, in Coleshill. On that occasion, full power was restored by 10.52, but some 200,000 customers were affected. On that day, I registered my deep concern with the National

  739
  Grid Company at this second power cut, coming as it did so shortly after the power cuts in London. I am expecting a report from it on that incident shortly.
  Patrick Mercer: The Minister will be aware that during the weekend before last, the Osiris II exercise, in which a terrorist strike on the Bank tube was simulated, took place. That happened only a few days after the incident that the Minister describes, yet very little reference was made to that real incident that occurred on 28 August; indeed, such reference was passing and jocular. Can the Minister confirm that lessons from that real incident were passed on to inform the exercise? I saw very little sign of that.
  Mr. Timms: Some of those lessons will take time to crystallise, but it is clear that we will learn all the lessons from what happened on 28 August, for the future of the underground. It is right to draw attention to some of the questions that need to be answered. For example—this question has already been hinted at—was evacuation the right decision for some trains? Were the drivers kept sufficiently well informed? Was there adequate communication between staff and passengers? All of those questions need to be asked and answered. As I said, we need to look at whether the underground has adequate power security, but the Government's London resilience team, working closely with the office of the London Mayor and others, will consider all those issues. Indeed, the London resilience forum deals with all these matters, including the simulated terrorist attack to which the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) referred. It has carried out a lot of work on contingency planning for London, and that work will continue.
  Mr. Tim Collins: As the Minister knows, the question of whether it was appropriate to evacuate some of the trains has attracted enormous interest in London, given the resulting delays in restoring the service, to which the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) referred. Will he make it clear whether, under the new arrangements, the final decision on such matters rests with the Government or with the London Mayor?
  Mr. Timms: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Mayor now has responsibility for the underground. As I understand the procedure, however, it is possible for individual drivers to decide whether evacuation is necessary, in the interests of the passengers of the train concerned; indeed, it is right that drivers be able to make that decision. Whether everything worked exactly as it should have on 28 August is a question that needs to be addressed.
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: My hon. Friend referred to the national grid and the failings in the west midlands, but does he agree that one significant problem is that that national grid interfaces with an enormous number of electricity suppliers? There is a desperate need to ensure that the standards set by each of those suppliers are commensurate with the standards of the national grid.
  740
  Sometimes it is labelled as the bad party, but in fact it is generating the supply and passing it on to people who are not capable of managing it adequately.
  Mr. Timms: By and large they are capable of that, but I agree with my hon. Friend that the investigations conducted by Ofgem, the Department of Trade and Industry and the engineering inspectorate need to examine the whole system, including the distribution systems as well as the national grid. The engineering inspectorate investigation will take account of other transmission failures over the last five years as well, and will examine precisely the point that my hon. Friend has made—how the national grid interacted with its customers and what lessons need to be learned.
  Ofgem will formally decide by the end of the year whether any of the companies were in breach of their licence obligations and, if they were, what action should be taken. I welcome the assurance that the national grid will further review its systems and procedures, and will work closely with other operators to improve overall supply, particularly to city centres and transport systems. It is right to highlight the importance of that. I am pleased that the Trade and Industry Committee will investigate the resilience of the national grid, and my Department looks forward to contributing to that work. Quite rightly, therefore, there will be a good deal of follow-up to ensure that lessons are learned from what happened.
  In conclusion, I want to reiterate our central White Paper commitment to maintaining the reliability of our energy supplies. That is an absolutely central priority for the Government and central to our energy policy. Together with the work that we are undertaking in the immediate aftermath of the recent failures, I am confident that we shall be able to minimise the risk of similar future failures.
  1.42 pm
  Mr. Andrew Stunell: We certainly welcome the debate, but the motion before us is rather rambling and some of the presentations that we have heard were rather dramatically over the top. It is an extraordinary leap from an undersized fuse in Wimbledon to the end of civilisation as we know it, which is pretty much what Opposition Front Benchers have put to us today. There are some important issues and I hope that, despite the soothing and comforting words of the Minister, his Department will take some important questions away after the debate and take any necessary action that is required.
  On security of supply, there are questions about generating capacity, about transmission distribution capacity and about supply capacity. I was a bit surprised that the Conservatives confined themselves to the case of the underground because, during the last major international at Twickenham, the overground suffered parallel failures on account of underinvestment in the electricity supply to the rail network in the south-west of London. Ensuring that investment keeps pace with demand becomes a more serious problem the further down the pyramid one goes from generation to supply.
  I hope that we can examine the problems more rationally than the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) did. The Ofgem briefing paper, which hon.

  741
  Members have received, is clear and straightforward, so it is sensible to pay some attention to it. It makes the point that the predicted surplus over peak demand of 16 per cent. will rise to 18 per cent. when the Isle of Grain comes on stream later this year. That estimate does not take account of the interconnector with France, from which another 2,000 MW can be expected, or of plant that is more deeply mothballed, which can come on stream comparatively easily to the tune of another 7,500 MW.
  I wonder whether Conservative Front Benchers have been taken in on the generation issue by their own spin doctor, because the leading exponent of the view that we are about to run out of generating capacity is Sir Bernard Ingham and his nuclear power forum. Just because they were taken in once when he was operating for Mrs. Thatcher, the Conservatives should not be taken in twice now that he is working for the nuclear industry.
  On transmission capacity, the Minister has quite properly drawn attention to the fact that National Grid Transco has a very good record of meeting demand. I believe that the figure is 99.995 per cent. or better each year, so it seems unnecessary to spend too much time worrying about transmission security of supply.
  That brings us to the bottom level and final stage of supply to individual users and consumers. We have heard about the dodgy fuse and I guess that, when the final report is produced, we will know more about it. We have heard a little about the London underground back-up system, which was recently handed over to the private sector and did not kick in as planned. One of the companies mentioned is Electricité de France, which is a supplier and distributor of electricity in London. I wonder once again about the wisdom of the Conservatives complaining about the system, when EDF is wholly owned by the French Government and operates as a result of the privatisation of the electricity industry that they commissioned. It is one of the paradoxes of energy debates in the House that we can hold our debates only because the lights are on, and the profits from the lights running in the House go straight to the French Ministry of Finance as a direct result of the Conservative privatisation of the industry.
  Richard Ottaway: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Liberal Democrat party policy is to nationalise the electricity sector?
  Mr. Stunell: No, I cannot confirm that. The Conservatives have already produced several non-sequiturs in the debate, one of which I have already illustrated and another of which is illustrated by that intervention. I would simply describe the Conservative approach to the electricity industry as bonkers.
  Let us reflect on the serious question about security of supply, which is what happens in the long term. Conservative Front Benchers mentioned the risk of power cuts this winter and in the longer term, so we need to consider the broader issues of substance. One important argument is that the UK economy and its energy industry will be weak in future because we will have to import energy, but that rather overlooks the fact that there are currently only two economies in the world that do not—the United Kingdom and Canada. All the
  742
  others are net importers of energy, in some cases—the United States and Japan, for instance—on a huge scale. We have a diversity of markets from which to buy.
  I was interested to hear the argument that the Russians might seek to blackmail us over Iraq. Of course, the country with the largest dependence of all on Russian supply of energy is Poland, yet Poland willingly and freely joined in the Iraq adventure. Incidentally, I would not have done so, but there is no evidence that any political pressure was imposed. Indeed, the Russians greatly want the money. The idea that Norway is some sort of rogue state that might hold us to ransom is fanciful beyond belief. It also completely overlooks the possibility of liquid natural gas supplies coming to this country from west Africa, south America and a wide range of other international sources.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: As this seems to be a day for non-sequiturs, could the hon. Gentleman make the Liberal Democrats' position clear? He seemed to suggest that it was all right to have the National Grid generating electricity as a private company, but not all right for that to happen lower down the chain of suppliers. Are the Liberal Democrats in favour of private companies being in control of generation or against? Are they in favour of the French being able to control our major system or against the French having control of the movement of gas throughout their company's territory? I am not clear on those points.
  Mr. Stunell: The hon. Lady would be much clearer if she read my book on the topic or if she tuned into the debate on energy policy at our conference next week. I do not wish to be ruled out of order, so I shall just say that we accept the realities of a national and international liberalised energy market. I simply point out to the House that it is extraordinary that the Conservatives are expressing doubts about the ability of that liberalised market to deliver a sustainable energy policy for this country. The hon. Lady may take a different view, and I am sure that she will discuss that with her Front-Bench colleagues in due course.
  As for prices, we are all quietly admitting that energy prices will increase in this country over the next decade or two. If we are to achieve our aims, especially in conservation and efficiency, those price signals are important. However, the suggestion that we might be held to ransom by outside suppliers is clearly not tenable. One need only consider the 30 or 40-year history of OPEC to see that stability is likely to be achieved in the longer term. I also refer the House to Ofgem's view, which is that there is no problem with supply of fuel to the UK energy market.
  At first, we wondered why the Conservatives had chosen to focus on the issues in their motion rather than on what we saw as some of the more fundamental questions—such as the delay in the Government introducing its policy, as opposed to a White Paper. Where is the legislation? I was pleased to hear the Conservatives' spokesman say that they wanted to see legislation in the Queen's Speech and that is a rare point on which I can agree with them.
  We thought that the Conservatives would raise the fact that the Government are now struggling along with their fifth part-time energy Minister, which shows a lack

  743
  of commitment to this important area. Indeed, I hope that the Minister will take away from the debate a request that he be divested of some of his other arduous duties, so that he may focus effectively on these matters. Or perhaps the Conservatives might have addressed the lack of evidence that the UK is making progress towards its Kyoto targets—emissions of greenhouse gases are rising again—and the fact that we still have no clear long-term plans for the 60 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. However, then we realised that the Tories have no energy policy and have undergone an even more rapid rotation of energy spokesmen.
  The Conservatives claimed that they still regard the environment as important. If that is the case, I hope that they will take a second look at what they are saying about the ability of renewables to deliver and the impact that conservation and efficiency can make on meeting demand in the future. We are clear that we need a diversity of fuels, including renewables. We are also clear that an improvement in security is obtained from dispersed sources and comparatively smaller generation sources. One should not have all one's eggs in one basket. Conservatives ask how we can tell whether investment in gas or in nuclear is best, but it is not for this House to decide that. It is for investors and the promoters of projects to decide that, and they have decided it. They have decided that gas is a more profitable and certain vehicle for investment than nuclear power.
  Michael Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman has said that he would like to see a greater diversity of supply, and we agree. He also said that he would like to see small suppliers generating electricity, but that would of course result in price rises. To what extent would the Liberal Democrats be prepared to tolerate price rises?
  Mr. Stunell: The words "of course" are the give-away in that question. Smaller does not always mean more expensive. Indeed, in the case of wind generation, which is now competitive on the market with its 3 MW units, it is not the case that smaller means more expensive. People are investing in those technologies because they can now compete in the market.
  Mr. Blunt: Wind energy is only competitive now because of the existence of the renewables obligation, which provides some 70 per cent. of its income as subsidy, with only 30 per cent. coming from the price of the electricity generated. That cannot be the hon. Gentleman's definition of economic.
  Mr. Stunell: If we were in a completely deregulated market, we would have 100 per cent. gas generation. But we are not, and no one in the House believes that we should be. In a regulated market, it is appropriate that regulation should relate primarily to the need to meet environmental guidelines. I do not have a problem with a regulated energy market, and I did not think that the Conservatives did either. Throughout the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, they supported a regulated market that favoured the nuclear industry, so it should not be too much of a problem for me to support one that favours renewables.
  744
  If we want 2,000 MW of electricity generating capacity in this country, the cheapest way to provide it is by saving that energy through conservation and efficiency. That is cheaper than gas, nuclear power or renewables. The problem is that in a market environment it is difficult to trigger investment in those areas, because conservation means using less product and therefore provides less cash for those who make the investment. The Minister needs to invest much thinking time and some real policy development in ensuring that conservation and efficiency play a full part, as they can, in a regulated market. It is also necessary to check the maintenance and manpower shortcuts that may be the result of a privatised process. Again, the role of the regulator is vital.
  The Liberal Democrats want the Minister to say clearly that the Queen's Speech will contain an energy Bill that goes beyond waste disposal for nuclear power; to give a full-time commitment to this important topic; and to do more long-term thinking, with less short-term panic.
  1.59 pm
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am thoroughly enjoying this debate because it puts me in a unique position. I have been a Member of Parliament for a long time and this is the first time that I have been in total agreement with Opposition Front Benchers. Today, comprehensively, exhaustively and—presumably—after much work, the Conservatives have rubbished the private electricity industry. They have made it clear that that industry has failed in its duty to the nation and is incapable of carrying out the job that it was privatised to do. That seems a very interesting argument, and one with which I rather agree. I hardly like to say this in public, as I know that it will embarrass the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), but I am at one with him when he argues that privatisation of electricity generation has led to a total failure of efficiency. I hope that it will not damage the hon. Gentleman's career if I say that I parted from him only when he appeared to suggest that we should nevertheless continue along that line of confusion.
  I was only slightly more pleased with the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), who seemed to be even more confused than me. Even so, it is important that contributions be made to the debate not only by those of my colleagues who, through training, background and effort, have become experts in electricity generation, but by people who, like me, know a little about the use of public services and who are worried about the future of the London underground.
  It may come as a shock to Members of Parliament, who like to demonstrate expertise in esoteric and important matters, but the general public are singularly uninterested in the question of who generates electricity. People are interested in what causes them to have to use a form of public transport that broke down on one of the hottest days of the year. The underground system is more than 100 years old, and it can cause considerable discomfort for those trapped in it. As a child, I was trapped in an underground train during an air raid. I have never forgotten the experience. In fact, I suspect that it engendered in me a mild form of claustrophobia, which I never accept or admit.

  745
  Our nation sits on a very efficient and basic form of fuel, and seeks to develop industry at every level. How can such a nation find itself in a position where a resource as important and basic as electricity can fail? When that happens, many people are inconvenienced, and it costs industry and individuals a very great deal of money.
  I was glad to hear my hon. Friend the Minister say that the Government are investigating the matter. He said that a working party had been set up, that the engineers will be called in, and that different aspects of the problem will be examined. However, I want him to give clearer support for a number of difficult propositions. The phrase "non-sequitur" has been used generously today, and I shall continue that happy trend. If believe that the electricity generation industry in this country, even though it generates more electricity than in the period after the war, is not capable of leaving itself a sufficient cushion of safety so that it can support essential systems.
  I see no reason to doubt the accuracy of the account given by my hon. Friend the Minister, but how is it that the failure of a small part of the system—perhaps even something as simple as the use of the wrong fuse—can generate total chaos? In the past, the underground system accepted the need for a back-up system, so how is it possible that only a very tiny part of an alternative is now provided for? Hospitals in the national health service accept their responsibility to provide alternative forms of electricity generation if the main systems fail. Why should not the same obligation be clear in respect of the underground?
  When the Lots road facility closed, did the underground management give generalised assurances that all would be well in the future, secure in the knowledge that the national grid very rarely failed? The last really bad series of power cuts happened just after the war, when there was considerable difficulty in generating sufficient supplies. This country needed a co-ordinated and nationalised—as it was called—industry precisely because the private sector was not capable of doing the job. As far as I can see, the private sector has given no indication that it is capable of doing the job now. We need more answers.
  The Minister has been very open and straightforward this afternoon. He has told us what he is trying to do, how he is trying to do it and where the information will come from. It is unfair to ask him more questions, but this summer's incident was so major that it must give us pause. Large numbers of people were being carried on the underground system at the time in question. I am worried that many passengers were not evacuated for some time and that they were not given the information that they needed. Many staff had no idea what managers were doing to provide emergency organisation, and it seems that the underground's information about its own system was insufficient.
  No one doubts the commitment of railway personnel in an emergency, or the adequacy of their training. Without the staff's discipline and common sense, what happened could have been much worse. The fact that so many people were evacuated safely and in such a disciplined manner is a great tribute to the sense of the general public and to the way in which railway men and women respond under pressure of an emergency.
  746
  However, when the trains stopped, operating room staff could no longer see where the trains were. It seems that no alternative system exists to allow them to identify the location of the trains effectively and quickly. When the power came back, they were not able to determine whether people were still in the tunnels—whether they were being evacuated quickly or were still moving down the side of the track. In the latter case, it would have been impossible to restart the system. As a result, the delay was much longer than it need have been.
  London Underground must be asked several questions. Why does it not have a back-up system that would allow it to assume, automatically, that trains could remain in operation? Such a system would mean that no interruption would last long, and that trains could at the very least move safely out of the tunnels.
  Drivers have responsibility for the safety of passengers on the train. Why were they not speedily given sufficient accurate information about the other decisions that were being taken? Why was it not possible for control room staff to see easily what was happening in the tunnels? Is there no automatic emergency lighting system? That would at least have given some indication of where people were moving and of the dangers that could have arisen had the electricity system been switched back on.
  Why did it take so long for the management of the underground to take back complete control of the system? If the problem arises again, what sense of urgency is being engendered to ensure that, between them, the privatised companies and London Underground will be able to know with accuracy where people are, how they can be evacuated, and how long such an action will take?
  With so many people being taken off trains in the dark, it is a minor miracle that no one suffered an accident. When large numbers of people are being moved around underground, there is no guarantee that all will be safe. For example, the step down from a train to the level of the rails is a considerable one. The evacuation could have been very dangerous. That is unacceptable: as I said, it is a minor miracle that no one was hurt.
  A number of questions have been thrown up by this debate, but the problems go further, as the overground rail system was also disrupted. I sometimes admire the phlegm and self-control of the general public in this country. If people stampeded every time they were inconvenienced by a major incident, we should be in considerable difficulty, but there are so many problems with the railway system that people are in a miasma, almost accepting that such things are sent to try us and that eventually we shall survive them. However, that is not an attitude that the House should find acceptable and nor, certainly, should Ministers of the Crown.
  That railway incident was a microcosm of the problems that face us throughout our national systems. I do not want to embarrass the Government by suggesting that the fact that we have not pulled many of those major systems into the state means that we are dependent on private companies; I realise that my colleagues have enormous faith in the efficiency of the management of private companies, although I do not necessarily share it. However, the Government must accept the fact that electricity generation is so

  747
  fundamental to our economy that any interruption in supply not only destroys work on a particular day but may have a direct and vital impact on the economies of our cities and towns.
  That incident gave us a nasty warning. It told us, in effect, that we are dependent on fragile systems. There may be marvellous explanations—that the system is properly controlled and that there are alternative forms of generation—but when it came to the crunch none of those systems worked. It seems that the reason was simple and straightforward, which should give us considerable pause.
  I want the London underground to be able to respond not only to that kind of incident but to any emergency with tightly drawn and clearly understood procedures that are openly available to the general public and can be put into operation at extremely short notice. I believe that London Underground has that intent; my remarks are not made as a criticism of the present management, but as a warning to the House that acceptance of inadequate provision is never suitable.
  That brings me, finally, to the point that concerns me most. During my lifetime, I have seen changes in electricity generation. Many years ago, as a junior Minister, I had the privilege of sitting on an imaginative committee, run by the chief scientific officer. It dealt with planning for the UK's future fuel needs and considered the forms and use of various alternative fuels. That is where we must show real imagination and ability.
  The present system does not work. Whatever the reason and whatever the divisions between us—Whether enough electricity is generated or whether the price is reduced—any nation that depends on the workings of the market for the generation of its most important fuel will get into the sort of difficulties that we experienced recently.
  We have been given a clear warning and we should heed it. Our entire system is so ramshackle—to put it kindly—that it should concern us. I rely on my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services and his fellow Ministers to talk to London Underground so that we use our response to that unexpected situation to ensure that we can deal with any future difficulty that arises. First, London Underground should immediately be capable of switching to alternative sources. Secondly, training and controls should be adequate to deal with an emergency. Thirdly, we should tell the various companies that it is not enough to talk about corporate responsibility if, when there is an emergency, they are unable to fulfil the tasks that they have been given by the state.
  If the operators, the regulators and the managers of the various companies cannot do their job efficiently, the House must demand that they change their ways and change them with considerable speed.
  2.15 pm
  Richard Ottaway: We all listen to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) with respect. I admire the way in which she conducts herself. Although I often disagree with her, I agreed with every word that she said on this occasion.
  748
  She made important points—I shall talk about the underground later—and I acknowledge the strength of her contribution.
  The debate is timely; it is the first time that we have discussed the subject since the publication of the White Paper. Of course, it has fallen to the Opposition to introduce the matter, as the Government, having got it out of the way, seem keen to avoid it.
  I am sorry that the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services is no longer in the Chamber as he gave a good reply to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), although it was tragically deficient in answers to the questions posed so admirably by my hon. Friend. The questions were fundamental and went to the heart of the way in which we run our society and our country. The Minister gave constructive replies to those questions that he actually answered, but all my hon. Friend's questions were serious and constructive, as was our motion, so I hope that the Minister of State, Department for Transport, who has a good track record, will respond equally positively in his reply to the debate.
  The Opposition and Government opening speeches were in stark contrast to the contribution from the Liberal Democrat energy spokesman, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell). I confess that although I listened to the hon. Gentleman carefully and he generously gave way a few times—once to me—I still have no idea what his policy is and how he would implement it if ever he had the chance to do so.
  The Liberal Democrat amendment, apart from being unnecessarily personal about a competent Minister, is wholly contradictory. It states that the Queen's Speech should announce
  "a full-time Minister who is charged with mitigating the negative impacts of privatisation",
  yet the hon. Member for Hazel Grove has just told us that he agrees with that policy. That Minister should implement
  "an integrated UK Energy Policy",
  whatever that means. I think that we already have one. The amendment concludes that the policy should include
  "the protection of the security of electricity supply",
  yet the hon. Member for Hazel Grove spent a large part of his speech telling us that that was not a problem. It was a most confusing contribution, but when the hon. Gentleman's book is reduced in price we can have a look it and then we may be a little wiser.
  Mr. Stunell: I enjoyed that passage of the hon. Gentleman's speech. It was our wish that our amendment be the motion that the House debated; had that been so, I would have spoken in more detail on those points. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the book is relatively modestly priced and I shall put him in touch with the publisher after the debate.
  Richard Ottaway rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I think that there should be an end to advertising. May I also mention that the Library is usually well stocked?
  Richard Ottaway: You make a valid point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It would be a tragedy to have to pay for such a contribution.
  The hon. Member for Hazel Grove said that he wished that the debate could have been conducted according to the terms of the Liberal Democrat amendment. It was certainly all things to all people, so anything that he said would have been both in order and in line with his policy. Such is the nature of most Liberal Democrat policies.
  Returning to the core of the debate, there were tragic, difficult circumstances on the underground. I am heartened by a letter that I received from London Underground—I am sure that other hon. Members will have also received a copy—saying that it is taking the matter very seriously, reviewing the situation and looking into how such things can be avoided in the future. I wish London Underground well in that endeavour, but the answer is not clear to me. In confirming something said in an intervention by the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen), the Minister said that there was a back-up supply in Greenwich, but what happened to that back-up supply?
  The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Dr. Kim Howells): I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I, too, await the inquiry's results, but I believe that the management considered that there was no need to use the back-up supply at Greenwich when they discovered that they could get electricity supplies from the grid rather more quickly and that sufficient reserves were left in the batteries on vehicles and in stations to ensure that the most basic safety levels, such as providing lighting, were maintained.
  Richard Ottaway: I am grateful to the Minister for that response, but it sounds as though the back-up is of an emergency nature, designed just to get through the day, rather than to restore supplies, which was the impression given previously. None the less, London Underground is considering the back-up safety systems, and I am comforted by its letter in which it says that only eight trains had to be evacuated via the tracks—as was confirmed by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich—and that all the evacuation procedures worked.
  For many years, London Underground has been treated as a political football—in some cases, justifiably So—but everyone would wish it now to have a period of stability, so that the new senior management have a chance to get to grips with the public-private partnership, even though we may disagree with it, and we wish them well in their review and in the future conduct of their operations.
  On the security of supply, the central question is whether we have enough supplies in this country now and in the future. What is the problem that we are facing? Why are we concerned about supplies? One of the fundamental and radical changes that the Government made after taking office in 1997 was to introduce a pure market in the electricity generating sector, but, having introduced it, they immediately started to distort it to the extent that it is not a true market. They distorted it by effectively subsidising the nuclear industry, partly through their ownership of
  750
  BNFL, which contains the most inefficient and ageing parts of the electricity generating sector that are hopelessly uneconomic, and their continued support for British Energy, despite many of us saying that such support probably contravened European Union rules. That subsidy means that the market is not operating properly. Under any normal circumstance, the most inefficient plant would have been shut down, prices would then have risen and the remaining plants could have operated economically.
  The result is that, notwithstanding the price rises of the past few months, prices have been at absolute rock bottom for the past several years. There has been no scope for investment. Most generators have operated on a break-even basis. Those operators with large debts have shut down or been sold at heavily discounted prices. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk said in his opening remarks, the fall in the price of electricity from the generators has not been wholly passed on to the public. Prices paid by consumers have fallen, but there is no comparison with the generators' receipts. In truth, the Government have to explain why. Several rules and the operation of the competition policy are relevant, and there may be cross-subsidies for those companies that are distributors as well as generators.
  We have to consider whether it is satisfactory for supplies to be wholly dependent on gas alone. The Government's policies clash. They want to introduce lower prices through market forces, but that desire clashes with their environmental targets, and the Government are storing up trouble for the future. We have never had a genuine, true market in energy, except in the past five years. Previous Government's have always maintained close control over energy, with close intervention, but we now have a free market that has long-term consequences, particularly for future investment—something to which I shall return.
  The situation has been transformed over the past 12 years. In 1990, just three companies produced 80 per cent. of this country's electricity. Today, a significant number of companies do so, all of which introduce fresh problems. The heart of any good energy policy should be diversity of supply, and coal cannot be totally ignored in the way that the Government have intended. They have protected the nuclear industry, but coal-fired plants are the next most inefficient, and they have been struggling of late to make ends meet.
  The Government want to phase out coal as it is currently used—I am not talking about clean coal—because it represents a challenge to the environment. CO2 emissions from coal-fired generators are unacceptable in a modern society. However, introducing a free market policy clashes with such environmental objectives. That is undermining the energy policy, and it is why we are beginning to experience price shocks and interruptions in supply. I am talking not about the events of 28 August, but about the regular price spikes that are occurring as we get perilously close to capacity.
  A great deal of the generating plant is not economic, so many of the maintenance schedules have been reduced and many plants are becoming increasingly unreliable. However, like my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk, I welcome the introduction of NETA and the liberalisation of the markets that that has

  751
  produced. NETA quickly produced falls in prices but, as with any volatile market, it has overshot its target. The Government set a target that represented an aspiration for the level to which they hoped prices would fall, but I understand that prices have fallen considerably below that level and, as a result, the industry is in crisis—instead of investment, there are closures and cuts in maintenance.
  Of course, we have to consider what to do with British Energy. I recognise the difficulties that the Government will face in trying to close the nuclear plants if they run the company on an economic basis. I also recognise the difficulties that they have with the European Union, but many of us warned the Government that those difficulties would arise. The Government claimed that they had the answers to those questions, but many of us are still waiting to hear them.
  Dr. Howells: I am very much enjoying the hon. Gentleman's challenging speech. As he will know, I was involved with the legislation that introduced NETA. Does he recall that hon. Members on both sides of the House expressed worries about the fact that, under the old pool arrangements, there were serious allegations of high price setting, especially by major generators, and that there was general agreement that something had to be done to try to introduce some fairness and transparency for customers, including industrial customers and the public sector, as well as domestic consumers? Fine judgments have to be made, but the current system at least has greater transparency and even some predictability in some cases than what preceded it.
  Richard Ottaway: The Minister is spot on. The pool arrangements came in after privatisation, and, after moving from a state-owned monolith, liquidity was needed in the sector. The previous Government should not therefore apologise for that. We did not quarrel with the introduction of NETA, however, which seemed to be at the right stage having introduced liquidity into the market. What has gone wrong is that it has overshot, and there is now not enough liquidity in the market. I was comforted that, in the Minister's opening speech, he said that Ofgem's price review will look at ways to encourage investment. thought that that was probably the most important part of the speech, because without it there will be insufficient funding for investment. Currently, NETA is not producing sufficient liquidity for investment. Building a new power station has a lead-up of three to five years just for implementation, and a payback period of 20 to 30 years. No one in the private sector will invest £1 billion to build a new power station if they do not have some idea of what the price curve will look like during that 10, 20 or 30-year payback period. That is the problem, which is why I welcome the Minister's point about looking at ways to bring in extra investment. That will result in a reform of NETA in a way that I and, I suspect, most people would welcome.
  The performance and innovation unit report and the energy White Paper were very important in talking about the trade-offs that had to be made. The bombshell, however, was that there was no commitment whatever in relation to the nuclear industry. How can a
  752
  White Paper be published that says that it is a blueprint for the next 50 years but leave open the question of the most important part of energy policy? That is beyond me. In truth, the White Paper is already beginning to look dated after just a few months, let alone in the first of its 50 years.
  A decision must be made about nuclear energy. If we want to have clean energy in this country, the country may have to be prepared to pay for it. In the long term, looking hundreds of years ahead, we will run out of fossil fuels, gas and oil, and the future will be nuclear energy. The challenge must be how to make it safe so that we do not have another Chernobyl, which I am sure can be done through modern technology and efficient regulation—and we will have to bite the bullet to a degree on cost. Nuclear energy has been a bedrock of the post-war years in this country and I think that it will be the bedrock in the years to come. The White Paper put heavy emphasis on the future of renewable energy. My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk spoke about the scepticism as to whether those targets can be achieved. They are dramatic targets and I am sceptical about whether they can be met. Without nuclear energy, the mind boggles as to how the environmental targets that the Government have bravely set will ever be achieved in the long term.
  That, of course, brings me to the ugly duckling of the sector—coal-fired generation. The Government have consistently supported coal production because, as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich said, we are sitting on the most tremendous natural resource, which would in one stroke remove the questions that are being posed to the Government about security of supply. There is no question, however, of having coal in its present form. It must be clean coal, and I welcome the clean coal technology papers that the Government have published. I know that they are looking at how to introduce more investment in clean coal technology, but more must be done. Much bigger investment and commitment from the Government to clean coal technology is required if we are to produce the sort of reductions that we need. The Minister will know that the large combustion plant directive starts to bite in 2006, and the present generation of coal-fired generators will have to start shutting down between 2006 and 2015. Unless he has the answers to clean coal technology he will very quickly have a large gap in his diversified energy supplies, which will make the Opposition resolution pertinent, not in the long term but in the medium term.
  In my intervention, I raised the diplomatic and political risks involved in making our energy policy totally dependent on imports from Russia, which was described by Churchill as, I think, an enigma wrapped in a riddle. We have no idea of the political future in Russia or of how stable a country it is. President Putin seems to be a solid guy who is building up a coalition around him, and democracy seems to be catching on big time. The Liberal Democrat spokesman said that there was not a problem because Russia needs the money. However, I do not think that we can put our trust in that—we must have alternative, back-up supplies.
  We can all remember the pressure and concern in the run-up to the debate on Iraq. Russia and France were being very difficult in the United Nations Security Council and refused to give their support. Tremendous

  753
  leverage could have been used with the United Kingdom if Russia could say that it was free to turn off our energy supply overnight. We saw that in the oil crisis of the early 1970s. Russia might not cut us off completely, but it might gently reduce supply by 10 per cent., which would push up prices and start to hurt the British economy. It could be a very powerful tool, so it would be folly to be dependent for 70 per cent. of our gas supply on Russia.
  Dr. Howells: I have an interesting question for the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] His Whip is now telling him off for speaking for too long.
  The difference between this country's ability to react in the 1970s to the oil price shocks and the more limited choice that we have now is that, in the 1970s, we still had a considerable coal industry. In the late 1970s and 1980s, it disappeared. A lot of the coal reserves to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and about which he knows a great deal, are now effectively sterilized—we cannot get at them—and trying to access an opencast coal mine is a planning nightmare. From where does he think we will get this coal? I agree that far more diversified coal supplies are available in terms of world trade than gas supplies, but it will still not be easy and the coal will still come from some very politically unstable areas in the world.
  Richard Ottaway: The Minister makes a good point. I remember that when I was Parliamentary Private Secretary to Lord Heseltine—when he was, I think, energy spokesman during debates on the coal industry in the early 1990s—those were just the points being made when we were sitting on the other side of the Chamber. I do not think that we can depend totally on the UK. Most of the coal mines in the UK are uneconomic, but a huge variety of coal is available for import. As most people will know, coal can be imported from, say, South Africa more cheaply than it can be extracted from the coal mines of this country. That was the problem that we had in those debates in the 1990s.
  I have made my points. I conclude by recommending to the Minister the NERA economic consulting paper, entitled, "Persuading the Private Sector to Meet the Aims of Energy Policy". It calls for a strategy to introduce more investment in the energy sector. If there were more investment in electricity generation in this country, the questions that we are discussing could be addressed provided that we do not remain wholly dependent on supplies from foreign countries.
  2.40 pm
  Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: In addition to being the proud Member for Crosby, I am also a chartered engineer. I am a fellow of both the Institution of Electrical Engineers and the Institution of Mechanical Engineers and I have produced some of the information that I shall provide today in conjunction with my colleagues from those institutions.
  The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services talked about the history of the power supply for London Underground. The history is important because it demonstrates clearly some of the problems that have faced this country's large electricity consumers during the past century. A legal requirement was placed
  754
  on London Underground to provide its own electrical supply, but that choice became less attractive as the industry developed. The necessary equipment was introduced at Lots road in Chelsea and Greenwich in the 1970s but it became more expensive to maintain. The start of the discussion about electricity privatisation caused London Underground to look again at its capacity and make decisions about whether it wished to retain it. As the Minister said, the capacity had failed on numerous occasions for several minutes at a time, although I stress that there had not been a catastrophic failure such as that on 28 August.
  At the time of privatisation of the electrical supply, the great cost benefit of switching from self-generation to using a local energy supplier could not be ignored. London Electricity approached London Underground with a deal that it could not resist. The deal was to provide London Underground with its electrical supplies at half the cost of generating its own capacity, so it was a lucrative option. It decided to take advantage of services supplied by London Electricity but retained the capacity to produce some 40 MW of energy itself. I am acutely conscious that 300 or 400 MW does not mean much to a layperson, but the energy that London Underground consumes each day is the amount required to power 200,000 homes or a small city. It is a huge amount of energy and that fact allows us to understand the complex and intensive structure that is required to underpin such capacity.
  When London Underground chose to opt out of supplying its own energy, it entered a world in which it would be only one part of a chain that invariably started with National Grid Transco, which supplied power to local electricity companies that supplied it to the end market. It has been established today, although it needs repeating, that the failure in London had nothing to do with lack of capacity. There was sufficient capacity in the grid but the transmission of the capacity to the end user failed.
  National Grid has a regular maintenance programme, which is undertaken during the summer because the demand on the system is less than at any other time of the year. The system is already geared to accommodate two major failures such as a complete transformer going down and a pylon falling over. Such huge failures have been planned for and considered but have never arisen thus far. However, the failure of a contractor had not been planned for. We have heard that London's catastrophic power failure happened because a contractor who was working for an opted-out company had installed the wrong fuse.
  The failure of the system was one thing, but I shall now talk about the relevant parties' response to it. London Underground put in place its emergency plan. I am not terribly sure about the plan—I have not seen it—but I assume that it includes a scenario in which there was a complete power failure to the underground. Although I have made that assumption, I want reassurances that such a plan has been developed. How was the plan disseminated and communicated to the operatives in London Underground?
  I worked for Shell Chemicals for several years and was responsible for the transport of all its products throughout the UK. The products included some pretty

  755
  awful stuff. We discussed what would happen if one of our tankers fell over at the junction of the M6 and M5 in Birmingham because we would have had to notify the emergency authorities that the evacuation area had to be 12 miles. Hon. Members can imagine that we were talking about a pretty serious product and a serious emergency incident if a tanker containing 20 tonnes of product required an evacuation area of 12 miles.
  We had difficulty mocking up such a huge exercise because it required turning a tanker on its side, bringing all emergency services into play at the same time to get the tanker back up and getting the place managed in a safe and orderly fashion. The hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) asked whether the lessons learned from 28 August had been incorporated into the recent emergency planning exercise in London. I must ask a similar question. When does London Underground have the opportunity to instigate such an emergency exercise? We can all appreciate that it would be highly desirable for such time to be available but the exercise would be conducted at substantial cost. The problem for London Underground and suppliers of energy to the arena is how to accommodate such an exercise without huge disruption and cost.
  Patrick Mercer: The hon. Lady makes a good point. If she had been at the exercise 10 days or so ago, she would have seen that it was wholly unrealistic. How does one plan such an exercise without providing financial compensation for ruining the City's trade for at least a day? If we are ever to get our heads around the problem, however, such a thing must be done. I hope to ask later whether such an exercise will be held realistically.
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: The hon. Gentleman clearly illustrates the problem at hand but there are solutions. The whole transport system would not have to be taken down because one could choose to fail aspects of the system to discover the readiness of a working unit to deal with it. Many different industries use such a system and, although I am not an expert, I do not understand why it could not be used for the underground. I am worried about London Underground's response because although it was safe, it was not especially effective. I do not understand what the company will gain from the learning exercise.
  I also have real worries about London Electricity. When London Underground was operating its power supply, it had its own staff, which was absolutely essential. They were highly qualified and experts in delivering power to the system. They knew that system intimately because engineers know the systems with which they are involved and can usually pinpoint a problem within minutes of it arising before taking appropriate action. But when power provision was transferred to London Electricity, one of the first problems that arose was that of communication between London Underground, as the users of the electricity, and London Electricity, as its suppliers. As we know from the significant arguments that took place here about the privatisation of electricity, inadequate communication between party A and party B can be a
  756
  significant problem following the fragmentation of an industry. I do not know what London Electricity has done to plan for disasters and emergencies and what correspondence and joint planning exercises it has conducted with London Underground. one of its major customers. Did they sit around a table together and say, "How do we plan for catastrophic failure of the underground? What is going to be our response and what is going to be your response?" My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) alluded to the failure of various parties to talk among themselves and to agree coherent plans. In this case, there is little evidence of the existence of a co-ordinated plan.
  The other element is the national grid. We have a three-party supply line consisting of the national grid, the local supplier and the end user. National Grid has developed a significant number of scenarios for power failure. That is impressive, and it is evidenced not least by the fact that per head of the population we have fewer power failures than any other country. That is an extraordinary position to find ourselves in: we should be grateful.
  Mr. Mark Hendrick: Like my hon. Friend, I, too, am a chartered electrical engineer. What is her opinion on the recent power failures in the United States? I was in the US when the power failure occurred in London. There is still great debate over there about that failure and the qualities of a system that is even more fragmented than that of the UK.
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: If anything should happen to my hon. Friend and me with regard to employment in this place, we will be safe in America, which has a desperate shortage of appropriately qualified staff to manage not only transmission, but integration. Two factors in the US failures were states failing to pay bills to providers and lack of capacity. I am pleased to say that capacity is not an issue in this country; it was certainly not a factor in the failure on the London underground. In fact, it was caused by human failure—the whole system was brought to its knees by the failure of one contractor. It is not the first disaster to be caused by the failure of a contractor: Hatfield was an example that had not only economic consequences, but caused devastating loss of life.
  Speaking as a member of the engineering community, we have huge concerns about the shortage of adequately trained staff. The incident on the underground could have been caused either by an inadequately trained individual who simply made a mistake—human error is perfectly admissible and permissible—or by an individual who had received very little training in a very important system. That is not unusual. I started my engineering career in the 1970s; the world of the next 20 years was one of reduction, not expansion, in the UK's engineering capacity. When I was the dean of an engineering department, I had to preside over the closure of parts of it. I became increasingly concerned that, as a nation, we were not producing sufficient skilled tradespeople, incorporated engineers or chartered engineers to be able adequately to manage the infrastructure that exists today. There is an acute shortage of power engineers and heavy electrical

  757
  engineers. Those are not glamorous professions, but we desperately need such individuals, who are essential to companies' safe operation.
  Following the Hatfield disaster, there was much discussion about whether the rail industry would be able to hang on to its professional engineers, who were desperately worried about the lack of investment and the possibility that they would ultimately be left carrying the can. We now have massive expansion in public sector investment, but that cannot be sustained without adequately trained staff. I hope that the review will reinforce what came out of the Hatfield review—namely, that in order to continue to provide safe systems we need adequately trained staff. That means that we have to assess our capacity to produce those people and to make engineering and the activities of engineers attractive to a population of young people who are not interested in that enormously rewarding and exciting work.
  That concludes my comments; I look forward to the Minister's response.
  2.56 pm
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: It is always a pleasure to listen to an authoritative speech from a Member who is very well informed; I congratulate the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) on her contribution. It is extremely important that she drew to the House's attention, in relation to the London underground incident, the importance of differentiating the issue of capacity and the way in which the power shortage occurred in the transmission system. Her discussion of engineering capacity in the United Kingdom could have been delivered so effectively only by the former dean of an engineering department. That issue must be addressed through the reward structure and the way in which we view engineers in our society. Our engineering capacity has been central to our economic success for a matter of centuries.
  The hon. Lady's point about the resilience of the national grid was also well made. If her figures are correct, the national grid is delivering electricity for the United Kingdom with the greatest degree of reliability in the world—although one or two tiny little countries may well seek to challenge that.
  I congratulate my Front-Bench colleagues on raising the subject for debate. Security of the electricity supply is an immensely important issue. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said that the general public are interested only in the consequences when things go wrong—and, boy, is that right! It is our duty as elected representatives to ensure that we do not put the general public in a position where they have to endure the consequences of our failure to look ahead. The greatest problem, which the Government still have to confront, is the failure of the energy White Paper to deliver a proper framework for energy policy.
  This is the first opportunity that I have had to speak on the subject from the Back Benches since I ceased to be the Conservative party spokesman on energy in May. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) on taking on those responsibilities. I hope that he finds them equally stimulating and that he finds working for the shadow Secretary of State just as enjoyable. We agreed about
  758
  many things and I very much appreciated the partnership. However, having departed the scene, there are one or two lines in the motion tabled by my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State to which I take slight exception.
  The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services replied to my hon. Friend and, outstanding as he is, it is too much of a burden for him to look after e-commerce and the Post Office as well as energy. It was not very long ago that energy had its own Department, with a Secretary of State in Cabinet. Given the challenge that the security of electricity supply will pose to the United Kingdom over the next few decades as we become a net importer of fuel again, it is important that we should have a Minister as talented as the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services but whose sole responsibility focuses on energy matters. The Government face serious challenges because of the sad lack of framework in the energy White Paper.
  As for the security of supply and the Conservative motion, like the hon. Member for Crosby, I am reasonably reassured by briefings and information from the National Grid that any short-term problems in supply and capacity can be tackled, as it has 18 per cent. overcapacity, enabling it to meet the point of highest demand. Even in difficult circumstances, it has further tools available to it—for example, asking major electricity consumers such as aluminium factories and so on not to use electricity at certain times and to reduce their output by 10 per cent. In the short term, that gives the national grid the capacity to establish the required safety margin.
  The Minister also drew attention to the fact that the price mechanism is now starting to operate. However, my thesis is that it must operate within a framework. It is our job as parliamentarians to examine the Government's framework and make sure that it is robust. Having studied these matters for nearly a year as my party's spokesman, I wish to elaborate on my proposals for that framework. In the motion, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) draws attention to concern about the Government's plans
  "to make Britain dependent on gas imports from unreliable sources".
  My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) also drew attention to his concerns in that area. Problems are unavoidable, as gas is used to generate 38 per cent. of the electricity that we consume and is the fuel supplied to the vast majority of the domestic sector. We will continue to rely on it in one form or another for the foreseeable future—indeed that trend will continue upwards. Gas will constitute an increasing share of the fuel that we require. From 2005 to 2006, we will no longer be self-sufficient in natural gas and, as has been pointed out, from 2020 we may be importing up to 90 per cent. of our gas.
  When I became shadow energy spokesman, one of the first issues on which I wanted to satisfy myself was the question of how much gas there is in the world and the security of supply risk to our major fuel. The simple answer was present in the Government's own analysis, initially from the performance and innovation unit and then in the energy White Paper. There is lots of gas out there—the Russians have about 30 per cent. of the world's supply and so far 100 years' worth of gas

  759
  supplies around the world have been identified. As we become a gas importer, we will have to address the issue of security of supply by having as many different sources of natural gas as we can reasonably achieve.
  That is why, in the wake of the White Paper, I watched with approbation the journeys made by the former energy Minister, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), around the world as he tried to secure the gas supplies that are vital to our future interests. He was in continual negotiations with Norway over the delivery of gas from the north Norwegian sea, and went to Moscow, Algeria and Iran. I do not know whether he went to Qatar, but it is thought to have 8 per cent. of the world's gas supplies, so it may be another important gas source for us. I very much welcome proposals to create a Northern Natural Gas terminal to bring liquefied natural gas into the United Kingdom from areas where it is uneconomic to pump compressed gas.
  I particularly welcome proposals for pipelines direct from Russia, thus avoiding the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk that supplies from Russia will have to go through Germany before reaching the United Kingdom. The Government have made all the right noises about policy on the supply of fuel, particularly gas, being part of our European and diplomatic policy, and it is necessary that they keep up the pressure on that issue. It must be a high priority for everyone up to and including the Prime Minister whenever he is in discussion with Heads of Government, particularly President Putin of Russia, which has a large share of gas supplies, and other Heads of Government in the region. That priority is also central to our wider security and foreign policy in Iran and the middle east. It is important to ensure that the new Saudi gas deals—the Saudis have hitherto ignored their substantial natural gas resources, which are about four times as large as the North sea's—are concluded successfully so that western oil and gas companies can translate those deals into production and widen the sources of gas available to the UK.
  Our energy shop is based on gas, whether we like it or not, so for the foreseeable future—certainly for at least the next two or three decades—we have no choice but to deal with the issue of getting gas from what the motion calls "unreliable sources". I am not convinced that we can be quite as complacent as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), who said that there is no risk to our security of supply. These matters must be kept under review, and that is properly the function of the review set up by the Government. However, we must also consider the national security aspects of the issue—ensuring the security of fuel supply will be an important part of our defence policy. The threat may be limited, but if it becomes a reality it would be catastrophic for the United Kingdom. These matters must therefore be kept under permanent and constant review. All the signs are that the world is becoming a more interdependent place. Using the interdependence of Russia and the United Kingdom as an example, that country needs our money as much as, if not more than, we need its gas. The lessons that we can learn from the oil price shocks of 1974 and 1980 and the way in which the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries has since managed its
  760
  policies are that it suits countries with natural gas to ensure that the world is reliant on a constant supply of natural gas. If our industries become reliant on cheap and constant supplies of gas we will not start looking around for other fuels. The oil price shocks stimulated huge investment in the search for alternatives to oil, and in the end that did not do the oil producers themselves any favours. I believe that they have learned that particular lesson.
  The reference in the motion to the concern about gas imports from unreliable sources is intended to draw the Government into a debate about the fuel mix, which they have previously resisted. It is clear from the energy White Paper that they do not believe that that is a proper decision for government, and I agree with them. If we start going down that road, we are obliged to consider the alternatives to gas. The main source of fuel for electricity generation is coal, but the future of that is not frightfully bright—indeed, it is bleak. The large-scale plant combustion directive will make uneconomic a large proportion of the electricity supplied from coal-fired power stations, and once the emissions trading regime comes into operation and proper pricing of carbon dioxide emissions begins, it is hard to see how almost any form of coal-fired electricity production will be economic, compared with gas or alternative sources.
  The Government are investing in carbon sequestration and trying to find a way of rescuing what is left of the electricity generating industry. We must consider carefully the scale of investment that might be required to keep coal-fired electricity generation staggering on. The investment may not be worth the candle. Any Government dealing with energy policy must recognise that the No. 1 requirement is to go on delivering secure and economic electricity supplies, because the wealth of our industry and our quality of life depend on that achievement. Privatisation has contributed greatly to the economic supply of electricity in the United Kingdom, as well as an extremely reliable source of supply in normal circumstances.
  The saddest thing about the White Paper was its failure to address the future of the nuclear-generated electricity industry. The Government are doing the country a huge disservice by delaying a decision about that. They must put in place a framework within which future investors will be able to decide whether to invest in new nuclear power stations. Plainly, the Government will not build new nuclear power stations. I believe there is a way to achieve that, as part of an overall energy policy.
  We need to create a proper free market in energy within environmental constraints. The vast majority of scientific opinion is agreed that the greatest threat to the planet is atmospheric pollution and climate change. The Government and the European Union are moving towards emissions trading for carbon dioxide. Sadly, that scheme will apply only to large-scale emitters. It will not be comprehensive and will cover only about 30 per cent. of carbon dioxide emissions. I hope to publish in the near future my detailed proposals for an energy policy for the United Kingdom that would provide a comprehensive environmental framework and would, as far as possible, price all greenhouse gas emissions associated with electricity production, transport and domestic use of power. We could then begin to price the comprehensive environmental consequences of what we do.

  761
  We have failed to produce a system that does that. The result is that the Government are giving huge support to renewable electricity generation, for example, although its cost is astronomic. The wind farms that are now attracting investment in order for investors to take advantage of the subsidy available from the Government are hopelessly uneconomic. They will be a huge cost to the country. There will be far better ways to achieve the environmental objectives associated with reducing greenhouse gas emission than the production of electricity from wind power.
  Mr. Hendrick: The hon. Gentleman referred to the Government's White Paper and their position on nuclear power. Will he tell us his party's position on the future of nuclear power?
  Mr. Blunt: I am grateful for the invitation. I shall not trespass too long on the time of the House, even though the subject of energy is vast and all-consuming. I hope that we will have more time to debate it in the House. Briefly, in the same way as we should find a mechanism to price the atmospheric pollution caused by carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, we should price the future pollution that will be associated with nuclear production. It is not unreasonable to expect new designs of nuclear power stations to allow an estimate of the cost of dealing with the fuel that will come out of those power stations, and the final cost of decommissioning them. Then one can impose an environmental charge against those power stations, in accordance with their expected lifespan.
  On top of that cash stream, which in the United States has been set at 0.1 cent for the past couple of decades, which has produced the money that is now paying for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel in the US, some form of insurance premium could also be charged in case those calculations turned out to be hopelessly wrong, as was the case with the first generation of nuclear power stations, which turned out to be vastly more expensive to clean up than anyone ever anticipated. That would also produce the funds to deal with the problem that we face now—the problem of the environmental pollution created by radioactivity. The Government cannot escape their responsibilities in that regard.
  There is a way for those costs to be priced in, and if that is done for each design of nuclear power station, and if the costs associated with carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases are also priced in as far as possible, investors will be able to decide whether to invest in wind farms, gas-fired electricity stations or clean coal technology. That is the way forward. It provides investors with a framework in which to make decisions and will then allow the market to operate. It will also be possible to price in factors such as security of supply. As soon as it becomes clear that the supply is under threat, the price of electricity will be almost infinite. People will pay an enormous amount if they think they will be denied supplies of electricity. That is a commodity for which an effective market can work. The challenge facing us and the Government is to create the framework that will enable that market to function and to produce clean, cheap electricity on which we can all rely.
  3.17 pm
  Patrick Mercer: It is a privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt). I am grateful to the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) for making one or two points on which I hope to expand. I shall confine my remarks to the security aspects of the London underground, with particular reference to the exercise that took place about 10 days ago.
  I shall pose a number of questions. I apologise in advance to the Minister if that causes him confusion. I realise that most of the questions could be answered by various Ministers—the Home Secretary, the Minister with responsibility for the Cabinet Office, the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire, or the Secretary of State for Transport. Who knows who will answer the questions? The Government do not have one central point to which to address questions relating to homeland security. If they did, perhaps some of my questions might receive a proper and coherent answer.
  Almost 10 years ago, there was a sarin attack on the Tokyo underground. I do not need to remind the House of its effect. Since then, every terrorist group worth its salt has promised a similar attack somewhere in the world. Even before 11 September, there was the threat of an attack on the British underground. Most recently, a home-grown bunch of terrorists told us that that would happen. We had a warning from the head of MI5, as well as a warning about suicide bombers from one of the Metropolitan police's most senior officers.
  Despite all those events, it has taken more than two years since 11 September for such an emergency to be practised in any realistic way. While I am grateful that there has been a practical exercise rather than a table-top, procedural, telephone or computer exercise, my first question to the Minister is: why has it taken so long? Where is the energy and the determination to protect not only our underground travellers, but the people of London? Where is the drive to ensure that the threat is being taken seriously?
  For instance, why was the exercise planned and conducted on a Sunday, when there was no traffic and few people, few trains were running and it was easy to close the affected part of the underground system? I understand the points made about the financial implications for the City, but why was the scenario practised in such an easy way? Two thirds of the problem relates to other traffic and congestion, but that element did not arise. Why were the emergency services in position before the exercise? Why were the police and the fire and ambulance services in place? Why was the civil contingencies reaction force not present? Why were the armed forces not involved?
  Why was the whole exercise so mechanistic and procedural, two years after 11 September and almost 10 years after the Tokyo attacks? It was good to see policemen, firemen and others donning those ghastly and uncomfortable suits and masks and getting down into the underground, but it was clear to me, as it would have been to the Minister if he had been present, that they were wholly unfamiliar with what they were doing. I could have understood that unfamiliarity if the exercise had been conducted in the weeks following 11 September, but I could not do so two years afterwards.

  763
  When will such an emergency be practised outside London? When will such problems be physically rehearsed on other rail networks and in other tunnels? When will we next see such an exercise in London? More to the point, when will it be practised at a realistic time of day and with all the associated problems? That prompts the question of why so little account was taken of what happened on 28 August. Why were not the lessons carried forward immediately, clearly and with the energy and impetus that I would have expected? Surely, every sort of chance disaster, if that is the right phrase, must be used to teach lessons. The lessons must be implemented quickly and effectively; otherwise we will not be bothering or taking the matter seriously.
  I have already asked about the next practical exercise—in the armed forces, it would be called a field training exercise—and asked when one is next planned for London, but answer comes there none. When will the emergency services be given a run in proper conditions, so that they can improve their reactions and so that London and the rest of the country get a proper crack of the whip? There is little doubt that such an emergency is coming. People far more knowledgeable than me have already warned that that is the case.
  Some very fine words about the exercise were broadcast by the Liberal party. It was highly critical and made some suggestions and observations. Yet as far as I could see, not a single Liberal spokesperson or Member of Parliament was present. It is interesting that the Liberal Benches are so empty today. I say to the Liberal party that if it wants to comment, it should put its money where its mouth is by getting on the ground and seeing what the problems are.
  In summary, valuable lessons were learned a couple of weekends ago that may help with the London underground if and when an emergency arises. However, I say to the Minister that if what happened in Tokyo happens in London, the Government will never be forgiven, and any of us with half a conscience will never forgive ourselves. I urge him to act and to do so in a realistic rather than a wholly unrealistic manner.
  3.24 pm
  Tom Brake: I welcome the opportunity to contribute briefly to this debate.
  Like other hon. Members, I wish to focus on electricity supply and the London underground. We understood from the Minister that evacuation procedures were carried out according to standard arrangements during recent events. That may well have been the case, but, if so, one wonders why it took up to 90 minutes to evacuate some people. He also said that there was no room for complacency. I think that we need to look back at some of the problems that arose during evacuation of the Central line in January to see whether the lessons have been applied.
  For instance, problems arose in respect of emergency lighting on the train and mayday calls being broadcast on the intercom, which meant that passengers could hear them. There was a potential problem with regard to passengers descending an escalator into Chancery lane station while the emergency was under way. Problems also arose when passengers involved in the incident did
  764
  not receive counselling. A large number of issues arose from the Chancery lane incident, and I should like some reassurances that they will be considered, that the lessons have been learned and that the evacuation following the recent interruption to power supply went smoothly.
  Communications also need further investigation and were a significant problem at Chancery lane station. It appears they were also a problem in relation to the more recent incident. I understand that the National Grid Company knew that there was no terrorist cause and immediately advised EDF to that effect, but that there was a delay in passing on the information. Presumably—the Minister may be able to clarify this Point—the information would have had to go through Seeboard Powerlink before it arrived on the desk of London Underground Ltd. If the need for different organisations to be contacted sequentially is a problem, it must be addressed.
  Similarly, the issue of communications outside London Underground must also be addressed. That involves what commuters knew about the incident. Furthermore, after the incident, broadcasters were unable to provide much information about the reasons for the problems that commuters were experiencing. There was almost a communications blackout in terms of people travelling on the tube, and that issue must be looked at.
  Other hon. Members have mentioned the back-up power supply. I shall not go into the history of Lots road, but the Minister must reassure us that commuters are not in a worse position now than they were previously with regard to a back-up power supply that could provide traction for the tube. I hope that the Minister can explain what consideration was given to a back-up power supply when the closure of Lots road was examined and why it was eventually decided not to pursue the option. I also hope that he can say whether it is intended to hold discussions involving the Government, Transport for London, the Mayor and the national grid about the potential need for such a supply.
  If action is taken on the key issues—communications, ascertaining whether evacuation procedures for the London underground worked as effectively as they could, implementing the lessons from Chancery lane, conducting a review of back-up power supply arrangements—something positive will emerge from a disaster that affected hundreds of thousands of Londoners.
  3.29 pm
  Mr. Tim Collins: It is a well worn clichéon such occasions that those who make the wind-up speeches say how excellent and informative the debate has been. However, I genuinely believe that that applies today. As a humble transport spokesman, I have learned more about energy supply this afternoon than I ever expected I would.
  I pay special tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway), who spoke with a depth of understanding about and interest in NETA, and to the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), who spoke, as a former dean of an engineering department, with great knowledge of the technical background to events on 28 August. She also made some wider points that I hope the Government will take on board in the longer term.

  765
  My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) made an interesting contribution. He has studied energy supply in great depth in recent months. I shall revert shortly to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), who speaks for our party on homeland security and posed the Government some important challenges.
  I make it clear at the outset to both Ministers that no one believes that the issues that they confront and that we have been debating are easy to resolve or require the mere waving of a magic wand or the exercise of political will to cause all difficulties to disappear. Of course, that is not the case. We are dealing with challenges that have built up over many years. The decisions that we make will have consequences for many more years and decades.
  I shall begin with some comments about our general energy debate before concluding with a few specific questions to the Minister for Transport on transport matters. Although I look forward to his response because he is one of the most entertaining speakers on the Government Front Bench, I regret the absence of the Secretary of State for Transport. We understand the absence of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—she is returning from the Cancun deliberations, which it was perfectly appropriate that she should attend. However, the Transport Secretary is absent because he has been attending a party to celebrate the first stage of the channel tunnel rail link. Some would say that it was a little premature to celebrate any part of our transport infrastructure, but we shall await the Minister's comments.
  Many speeches paid tribute to the skill and ability of the Minister for Energy. We find it curious that he is also Minister for E-Commerce and Postal Services, just as it is curious that the Secretary of State for Transport doubles as Secretary of State for Scotland.
  Events in London and the south-east on 28 August and in the west midlands on 5 September—and in many parts of East Anglia last year, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) pointed out—harked back to the past. In an entertaining speech, which I shall shortly consider in greater detail, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said that the last time we had serious power failures was shortly after the second world war. She may be right about the scale but, as someone who grew up in the 1970s under Governments of both parties, the events to which I referred were reminiscent of the period when many of us enjoyed our childhood. There were repeated power failures and power cuts. Eighteen years of Conservative government consigned them to memory and perhaps it is not coincidental that, after six years of a Labour Government, we appear to be reverting to some unfortunate old patterns.
  The hon. Member for Crosby rightly set out in almost as much detail as the Minister—who reads a brief that is put in front of him—the exact technical nature of the Failure on 28 August. I am not qualified to challenge her and I am sure that her description of what happened practically is accurate. However, what occurred was described by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich as a clear warning of what might happen if we do not have security of supply in the future. That is the context in which the wider points about the Government's
  766
  energy policy and the sad deficiencies of their energy White Paper were made by a number of speakers, not only on this side of the House.
  There is a general sense of disappointment that the Government, who had placed such great stress on the quality of their energy White Paper, its all-embracing nature and the courage with which various options were going to be assessed and decided in it, have none the less come up with a document in which, in the view of many experts, they have ducked more decisions than they have made. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk. but was not adequately addressed by the Minister, who made the best of a rather sticky wicket. I do not blame him for the difficulties in which he finds himself, but many people seriously question what the status of energy supply will be in 2020 and whether it is credible to believe, as the Government do, that by then 20 per cent. of our energy will come from renewable sources. Very few people dispute the desirability of that outcome, if it is deliverable, but many have reservations about whether it can be done.
  It seems curious, given that the Government have chosen to produce this White Paper, that it should be in Opposition time that the House first gets the opportunity to debate the issues arising from it. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) pointed out, it also seems extraordinary that it should be through private correspondence that we receive a commitment from the Government to place an energy Bill in the next Queen's Speech. It would be helpful to find out whether the Minister is prepared to say on the Floor of the House what we understand a couple of Ministers have said in correspondence: namely, that there will definitely be an energy Bill in the Queen's Speech. If so, what areas it will cover?
  The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), speaking for the Liberal Democrats, rather unfairly attacked the splendid speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk, who spoke with characteristic panache. The hon. Gentleman accused him of over-reacting and of warning that the whole world was going to come to an end. I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that it is his party's amendment that says that Government policy has
  "left the electricity generation industry in crisis",
  and that it was his speech, not that of my hon. Friend, that ended by accusing the Government of acting in panic.
  Some of us also found it curious that the hon. Gentleman spent some time saying how wicked and evil it was that the Conservative Government had created a relationship between the power driving the lights in the House and the French Government, given that his party believes that our European neighbours should rule every aspect of our domestic lives. It was even more curious that he thought it a problem to have an energy relationship with the French Government, but perfectly all right to be dependent for large parts of our future energy supply on the Russian Government. That seemed an odd position to take. He did, however, tell the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South that all problems would be solved if we were to purchase a copy of his book. All I would say, in the kindest possible way, is that if he writes as well as he speaks in the House, I do not think that J. K. Rowling will have any real competition or difficulties with her sales figures.

  767
  The priority that has emerged from many of today's speeches is that we must ensure that lessons are learned from what happened on 28 August and subsequently. In that context, I would like to press the Transport Minister on a matter that I raised earlier with the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services. Who, precisely, will be responsible for learning the lessons, particularly about evacuation procedures—a point also raised by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) and others—and about the general handling by London Underground of incidents relating to power cuts? Who will be in charge of implementing any ensuing recommendations?
  As a result of the £500 million that the Treasury spent on the negotiations over the public-private partnership for the London underground, we now have an extremely complicated and long series of contracts, but it is still not clear to many London commuters who will be responsible for implementing any recommendations on these issues. Will it be the Government, Transport for London, the Mayor of London or the individual train companies? Or will it, as the Minister appeared to suggest earlier, be up to individual drivers to decide what to do in particular circumstances?
  Dr. Howells: My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services was right to say that the practitioners, whether on the trains or in the underground stations, will have to take those decisions in the light of all the circumstances. Ultimately, the Mayor of London takes responsibility for the conduct of the underground.
  Mr. Collins: That was a helpful reply as far as it went, but the Minister will know that, although responsibility for London underground has, rather belatedly, been devolved to the Mayor of London, responsibility for health and safety legislation, security and a range of associated issues have not been devolved. They remain the Government's responsibility. What about issues relating to what happened on 28 August? The Minister said that 57 tube trains were stuck in tunnels—passengers were kept on 49 of them, but 1,200 passengers were taken out of the carriages of eight trains and put on to the surface of the tunnel, where they walked along beside the rails. As a result, the problems took longer to resolve than they otherwise would have done.
  I am not expecting the Minister to have a definitive answer this afternoon, but Londoners expect greater clarity about the overlap, especially between the homeland security issues to which my hon. Friend the Member for Newark referred and the responsibilities of the Mayor of London and others.
  Understandably, there has been huge publicity in the London and national media, as a result of what happened on 28 August, about which precise electricity substations in which precise geographical locations provide power to the primary transport mechanism for the capital city of the fourth largest economy in the world. It is not being unduly paranoid to say that among those who will have read those details are people who do not bear this country and its citizens any good will. What additional steps have been taken to protect those
  768
  electricity substations to ensure that, now that it has become more obvious how fragile some of these arrangements are, people will be deterred and detected should they attempt to threaten them? Many of us share the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark. Like others, I was making that point two years ago when I was shadowing the Cabinet Office. We need a homeland security Department, like that in the United States, to provide a single focus, so that someone can be answerable to the House for questions on these matters.
  We do not for a moment believe that it is easy or simple to provide energy security for the future of this country but, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk, we believe that that is one of the first duties of Government. We hope and expect that the Government will introduce legislation on this matter in the Queen's Speech, that they will provide answers to some of the issues that they ducked in their energy White Paper, that they will accept that this matter is of supreme national significance—not just in London but especially in London—and that they will give us a sense that they recognise that fudge and delay in this area can no longer be tolerated. Clear decisions, clearly announced and clearly implemented, will alone meet the demands of this hour.
  3.43 pm
  The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Dr. Kim Howells): May I echo the words of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins)? This has been an excellent and challenging debate. Like him, I was particularly impressed by the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), and by those of his hon. Friends the Members for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) and for Reigate (Mr. Blunt). In fact, we have not heard a speech that has been less than interesting. I shall not join in the cracks about the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell)—[Interruption.]The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale has nicked my line. I was about to say that when it is remaindered, I may have a look at his book.
  The Government share the concerns expressed by hon. Members about the temporary loss of power in south London and Kent on 28 August, and the subsequent impact on and disruption to travellers. When I heard about it, I immediately thought of the confident statements made in the aftermath of the blackout in north-east America by our own energy regulator and many others, who said that it could never happen here because our system was too robust.
  As my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services explained, some 410,000 customers in south London and parts of Kent lost electricity. Power was restored through the transmission system within 30 minutes, and within another 11 minutes the local distribution system was re-energised and normal power was restored in all areas. As at least one Member has said, however, there is no room for complacency. Our aim must be to ensure that there are no interruptions to such a vital system. We should also bear in mind the potential danger of conveying people through what may be long and deep tunnels in London.

  769
  The power failure did, of course, have far-reaching consequences. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove mentioned the heavy rail network. We must draw lessons from the extent to which that network was affected, and I shall ensure that the investigations take it into account—along with the fact, not mentioned so far, that hundreds of traffic lights went out in London. We should bear it in mind that only 6 per cent. of journeys in this country are made by rail. A huge number of vehicles were held up in traffic jams. As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), we have many lessons to learn. Security involves a range of aspects of our lives, not just the economic aspect. Being able to negotiate the streets is certainly one of the most important.
  The power cut caused disruption to surface rail services, the underground, street lights and traffic systems, as well as electricity users in homes and workplaces. Although London's critical infrastructure has back-up arrangements, there was significant and worrying disruption to the transport service in general. All the agencies involved are reviewing their back-up plans in the light of difficulties caused to passengers after the power cut. Following the publication of National Grid's report on 10 September, my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services announced that the Department of Trade and Industry and Ofgem would conduct their own inquiries, and we hope that the results will be published by mid-November. The DTI's engineering inspectorate will conduct its own detailed investigation of all the technical and operational issues involved in the security of our electricity supply.
  As my hon. Friend explained at the beginning, the cause of the power cut has now been traced to two faults that affected the same section of the network at almost the same time; but we will not hear this Minister blame some individual for putting a fuse with the wrong ampage into a box. As Members on both sides of the House have said, there are lessons to be learned and serious investigations to be conducted, involving the whole range of electricity generation and supply. The hon. Member for Reigate and others have reminded us of the seriousness of these issues, and they will be taken fully into account.
  Mr. McLoughlin: Will the Minister give way?
  Dr. Howells: I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not. I have very little time left.
  Risks to complex systems such as the energy supply cannot be eliminated, but we are determined to use this experience in a way that will enable us—along with other agencies, the regulator and the companies involved—to minimise and, where necessary, manage those risks. The Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry and for Transport are also determined to ensure that the necessary lessons are learned, because the Government share the House's feeling that what happened on 28 August must not happen again. Our transport providers need secure, reliable supplies and an effective and appropriate means of handling disruption, if and when it should occur.
  In answer to a point raised by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, London Underground draws its power from the national grid under a private
  770
  finance initiative deal—it was finalised in 1998 but began long before then—with Seeboard Powerlink, which manages, maintains, develops and finances the London underground power supply system. The PFI deal stems from a decision first taken by London Underground in 1985: that the Lots road power station, which was by then 100 years old and reaching the end of its life, should be closed in favour of supply from the national grid. I understand from London Underground that that decision was reviewed several times before finally being confirmed through the award of the PFI contract in 1998. During that period, consideration was given to several options, including refurbishing the Lots road station.
  There seems to be consensus among experts that resilience is better secured by having access to the wider supply possibilities of the grid, rather than through over-reliance on an individual power plant such as that at Lots road. Well, we may yet have that debate, as a consequence of the investigations that will take place.
  I want now to deal with some of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who has looked at these issues particularly closely. I never thought that I would live to hear her say that she associates herself completely—completely—with the comments of Conservative Front Benchers. It was a wonderful moment, but I should warn the House that she can be more than a little mischievous from time to time. I suspect that she was seeking to tease out of the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) some firmer statements on Tory policy on electricity generation supply and demand. She is one of the House's most accomplished performers, and I want strongly to commend to some of the younger Members—on both sides of the House—the hon. Gentleman's decision not to take her on. I certainly would not do so.
  Mr. McLoughlin: Stop grovelling!
  Dr. Howells: I am trying to answer the questions. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich concentrated, quite properly. on crucial issues such as passenger safety and the provision of constant electricity supplies to the underground.
  The PFI power contract was put out to tender in 1996 and was signed in 1998 with Seeboard Powerlink, which is owned primarily by Seeboard. The contract has been subject to safety and risk analysis. The PFI covers four main features: the provision of back-up supplies from a gas turbine generator at Greenwich; the provision of emergency battery lighting at stations; the purchase and supply of power from the national grid; and the operation, maintenance and renewal of London underground's high-voltage network.
  The PFI contract is drawn so as to incentivise Seeboard Powerlink's maintaining a high level of resilience and security of power supply. The PFI will provide a new control system, known as SPIDER—I do not know why—for London underground's power network. I am told that it will enable faster high-voltage system reconfiguration in the event of loss of supply from the grid.
  I want to reassure the House and the hon. Member for Croydon, South in particular that as part of its review of the handling of the power failure, London Underground

  771
  will examine how its power PFI worked, and identify improvements that can be made to communication between it and Seeboard Powerlink, and between the latter and EDF Energy, which is the local distribution supplier. Indeed, that issue was also of concern to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake). London Underground will particularly investigate its operational and customer service response to the power supply problems of 28 August—especially internal communications and the CCTV network, which the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) rightly noted was important. The evacuation protocol, which seems to have worked well on this occasion, will also be assessed.
  As the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale reminded us, people got out safely and no one was hurt. We need to learn from what went well as well as from the difficulties. The reopening of stations and the restoration of services is also important. The electricity may be brought back on supply, but we have to ensure that no one is on the lines and that no part of the system will be damaged as a consequence of turning the juice back on. Communications with the world beyond the underground system will also be examined. We must ensure that everyone knows exactly what is happening to prevent crushes from crowds of people trying to enter stations on the underground when they should stay well out of them. Those are serious issues.
  London Underground's key problem, as several hon. Members have pointed out, is decades of under-investment. I want to assure my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich that the public-private partnership is delivering unprecedented levels of long-term stable funding to enable the tube to be brought up to modern standards. The Government are providing £1 billion a year for the next seven years. In all, the PPP will save more than £1 billion a year spent on maintenance and upgrades over the next 15 years. That will give the tube a chance to recover and to become a much better system. The underground, of course, remains publicly owned and is publicly accountable to the Mayor of London, and the private sector consortiums that are contracted to deliver the improvements face heavy penalties if they fail to do so.
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services openly and candidly dealt with the hugely important issues that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale focused on about the future of electricity generation and supply in this country.
  Before I reach the requisite part of the winding-up speech, I want to add my praises—my hon. Friend would have done so if he had had time—for the hard work of London Underground staff—drivers, the station staff, the controllers and so forth—in handling such a difficult event. They did it very well indeed, particularly evacuating passengers from stations so quickly, and later getting the trains into the right positions to resume services as efficiently as possible.
  We should not forget the bus drivers and conductors who had to deal with the influx of passengers, nor the managers of the bus companies who instructed their
  772
  drivers and conductors to accept tickets in order to help the thousands of people denied access to the tube to reach their destinations. It was a major exercise and it was done very well. The people working on the railways, who worked hard to ensure that services ran once the power was restored, should also be thanked. We often knock the transportation services in this country, but they are staffed by extremely professional and excellent men and women. In this instance, under exceptionally difficult circumstances, they did a tremendous job of ensuring that services continued.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and I will take great interest in the lessons that emerge from the various reviews and will ensure that they are acted on. In the unlikely event of a repetition, we trust that London Underground will respond even better and restore services more effectively.
  In the few moments remaining, may I turn to the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby? It is extremely important that the appropriate skills exist to ensure that the tasks can be carried out. Those skills are held by the existing highly knowledgeable and good work force, but my hon. Friend is right that we must incentivise young people to work in the sector. If we do not, many of the predictions of doom that we have heard in today's debate will certainly come to pass. That is a primary responsibility of Government and I assure my hon. Friend that I will talk to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to ensure that measures are taken to try to provide incentives for people to enter such employment.
  We have had an excellent debate today and I assure the House that we will learn the lessons of the outage that occurred on 28 August.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 124, Noes 332.

  Division No. 312]

  [4:00 pm

  AYES

  Amess, David

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)M

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Bacon, Richard

  Duncan Smith, rh Iain

  Baldry, Tony

  Evans, Nigel

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bercow, John

  Fallon, Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Boswell, Tim

  Brady, Graham

  Flight, Howard

  Brazier, Julian

  Flook, Adrian

  Burns, Simon

  Forth, rh Eric

  Burt, Alistair

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Butterfill, John

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Cameron, David

  Garnier, Edward

  Cash, William

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Gillen, Mrs Cheryl

  Goodman, Paul

  Chope, Christopher

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Clappison, James

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Greenway, John

  Collins, Tim

  Grieve, Dominic

  Conway, Derek

  Gummer, rh John

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Hague, rh William

  Curry, rh David

  Hammond, Philip

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Heald, Oliver

  773

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Hendry, Charles

  Randall, John

  Hermon, Lady

  Redwood, rh John

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Jack, rh Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Ruffley, David

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Shepherd, Richard

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Simmonds, Mark

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Soames, Nicholas

  Leigh, Edward

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Spring, Richard

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Loughton, Tim

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Trend, Michael

  Maclean, rh David

  Trimble, rh David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Maude, rh Francis

  Viggers, Peter

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Walter, Robert

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Waterson, Nigel

  Mercer, Patrick

  Watkinson, Angela

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Whittingdale, John

  Wiggin, Bill

  Moss, Malcolm

  Wilkinson, John

  Norman, Archie

  Wilshire, David

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Page, Richard

  Young, rh Sir George

  Paice, James

  Paisley, Rev. Ian

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Pickles, Eric

  Mr. Robert Syms and

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Mr. Mark Francois

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Ainger, Nick

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Browne, Desmond

  Allan, Richard

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Allen, Graham

  Bryant, Chris

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Burden, Richard

  Burnham, Andy

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Burstow, Paul

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Austin, John

  Cairns, David

  Baird, Vera

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Baker, Norman

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Banks, Tony

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

  Barnes, Harry

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Barrett, John

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Casale, Roger

  Battle, John

  Caton, Martin

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Beard, Nigel

  Challen, Colin

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Chidgey, David

  Bell, Stuart

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Berry, Roger

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Best, Harold

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Blackman, Liz

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Borrow, David

  Coaker, Vernon

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Cohen, Harry

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Connarty, Michael

  Breed, Colin

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Brennan, Kevin

  Corston, Jean

  774

  Cotter, Brian

  Hodge, Margaret

  Cousins, Jim

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Cranston, Ross

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Cruddas, Jon

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Davidson, Ian

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Illsley, Eric

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Denham, rh John

  Jamieson, David

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Jenkins, Brian

  Dismore, Andrew

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Doran, Frank

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Doughty, Sue

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Edwards, Huw

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Efford, Clive

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Keetch, Paul

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Etherington, Bill

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Farrelly, Paul

  Fisher, Mark

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Kidney, David

  Flint, Caroline

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Follett, Barbara

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Foulkes, rh George

  Lamb, Norman

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Lammy, David

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Gardiner, Barry

  Lepper, David

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Gerrard, Neil

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Linton, Martin

  Gidley, Sandra

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Gilroy, Linda

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Goggins, Paul

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McCabe, Stephen

  Grogan, John

  McCafferty, Chris

  Hain, rh Peter

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McDonnell, John

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  MacDougall, John

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  McFall, John

  Hancock, Mike

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Hanson, David

  McIsaac, Shona

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  McKechin, Ann

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  McNamara, Kevin

  Heath, David

  MacShane, Denis

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hendrick, Mark

  McWalter, Tony

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Heppell, John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hinchliffe, David

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  775

  Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

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

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Rendel, David

  Martlew, Eric

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Michael, rh Alun

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Miliband, David

  Miller, Andrew

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Moffatt, Laura

  Rooney, Terry

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Moore, Michael

  Ruane, Chris

  Moran, Margaret

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Morgan, Julie

  Salmond, Alex

  Morley, Elliot

  Salter, Martin

  Mudie, George

  Sanders, Adrian

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Sawford, Phil

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Sheerman, Barry

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Sheridan, Jim

  O'Hara, Edward

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Singh, Marsha

  Organ, Diana

  Skinner, Dennis

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Owen, Albert

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Perham, Linda

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Plaskitt, James

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Pollard, Kerry

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

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Soley, Clive

  Squire, Rachel

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Stevenson, George

  Purchase, Ken

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Purnell, James

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Straw, rh Jack

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Stringer, Graham

  776

  Stunell, Andrew

  Watts, David

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  White, Brian

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Wills, Michael

  Timms, Stephen

  Winnick, David

  Tipping, Paddy

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Wishart, Pete

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Trickett, Jon

  Woodward, Shaun

  Truswell, Paul

  Woolas, Phil

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Ward, Claire

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Gillian Merron and

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Joan Ryan

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House regrets the problems that have recently occurred on the National Grid and the disruption that was caused particularly to transport services; further notes that the report published by the National Grid last Wednesday shows that the problem was not caused by under-investment on the network, shortage of capacity or its contractual relationship with any of its customers but rather by a local transmission failure; notes that security of supply is one of the key responsibilities of the regulator, that Ofgem is considering the incident in the light of the National Grid's licence obligations and will be reporting at the end of September; and further notes that the Government's engineering inspectorate will also be conducting its own investigation.

  EU Constitution
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I have to advise the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  4.15 pm
  Mr. Michael Ancram: I beg to move,
  That this House believes that the draft Constitution, presented by the Convention on the Future of Europe to the Inter-Governmental Conference on 20th June at Thessalonica, constitutes a fundamental change to the relationship between the European Union and the Member States and should therefore only be implemented if the British people have freely consented to it in a referendum.
  This debate is essentially about trusting the British people. It is about letting the British people decide, and Sunday's euro referendum in Sweden was a healthy and welcome example of the pitfalls facing Governments who think that they know better than the people. I regret the bullying way in which the Eurocrats in Brussels have responded to that decision.
  Ian Stewart: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ancram: No, I shall make a little progress first.
  The Government's ruling out of a referendum on the proposed constitution displays a similar hectoring disregard for the deeply held views of the British people. and I therefore make no apology for returning to this subject today. Hon. Members on both sides of the House, as we know, support a referendum; serious commentators argue for a referendum; and the people demand a referendum. Ironically, it was the Government who created that demand. They introduced referendums to our constitutional diet and gave the British people a taste for them. Even before they took office, they were promoting referendums as a central part of new Labour's political culture. Since then, they have held 34 referendums—on devolution, on mayors and now on regionalisation, not to speak of the yet again, if not permanently, postponed referendum on scrapping the pound.
  In 1996, the Labour party was promoting the idea of referendums. As the then shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, now Lord Robertson, pithily put it while arguing for a referendum on devolution:
  "Politicians should trust the people."
  The Government trust the people on devolution. They trust the people on London. They trust the people on mayors. They trust the people on regional assemblies. They trust the people—until this one, the big one, the one that really matters. The Government then suddenly stop trusting the people and say no; but the British people will not take no for an answer, and nor will we.
  The case for a referendum on the proposed European constitution is overwhelming. The principle behind holding a referendum is very simple: the draft constitution sets out to transfer sovereignty, both generally and specifically, from our national Parliament to the emerging political entity, which, in the Prime Minister's words, will be a European superpower.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: Rubbish.
  Mr. Ancram: Those were the Prime Minister's words, not mine. The hon. Gentleman should perhaps read the
  778
  speeches that the Prime Minister made in Warsaw in 2000 and in Cardiff last November, where he explicitly set out his desire to create what he called a European superpower.
  Sovereignty does not belong to Parliament or to the Government. Sovereignty belongs to the people. Parliament holds sovereignty in trust. Parliament can exercise sovereignty, but it should not on its own authority alienate it. If sovereignty is to be transferred, alienated or surrendered, it should be done only with the consent of the British people, democratically and freely given, arguably in the context of a general election, but ideally in a referendum. There will be many arguments as to what constitutes such alienation in the context of the coming intergovernmental conference. I believe that anything that reduces the powers of domestic national Governments, and thereby strengthens the powers at the centre, constitutes alienation. The draft constitution before us is full of such instances.
  Mike Gapes: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that the powers of central Government of this country were significantly reduced under the Single European Act and other measures introduced in the past, and that there was no referendum at that time? Given the logic of his position, however, would it not be more honest to talk not about a referendum on a constitution but about a referendum on allowing the Conservative party to campaign, as most of its members seem to want, to get out of the European Union completely?
  Mr. Ancram: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman reads the brief that his party produces for him. Helpfully, I also have a copy. It reads:
  "Clear dividing line between a Tory party determined to take Britain to the exit door of Europe and a Labour Government working in Europe".
  I say "well done" to the hon. Gentleman. He will get brownie points from the Whips for that. This document is wonderful. It says:
  "The Convention of Europe was set up to propose changes in the way the EU works with the expansion of the EU to 25 members from May 2004."
  If the Convention were only doing that, it would have done it very quickly. There is a lot more in the Convention report than that. The document continues:
  "No precedent for a referendum on EU treaty change".
  Even the Government, in the document that they produced as a White Paper the other day, accept that it is not a treaty but a constitution. That is the basic difference. Lastly—I will then finish with this document, as I would not want to steal all the lines of Labour Members—the document says surprisingly:
  "The Government believes there is a strong case for a single, coherent constitution for the EU."
  What happened to the Prime Minister's comments in Warsaw, I think it was, in 2000, when he said that there was no necessity for a single constitution or a single document? This document is a piece of propaganda, and I congratulate all hon. Members who are brave enough to try to make use of it.
  We were told last year that a referendum would be unjustified because the treaty would contain nothing of constitutional importance. I repeat: nothing of

  779
  constitutional importance. It is only a written constitution, which for the first time explicitly enshrines the primacy of EU law. It is a constitution that sets up a European Presidency for the first time, a European diplomatic service for the first time, and a European Foreign Secretary to oversee it. If those are not constitutionally significant, heaven knows what is. Even the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), who I am pleased to see in his place today, apparently agrees. On 1 April this year, he told the Foreign Affairs Committee that he was not saying that the European constitution
  "has got no substantial constitutional significance, of course it will have".
  For once he was right. Can we therefore now have the referendum that we were told we could have if there was anything of constitutional significance? Apparently, we cannot, because now that the constitutional significance criterion has been met, another hurdle has been quickly slipped into its place. The truth is that those criteria are cosmetic. The Government have set their face against a referendum not because the draft constitution does not merit one but simply because they do not trust the people. As a result. their defence of their anti-referendum position becomes more and more frayed with every passing week.
  Mr. John Redwood: Is it not even worse than that? The Government will not hold a referendum on the pound and the euro because they know that they would lose it, as the British people do not want to give up that amount of power. They are therefore prepared to give up all the rest in this constitution, without a referendum, knowing that the British people do not want it. It would be the first case in history of there being a currency with no country to go with it.
  Mr. Ancram: My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. He points out that this Government, who talk so much about trusting the people, when it comes to the crunch do not believe that the people trust them, and are not prepared to put that to the test. He makes his point very well.
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): Is the point made by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) also the right hon. Gentleman's point? Does he believe that it would be a currency without a country?
  Mr. Ancram: I believe that there is no country called Europe at present, and if Conservative Members have anything to do with it, there never will be a country called Europe. At the moment, we are talking about a currency that does not have a country. The Swedes, in their wisdom, decided that that was not a game in which they wished to play a part, and if the Government were brave enough to hold a referendum on the same issue here, the British people would give them the same verdict.
  Mr. George Foulkes: The right hon. Gentleman, Malcolm Rifkind and I used to agree entirely on Europe—so much so that we wrote a letter to a newspaper together—but he has
  780
  changed while I am consistent. He has not mentioned the other referendum, which was held in Estonia on Sunday. I was planning to ask him to condemn the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), Lord Lamont and all those MEPs for interfering in the affairs of another state. However, given that there was a resounding yes vote on joining Europe, will he send them to Latvia as well?
  Mr. Ancram: The right hon. Gentleman has a selective memory. The letter that he, Sir Malcolm Rifkind and I wrote, against the advice of the Whips on both sides of the House, called for a free vote because a referendum was not available and we believed that the representatives of the people of this country should have as much free judgment as possible. I still take that view even if he does not. We have talked about the views of certain Conservatives on Estonia. It is strange that I am instructed that the views of people such as those whom he mentioned represent our party's policy. I could start suggesting that the views of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on Iraq are suddenly the Labour party's policy. Members of the Conservative party are free to express their opinions and I am here to explain the Opposition's official line.
  Mr. Foulkes rose—
  Mr. Mark Hendrick rose—
  Mr. Ancram: I shall not give way because I want to make progress.
  The criteria that the Government have set are cosmetic. We were told in June that there was no need for a referendum because, according to the right hon. Member for Neath, who has sadly left the Chamber, the treaty was largely a "tidying-up exercise" and according to the Foreign Secretary, it was a "streamlining process". They were trying to get across the message that the constitution was not important and that it did not really matter. How may the incorporation of the charter of fundamental rights in the constitution or turning justice and home affairs into a supranational rather than an intergovernmental matter be described as mere tidying-up or streamlining? That defence was ludicrous, and as the details of the draft constitution became clearer the idiocy of the defence became clearer and even now it has been dropped.
  Last Tuesday, the Foreign Secretary told the House that:
  "the proposals in the current draft treaty do not change the fundamental relationship between the EU and its member states".—[Official Report, 9 September 2003; Vol. 410, c. 174.]
  He said that there was therefore no justification for granting a referendum. The new test was a fundamental change to the relationship between the EU and its member states. However, at the same time, we learned from an interview published by the right hon. Member for Neath that behind the closed doors of the Cabinet room, the Prime Minister told his colleagues that:
  "the outcome of the Convention is absolutely fundamental. It will define the relationship between Britain and the rest of Europe, the prospects for the euro, and it would last for generations."

  781
  If that is not a declaration that the constitution will fundamentally change relations between the European Union and its member states, I do not know what is.
  I thought that the right hon. Member for Neath might have been mistaken or that his memory was at fault, but the Prime Minister did not deny saying that when he was challenged in the Chamber last Wednesday. He was not being helpful to the Foreign Secretary when he said:
  "Of course the outcome of the convention is absolutely fundamental".—[Official Report, 10 September 2003; Vol. 410, c. 324.]
  He used the word "fundamental" in the Chamber and when talking to his Cabinet colleagues. The last line of defence against the referendum has been washed away and the journey from "tidying-up"—the ludicrous first line of defence—to "fundamental" has been completed.
  The proposed constitution is on any view a step change away from a Europe of nations to a European political entity or, to use the Prime Minister's word, a superpower. The EU will have a written constitution, a legally binding charter of fundamental rights, a single legal personality and a five-year presidency. There will be explicit primacy of EU law, an EU Foreign Minister who is allowed to represent member states at the United Nations, a currency, a flag, an anthem and, eventually, an army.
  Mr. Straw: Of the many misconceptions that the right hon. Gentleman has uttered, one is completely and utterly untrue. A European Foreign Minister would not be allowed to represent the European Union member states at the United Nations, yet the right hon, Gentleman implied that France and the United Kingdom would lose their permanent seats as a result. That is simply not correct.
  Mr. Ancram: If the right hon. Gentleman would listen, he would know that I did not say that: I said that the European Foreign Minister would be able to represent the European Union at the United Nations. That is what the words in the constitution say; all the Foreign Secretary's wriggling cannot disguise that fact. I say to him again: if all this does not change the fundamental relationship between the EU and its member states, what on earth does?
  More important, the constitution is, on its own terms. irreversible. Once one is in it, one cannot change it back again—it can be amended only in an integrationist direction. Uniquely among constitutions, it can be fundamentally amended by the executive decision of the Council of Ministers without further approval from national Parliaments or any need for new treaties. It has none of the checks and balances or restraints that one would normally expect to find in a constitution. I ask once again: if this is not a fundamental change, what on earth is?
  Mr. Tom Harris: I fear that the right hon. Gentleman may have misrepresented the Prime Minister's views when he quoted from his speech in Cardiff last year. He said, more than once, that the Prime Minister described Europe as a superpower. In fact, the Prime Minister said:
  "We fear—
  he was talking about British fears—
  782
  "that the driving ideology behind European integration is a move to a European superstate, in which power is sucked into an unaccountable centre."
  Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should also have quoted what the Prime Minister said a few minutes later—that
  "we should understand that our opposition to Europe as some federal superstate is not a British obsession. It is in fact the reasonably settled view of most members of the EU".
  Mr. Ancram: I can tell the hon. Gentleman what the Prime Minister said later in that speech: "We are trying to create a European superpower, not a European superstate." He made that distinction. Yet every time that I have mentioned the word "superpower" over the past six months, Labour Members have shaken their heads and said, "Not true." It is about time they started studying the speeches of their Prime Minister a little more carefully; otherwise, their chances of promotion will be severely damaged.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Ancram: I want to make progress, if I may. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, go on."] I shall give way.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I am grateful. We must get this clear. Is my right hon. Friend saying that if the Government, as they seem to want to, intend to force through this new constitution against the wishes of the British people, and without seeking their support in a referendum, there is no way in which future elected Parliaments or Governments will be able to do anything about it? We should not play at party politics, but realise that we are discussing a very serious situation.
  Mr. Ancram: My hon. Friend makes an absolutely essential point. This is a one-way street. When one signs up to such a constitution, there is no way back. That is why it is such a fundamental question that must be put to the British people.
  The best way of assessing fundamental change in the relationship between the member states of the Union is to examine the effects that it would have in practice. First, it is worth considering what we would not be able to decide for ourselves any more. We would no longer be able to decide on our own immigration and asylum policy; and we are to have our economic and employment policies co-ordinated—whatever that may mean. Secondly, we need to consider what we will, or can, be made to do against our will. Thirty-two vetoes are being given up, including those on judicial co-operation in criminal matters, establishing offences and penalties for serious crime, crime prevention, civil protection, intellectual property, and rules covering the self-employed. Those are all areas in which we are giving away and ceding our responsibility in the House to the European Union. The Government had better face up to that, as it is the reality of the situation.
  Thirdly, we need to look at rights that we have retained but which can be eroded without further reference to treaties or the consent of national Parliaments in future. Under article I-17, the European Union may endow itself with the necessary powers to deal with any area touched by EU power, from defence

  783
  policy to border controls. We could have the imposition of a common foreign and security policy, the creation of a European army, economic co-ordination leading to fiscal harmonisation, all without the agreement of Parliaments or peoples or even the usual treaty-making process.
  All of those, whatever gloss is put on them by the Government, fundamentally change the relationship between the EU and its member states. We might have hoped that that would change during the forthcoming intergovernmental conference negotiations, but that is a false hope. Last week's White Paper clearly indicated that the Government have effectively swallowed the draft constitution hook, line and sinker, and that its reservations are cosmetic. There is no real threat of a British veto—the one negotiating weapon with which the Government should have gone into the IGC—either explicit or implicit if the so-called red lines are not met. We see that in the Government's new-found ambivalence about the legal enforcement of the charter of fundamental rights. Previously, we were told that that was a red line that they would not concede. but now we are told, "We will see what happens in the IGC and make our mind up at the end."
  One of the major lines of defence of British interests—the Government amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Neath at the Convention—have simply disappeared off the table. There was a Government amendment dealing with asylum, which the right hon. Member for Neath described as fundamentally important, but it has been dropped. The Government said that they "did not accept" the title of "EU foreign Minister" because it was misleading, but that objection too has been dropped, along with the bulk of the 200 amendments that were tabled at the time.
  When the right hon. Member for Neath said that there was no constitutional significance in the draft constitution, he was talking a language quite different from that of his colleagues in Europe. The German Minister of Foreign Affairs said:
  "We have a draft constitution that is worthy of the word historic."
  He went on to say:
  "It is the most important treaty since the formation of the European economic community."
  The Danish Prime Minister put it crisply:
  "What is at stake is so new and big that it is right to hold a referendum."
  Valery Giscard d'Estaing, when asked about the question of a referendum on "Breakfast with Frost" on 25 May, said:
  "For France, we normally have a referendum when we change the constitution."
  When asked about a British referendum, he said that
  "we are not demanding a referendum, but we will be very pleased if there is."
  He obviously regarded the draft as a change in the constitution.
  Given all the evidence that there is a significant change in our fundamental relationship with Europe, will we get our referendum? All the qualifications set by
  784
  the Government in their own words been met, but a last desperate defence has been concocted. According to the Prime Minister last Wednesday, those
  "who call for a referendum want it as the first step in a two-step process to get us out of Europe".—[Official Report, 10 September 2003; Vol. 410, c. 327.]
  I remind Labour Members that that is simply untrue. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) said in Prague on 10 July,
  "The Conservative Party does not want Britain to leave the European Union. We want to make it work."
  Indeed, the logic of the Prime Minister's attack is mind-boggling—[Interruption.] The Foreign Secretary would do well to listen because he will have to explain this to his colleagues abroad. The logic of the Prime Minister's attack is mind-boggling, and suggests that withdrawal is the agenda of all those who seek referendums on the draft constitution. Does he really believe that that is the reason why more than 80 per cent. of the British people want a referendum? Does he really think that 87 per cent. of his own constituents who want a referendum are part of some anti-European conspiracy? Is he saying that the Spanish Government. who are voluntarily to hold a referendum, are suddenly motivated by anti-Europeanism? Or that the Netherlands and Italy, in considering referendums, are somehow involved in a two-step process to get themselves out of Europe? Was President Chirac seeking to take France out of Europe when he said,
  "I am logically in favour of a referendum. It would be the only legitimate way".
  Those Governments know what the constitution is about, and they are facing up to the need to consult their own people about it.
  The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane)rose—
  Mr. Ancram: I am coming to the end of my remarks.
  The Prime Minister's attack on those who call for a referendum is laughable. It is an insult to the British people, it mocks their genuine desire to have a say and it trivialises what, in the rest of Europe, is a serious debate. That debate is about reforming Europe with the consent of its peoples. It is about involving people in decisions about their own future. Substituting puerile accusations for genuine argument indicates only fear of what the people might decide.
  That is the real key. Unlike us, and unlike the Liberal Democrats, the Prime Minister and the Government do not trust the British people. They are prepared to ride roughshod over the views of the voters, and to drive through fundamental and irreversible reforms of the EU without seeking the consent of the British people. That is simply wrong. In their hearts and even, reportedly, in the Cabinet, according to one newspaper yesterday, the Government know that that is wrong.
  The right hon. Member for Neath almost offered a referendum next June by way of the European parliamentary elections. In June this year he told the BBC that
  "if people don't like what they get, they can vote against the Government in the European elections next year."

  785
  He went on to say:
  "Then the people will decide."
  He knows, and the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary know, that none of the arguments against a referendum holds water any more. The British people will not forgive a bullying rejection of their right to decide on something so fundamental, so irreversible and so far-reaching. The message of the motion is clear and simple: let the people decide.
  4.41 pm
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "welcomes the Government's commitment to keeping Parliament fully informed of the progress of the IGC negotiations, including through the publication of a White Paper. and to continued intense Parliamentary scrutiny of the draft Constitutional Treaty; believes the proposals from the Convention on the Future of Europe are a good starting point for discussions between the elected governments of the EU's member states; further believes that, as the proposals do not alter the fundamental constitutional relationship between the EU and its Member States, and the role of national parliaments is strengthened, there is no reason to depart from the precedent set by previous governments, which rejected referendums on previous constitutional treaties; and notes that it will be for Parliament to decide on whether it should become part of UK law."
  With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, before I proceed to deal with the debate, I should like to pay a brief tribute to Anna Lindh as this is the first opportunity that I have had to do so in the House.
  As the House knows, Anna Lindh was murdered in a Stockholm department store last Thursday, 11 September. For all of us who knew her, Anna was an exceptional individual. She earned huge respect in Sweden and well beyond its shqores for her commitment to her principles, for her great skills and for the transparent honesty with which she pursued her cause. Her death is a tragedy, above all for her family, for she leaves a husband and two children of school age. I shall attend the memorial service in Stockholm this Friday, and I know that I will carry with me the sentiments of the whole House in conveying our grief and our condolences to her family, her friends and the people of Sweden.
  The heart of the case presented by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), as we heard, is that the changes proposed in the current draft of the European Union's constitutional treaty are of such a scale that a referendum to endorse them is necessary. We take a different view, and I want to use the opportunity this afternoon to explain why.
  What the Convention proposes in its draft treaty does not represent a radical break with the past. It emphatically does not take us down the road to a European superstate. As I will explain—and nothing that the right hon. Gentleman said a moment ago suggests otherwise—the text does not alter the fundamental constitutional relationship between member states and the Union. If anything, the draft tilts the balance towards the European Council and national Governments.
  The European Union Committee of the House of Lords has been assiduous in its examination of the draft proposals, producing 14 reports. Its report in May
  786
  examined texts to give national Parliaments an effective role for the first time in European Union draft legislation. In commenting on those texts, which were very similar to the final treaty, the Committee concluded:
  "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 proposals…are adopted".
  [Interruption.]The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) mutters that the Committee members are unelected, with the implication that they know absolutely nothing about these matters. Some of them have never served in an elected position, but they have something to say and understand about the European Union. That includes Lord Williamson, former secretary-general of the European Commission, and Lord Hannay, the former British Government permanent representative in Brussels. The list of members—there is no sign of any minority report—also includes the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, an individual not known as a raving Euro-fanatic, formerly Mr. Norman Lamont and now Lord Lamont. Evidently, having at least examined the text with care, he concluded that the proposals in the draft Convention will, if they are adopted, shift the balance of power from the Commission in favour of member states.
  The purpose of the treaty is much more prosaic than the confection that the right hon. Member for Devizes has whipped up this afternoon. It seeks to consolidate much of the European Union's existing constitutional framework, which extends over at least four separate and overlapping treaties, and introduces new measures that aim to equip the Union with the institutions and decision-making processes that are needed to cope with the demands of 25 members. As I explained to the House last Tuesday—he refuses to face up to this point—the enlargement of the European Union is the engine of these changes. It should be as plain as a pikestaff that a Union whose institutions were designed to operate with six members has been creaking in trying to operate with 15, and would find it very difficult to operate practically with 25.
  I shall deal in a moment with some of the key arguments that the right hon. Gentleman advanced in pursuit of his claim, but I should like first to pick him up on one comment, which, if it were true, would certainly be an argument for a referendum. We all heard him say that the treaty is irreversible. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] "Irreversible" was the word that he used, and there is approbation from Opposition Members. However, that is simply not the case. It is untrue and shows that he has not applied himself to the texts. Article IV-7 of the draft treaty, as reproduced on page 148 of the Command Paper, sets out very clearly procedure for revising the treaty establishing the constitution and spells out that amendments can enter into force only after being ratified by all the member states in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
  Moreover—I shall return to this point later—there is one measure that has not featured in previous treaties and that will be of huge importance to members of the true faith of the Tory party: explicit provision allowing for the first time a member state to withdraw from the European Union if it so wishes. In the past, there was an objection to the fact that the method for withdrawing

  787
  was unclear, albeit that the document is a treaty among member states. There is now the most explicit provision through which, over a two-year period, if the British Parliament decided to withdraw from the European Union—in my judgment, it would certainly need a referendum to do so—it would serve notice and withdraw.
  Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for giving way. When there is an EU Foreign Minister under the constitution, will not he or she be the boss and the British Foreign Secretary the office boy? Will not the important people around the world want to see the EU Foreign Minister, knowing that the British Foreign Secretary has to go along with anything agreed by consensus in Brussels and initiated by that Minister, who will be the man or woman with the power?
  Mr. Straw: It comforts me that the Opposition have to invent arguments about the nature of the text to oppose our actions. Shortly, I shall deal in some detail with the contents of the draft constitution and compare them with those of draft constitutions or constitutions on which the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) voted 13 years ago. He voted against a referendum on a specific draft constitution.
  Mr. Graham Allen: Does not my right hon. Friend have the slightest anxiety that every time we take a step towards European integration without the British people's understanding or consent, we may unwittingly be preparing the ground for what he fears most: a British public who would ultimately be amenable to withdrawal?
  Mr. Straw: If I believed that my hon. Friend's supposition was correct and that we were moving further towards European integration, I would accept the burden of his argument. However, if he examines the draft treaty and the likely amendments, I do not believe that it is possible to argue that it takes us towards European integration.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: What about President Chirac?
  Mr. Straw: The idea that President Chirac of France would relinquish control of his foreign and defence policy is ludicrous and gives the lie to the nonsense from the right hon. Member for Wokingham.
  Mr. Jenkin: The President of France wants to eclipse NATO and establish an autonomous foreign and defence policy in Europe. The Foreign Secretary told the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs that he wanted NATO to remain pre-eminent in European security. Where is that written in the European constitution?
  Mr. Straw: I shall happily turn up the reference. Conservative Members display much defeatism, as if they have no idea that a European Union of 25 members contains many more active supporters of NATO than people who do not want to be involved in it or its Defence and Security Committee.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Was it right for the President of the Commission to say
  788
  yesterday that because Sweden had the cheek to reject the euro, it would have less power in the councils of Europe? Is it right for an unelected official to tell an elected Government that a country that has made a specific decision will have less influence in Europe?
  Mr. Straw: I do not believe that it is right and I disagree with President Prodi, as I am entitled to do. I agree with the burden of the hon. Gentleman's comments. Although it is obvious that countries that have not joined the euro cannot be members of the euro group, I resist the idea that they lose influence over every aspect of EU policy. That is palpably not the case. I spoke earlier of my good friend, the late Anna Lindh. Sweden could exercise considerable influence in Europe's councils, and not only on my subjects of justice, home affairs and economic policy, because of the strength of its case and the allies that it was able build up. I believe that we can do that, too.
  Mr. John Wilkinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: I shall do so later.
  Let me deal with some of the specific objections raised by the right hon. Member for Devizes. He recently said that the draft treaty would lead to the creation of a "political union" because it was based on plans for a five-year presidency; that it would impose legally binding rights on all European citizens; that it would make European laws superior to national laws—he added today, "for the first time"—and that it would lead to the creation of a fully fledged diplomatic service.
  In voicing his concerns about the creation of a political union, the right hon. Gentleman is fighting the battles of the past, because that term does not appear anywhere in the current draft. Nor, indeed, has it appeared in any of the European Union's constitutional treaties dating back to the 1957 treaty of Rome. But it was through Maastricht—the treaty for which he voted and on which he spoke so eloquently—that the European Community decided to turn itself into the European Union and to create the concept of European citizenship. Even on the most malign reading of the new treaty, all that it does in that respect is to replicate Maastricht's language. A fair reading of it, however, shows that the overall balance tilts more positively towards the member states.
  It is worth recalling that the right hon. Gentleman gave the Bill to ratify Maastricht his resolute support when it passed through the House more than a decade ago. Furthermore, at that stage, he was not a pressed man but a Back Bencher. He therefore volunteered to do so out of a sense of conviction. In telling the House at the time that he feared the drastic consequences of rejection, he said,
  "I fear that those who say that we should turn our backs on Maastricht are taking a tremendous risk—the black risk of a centralised Europe, the risk that Europe will go on without us if necessary, and even if we are part of it, our colleagues will say. 'You've had your chance. In future you can take it or leave it.'"
  His commitment to Maastricht was so absolute that he was prepared, if necessary, to sacrifice British sovereignty—something that I would never do. He was willing to contemplate what he termed a country called Europe. I ask my hon. Friends to weigh his words,

  789
  although the speech that he made is quite difficult to follow. Each sentence seems to be being weighed with care, especially by the hon. Member for Stone. In that same debate, the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "I said at the beginning that I did not want to be part of a European superstate."
  Fine. He went on:
  "Equally, I do not want to find myself in a country that is outside a European superstate, with our industries unable to penetrate it." —[Official Report, 4 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 343.]
  Mr. Ancram: We have been through this before. What I was saying then is what I am saying now: I do not want to see a European superstate. I do not want us to be in one—which I would hate—or outside one, because I believe that such a superstate would be highly damaging to the interests of all the countries of Europe. That was the position that I held then, and it is the one that I hold now. That is why I want to stop a European superstate. The right hon. Gentleman keeps digging up quotations from the past, but in 1983 he was doing something that I have never done. He was arguing that we should withdraw from the European Union. He has changed his mind, has he not?
  Mr. Straw: I am perfectly happy to deal with that point; I have done so in the past. What we have not heard from the right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Deal with it!"] Yes, I supported a manifesto that proposed that we should withdraw from the European Union, and we got the answer that we deserved at that election. I also supported a manifesto at the last election that spelled out our negotiating mandate for the intergovernmental conference, and did not promise a referendum. It did, however, say that we would stand up for Britain. Our policies in that manifesto were supported, and we are implementing them.
  I shall go on quoting what the right hon. Gentleman said at the time of Maastricht, because he has never stood up and said that what he was saying then was wrong. The truth is that, on any analysis, he knows that Maastricht represented a more significant change to the powers of the Union and its institutions than does the current draft treaty. Maastricht enshrined commitments to a single European currency and to a common foreign and security policy. It also introduced many new treaty provisions, subject to qualified majority voting. Yet, despite the contents of Maastricht, the right hon. Gentleman opposed calls from within his own party for a referendum. He voted against such a referendum, as did the right hon. Member for Wokingham.
  By contrast, the draft constitutional treaty drawn up by the Convention is much less far-reaching. Indeed, the House of Lords European Union Committee has recognised that the text seeks to strengthen the role of member nations. It states explicitly for the first time that competences not conferred on the Union by member states remain with them. Article 1.5.1 of the draft specifies that the
  "Union shall respect the national identities of the Member States, inherent in their fundamental structures, political and constitutional, inclusive of regional and self-government."
  That is hardly the language of political union.
  Mr. William Cash: As there as so many scrutiny reports from the European Scrutiny Committee
  790
  in the House of Commons, will the Foreign Secretary be good enough to point to any statements such as he has referred to in the House of Lords that have come from the European Scrutiny Committee in this House?
  Mr. Straw: As a matter of fact, I cannot. That does not mean that the view of the European Union Committee in the House of Lords is wrong. It produced many more reports scrutinising different parts of the text than did the equivalent Committee in this place. It is uncomfortable for the hon. Gentleman, because the facts are getting in the way of his prejudices, but the reason it came to that view is that within the draft constitution, in an article and a protocol, there is provision by which national Parliaments, including this House and the House of Lords, will for the first time be able to play an effective role in studying draft legislation—
  Mr. Cash: Very minor legislation.
  Mr. Straw: I do not believe that it is minor, because if a third of national Parliaments decide that they do not like a proposed draft law on the basis that it offends principles of subsidiarity, they will refer it back to the Commission.
  Mr. Cash: And it will not do anything.
  Mr. Straw: That is not true. That is linked with the necessity for there to be at least 60 percent.—by population—of votes in favour of a proposal, so if a third of national Parliaments object to a draft law it is likely to be revised or rejected.
  Mr. John Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Wilkinson rose—
  Mr. Straw: No, I will not give way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] I shall give way in a moment.
  I shall deal with the first specific claim made by the right hon. Member for Devizes, which was that the draft treaty will result in the creation of a five-year presidency of the European Council. That is one of his central objections, and one of the things that he says will lead to a European superstate. It is true that the draft constitution would create a five-year presidency of the European Council, but I presume that he is suggesting that the post is tantamount to the establishment of an EU Head of State.
  It is bizarre that a party, which has raised no objection to the principle of a presidency of the European Council during 18 years in government, now sees it as a threat to British sovereignty. There has always been a presidency, and this proposal is not about the further accretion of powers at the centre. Quite the opposite. There is now a problem with a rotating presidency. A senior political figure serving a term of two and a half or five years as Chairman of the European Council and responsible to Heads of State and Government—not to the Commission—would bring much needed coherence and continuity to the very body that, above all others, serves the interests of the nation states.

  791
  The right hon. Gentleman is not thinking through his position. The current system of a six-monthly rotating presidency is a recipe for discontinuity, and in practice it weakens the Council of Heads of State and Government and it strengthens the Commission, which is exactly the opposite of that which he seeks. The result of that is to weaken the role of member states in the Council, which is why the opposition to the proposal for a full-time president has produced some weird bedfellows. On one side of the bed are the right hon. Gentleman and the Conservative party, and under the same duvet are the European Commission, President Prodi, the Liberal Democrats and every barking mad federalist across Europe, all of whom oppose this policy. I know that the Conservative party is now thinking about being more inclusive and caring, but I did not realise that it went this far. Conservatives should think about the company they keep before they come up with such ludicrous propositions.
  Mr. Ancram: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that among those whom he describes as our bedfellows are many of the smaller nations that are joining the European Union for the first time? They believe that the five-year presidency will undermine intergovernmentalism and be damaging to them.
  Mr. Straw: That is not what they believe.
  Mr. Ancram: It is what they say.
  Mr. Straw: It is not what they say either. I have had the benefit of listening to them. What they believe is that a full-time presidency might undermine the position of the Commission, which they see—wrongly, in my view—as a protector of small member states. Some, though by no means all, of those smaller states believe in the Commission and would like to be part of a European superstate. That is the opposite of what the right hon. Gentleman is saying.
  Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: I, too, listened for 18 months to what those countries were saying, and my right hon. Friend is entirely right. Their point is that a rotating presidency makes the European Union more in touch with the people of individual countries. It does not accomplish that completely, but it goes some way towards it. A permanent five-year presidency—the addition of another presidency in Brussels—will, on the other hand, make the EU even more remote from the people of Europe, and do the opposite of creating a more democratic Union that is in touch with the people. That is why the smaller countries, and my right hon. Friend, oppose the absurd proposal to create yet another presidency in Europe.
  Mr. Straw: There is already a presidency. It is called the presidency of the Council. The question is, how do we make it effective on behalf of member states?
  The logical conclusion of what the right hon. Gentleman and the rest of the Conservative Front Bench are saying is that member states will be weakened within Europe and the Commission strengthened. That
  792
  is why the European Commission—of fantastical proportions, in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman—is most vocal in opposing a full-time presidency. It is not possible for a single presidency serving for six months to co-ordinate effectively the policies of 25 member states—which, yes, will sometimes be opposed to those pursued by the Commission.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: Yes, for the last time.
  Mr. Bercow: Never have I heard so many words provide so little justification over such a long period for denying the people of this country the right to make a decision on this matter. Why does the Foreign Secretary not just admit that he opposes a referendum not on ground of constitutional principle, but because he thinks the British people do not understand the issues, or thinks they might reach a different decision from him—or both?
  Mr. Straw: That does not happen to be my view.
  The right hon. Gentleman's second claim was that the draft treaty would impose "legally binding rights" in relation to the charter of fundamental rights. If the Opposition are to be believed, here and elsewhere, that document will impose a heavy burden on British business and provoke chaos in our judicial system. It will not do that, however. For one thing, those who read the charter will see that it is a straightforward statement of British and, dare I say, conservative values, including such astonishing propositions as the right to a fair trial. Its legal implications are also much more prosaic—thanks to the changes that we negotiated in the Convention—than the right hon. Gentleman would have us believe.
  The most important changes that we have secured are in title VII,
  "the general provisions governing the interpretation and application of this Charter".
  Article II-51 makes it clear 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 does not, therefore, grant any new powers to the constitution.
  Like the rest of the draft treaty, the section on the charter may be revised further in the intergovernmental conference. As I spelt out to the House this time last week, we reserve the right to make a final decision on the incorporation of the charter in the light of the overall picture that emerges.
  The right hon. Gentleman's third claim is that the draft treaty will lead to a political union because it is based on—I am quoting what he has said outside the House—
  "an EU law superior to national laws".
  Using the most awful weasel words, the right hon. Gentleman said that this would for the first time set out the primacy of European law.
  The right hon. Gentleman is sufficient of a lawyer to know that that is simply not the case. It is totally untrue, and frankly he ought to be ashamed of making such

  793
  claims. We can argue about other aspects of what is in the draft constitution, but for him to stand at the Dispatch Box and claim that it will assert for the first time the primacy of European law, thereby clearly implying that no such primacy currently exists, is frankly a deceit.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Straw: No, I will not.
  The right hon. Member for Devizes knows very well that the whole argument 31 years ago as to whether we should join the then Common Market concerned the fact that this House would have to cede the primacy of our law to that of the European Union.
  Mr. Ancram rose—
  Mr. Straw: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman in a moment.
  For that reason, section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 was passed, establishing that primacy. It states:
  "All such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions from time to time created or arising by or under the Treaties, and all such remedies and procedures from time to time provided for by or under the Treaties, as in accordance with the Treaties are without further enactment"—
  by this House
  "to be given legal effect".
  The right hon. Gentleman knows that to be the case.
  Mr. Ancram: The Foreign Secretary has raised this important point on several different occasions. I just want to remind him of the case of Macarthys v.Smith, in 1980, of which, as a lawyer, he will doubtless know. Lord Denning said:
  "If the time should come when our Parliament deliberately passes an Act with the intention of repudiating the Treaty or any provision in it"—
  he was talking about the European treaty—
  "then I should have thought that it would be the duty of our courts to follow the statute of our Parliament."
  Lord Denning was actually saying—this is a distinction that the right hon. Gentleman must appreciate—that the EU treaties signed in 1972 created a limited primacy because of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice and of our own courts, and because of the 1972 Act. What this document proposes is making European law's primacy explicit and enshrining it in a constitution in full for the first time. At the moment, Parliament has what could be described as a residual sovereignty. The provision in the constitution would abolish it.
  Mr. Straw: That is completely not so, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it. In the small print of his comments, he actually admitted that the primacy of European law was enshrined by section 2(2) of the 1972 Act, and by a number of leading cases involving the European Court of Justice—with which he is very familiar—including Costa v.ENEL, and that of Simmenthal. Such cases established clear primacy.
  794
  What the constitution is doing—it is doing no more than this—is to replicate within the draft treaty what is contained in case law and in section 2(2) of the 1972 Act.
  On the right hon. Gentleman's point about repudiating a treaty, under the terms of this treaty the House can of course repudiate a treaty whenever it wants. Under this treaty—not Maastricht, the Single European Act or the treaty of Rome, but this treaty— for the first time explicit provision is made whereby this Parliament can legislate to repudiate a treaty. He needs to understand the consequences of his argument. Is he now saying that European Union law should not have primacy over British law in areas of European legal competence? Let us be clear: if he is saying that, whether he likes it or not Britain would have to withdraw from the European Union, because it would be impossible for any British Government to operate within the European Union.
  The fact is that all international treaties take primacy over national laws—the system of international law could not function otherwise. For example, how could the European Union single market—a creation of the Conservative party when it had a bit of sense—work if each member state could take its own decisions on the rules of the game, regardless of the rules to which it had already signed up? How could we guarantee British business a level playing field if other member states had the right to erect national tariff and non-tariff barriers, without any redress for British business? That is the natural consequence of what the right hon. Member for Devizes is suggesting.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: British statute takes precedence over treaties. That is established in our own courts and asserted by them. Where there is an explicit declaration by the House and Parliament through statute, it takes precedence over treaties, which are based on merely prerogative power.
  Mr. Straw: I am sorry to disabuse the hon. Gentleman, but that is simply not true.
  Mr. Shepherd: It is what is important.
  Mr. Straw: If the hon. Gentleman reads the leading case of Shah and Islam, which is connected with the interpretation of the UN convention on refugees of 1951, he will see the argument set out in every detail. It provides a clear exposition of the fact that, when a country signs up to an international treaty, that treaty takes precedence over national law, as long as a national Parliament decides to remain a member of the treaty organisation. Conservative Front Benchers simply misunderstand the point and I am waiting for the right hon. Member for Devizes to answer my question about whether the Conservatives are now asserting—
  Mr. Cash rose—
  Mr. Straw: I shall give way to the organ grinder in a moment.
  Is the right hon. Member for Devizes asserting that, if the Conservatives were in government, they would not accept the primacy of European law in respect of European competences?
  Mr. Cash: The Foreign Secretary has to answer the question that he posed. What is the purpose of implementation of a treaty through an Act of Parliament if it is not, in the European context, to turn European treaties into domestic law?
  Mr. Straw: The purpose of the Act of Parliament through which we joined the European Union was to say—with respect to the 1972 Act—that all future legal decisions of the European Union—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) needs to listen to what I am saying. All future enactments were given legal effect and recognised accordingly without further enactment by the House. [Interruption.] I find the degree of ignorance exhibited by Conservative Front Benchers astonishing.
  Mr. Cash: Let us examine what appears in the Foreign Secretary's own White Paper. Paragraph 104 states:
  "When the IGC starts in October, it will cover…the way we govern ourselves."
  How does the Foreign Secretary answer that?
  Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is confused, and I am not surprised that the Conservatives are in such a mess when they lack even a basic understanding. An initial Act of Parliament ratifies a treaty. That happened in the accession treaty of 1972, in the Single European Act, the Maastricht, Nice and Amsterdam treaties, and it will happen again if we recommend the current draft EU constitution.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory rose—
  Mr. Straw: No, I will not give way.
  Under various Acts, and particularly the European Communities Act 1972, we accepted the primacy of European Union law. I note that the right hon. Member for Devizes has still not explained the Conservative position. He made a point about primacy, so is he saying that the Conservative party is now opposed to the position that it has supported for 30 years—the primacy of the EU in respect of EU law? Is that the right hon. Gentleman's point? He has no answer.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is evident that the Foreign Secretary is not giving way.
  Mr. Straw: Let me return to another issue raised by the right hon. Member for Devizes—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Article 10 is not just about the primacy of EU law, but the primacy of the constitution. The right hon. Gentleman cannot pretend that the problem is inherited from a previous treaty, because we have not hitherto—before what is currently proposed—had a constitution. How does the Foreign Secretary square the expressed and asserted primacy of the constitution over member state law with the supremacy of the House?
  Mr. Straw: It is because it is inherent in our membership of the European Union. I gather that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to withdraw from membership, and that is a natural consequence of the petition being advanced by many Opposition Members. I square my position by going back to the central issue of our membership of international organisations. The House decided—
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: But this is a constitution.
  Mr. Straw: The constitution is no more than a treaty labelled "constitution". It is a treaty that we shall ratify in the same way as any other treaty.
  Mr. Richard Bacon: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: No, I am answering the point made by the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory).
  This House, along with the other place, decides to enact legislation through which we join an international organisation. In doing so, we accept key obligations for as long as we remain in membership. If we decide to withdraw, by statute, we withdraw from those obligations. While we are members of the organisation, we accept the obligations.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: No, I will not give way because others wish to speak in this debate.
  Another of the Opposition's invented concerns relates to the alleged extent of the Union's common foreign and security policy. Last week, the hon. Member for Stone thought that he had discovered the Achilles heel of the Government's case, when he alighted on a reference in the draft treaty, in article 15.2, that calls on member states "actively and unreservedly" to support the Union's common foreign and security policy and
  "to refrain from action contrary to the Union's interests."
  When he confronted me with that during a hearing before the European Scrutiny Committee on Wednesday, I suggested that he reacquaint himself with the language that his party had signed up to at Maastricht. The then Government agreed that:
  "The Member States support the Union's external and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity."
  The former Government also agreed to
  "refrain from any action which is contrary to the interests of the Union."
  In article 15 of the same treaty, member states agreed that they would
  "ensure that their national policies conform to the common positions."
  There is nothing new in the text on the common foreign and security policy that was not in the Maastricht treaty.

  797
  Indeed, as Lord Howe pointed out in a debate in the other place last week, the original proposition that members of the European Union should
  "endeavour jointly to formulate and implement a common foreign policy"
  was a British product. Lord Howe said that it was
  "handed by my noble friend Lady Thatcher to Chancellor Kohl in my presence on 18th May 1985"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 September 2003; Vol. 652, c. 179.]
  Baroness Thatcher also said later that year 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, 5 December 1985; Vol. 88, c. 439.]
  That is the principle behind the common foreign and security policy and I fail to understand why the right hon. Member for Devizes and his party now object to it.
  Mr. Ian Davidson: The Foreign Secretary is making a fine speech scoring points off the Tories, but does he accept that that is too easy and certainly is not sufficient to justify the Government's refusal of a referendum to the British people? He mentioned earlier his condemnation of barking mad federalists, but that is ironic, given that many sit both alongside and behind him. Why are the Government afraid of giving the people of Britain a referendum?
  Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the wholehearted support that he has just offered me and I cherish the compliment with which he began his intervention. If we felt that the draft constitution represented a fundamental change in the nature of the relationship between ourselves and the other member states, we would of course put forward the case for a referendum.
  Mr. Bercow: The right hon. Gentleman is afraid of losing.
  Mr. Straw: It is not about fearing something. I have nothing to fear, let alone from the Conservatives. It is an issue of principle. We have had, and will continue to have, referendums when we join or leave—the issue in 1975 was whether we should leave—an institution or when we seek to create a new institution. We have never held a referendum to change the powers of institutions to which we belong. The previous Conservative Government consistently refused to do so—for very good reasons, in my judgment. I voted with the right hon. Member for Devizes and 12 other members of the present shadow Cabinet against a referendum on Maastricht. On any analysis, the arguments then used against a referendum apply still more strongly against the current set of propositions.
  In view of the time, I shall begin my closing remarks. I accept that there is one area of change in the draft treaty, and that is in respect of justice and home affairs. However, that is very much a British agenda, and the Government have long advocated better co-ordinated action against organised crime, terrorism and illegal immigration. These are shared problems that require shared solutions—as I proposed, for example, at a conference in Avignon in October 1998.
  The draft treaty would help us to achieve that, for example by speeding up decisions through greater use of qualified majority voting. However, we are not talking
  798
  of grand new areas of Union activity. The Union already acts in these fields. That decision was made at Maastricht, which brought co-operation on justice and home affairs within the Union. The treaty of Amsterdam then extended co-operation on immigration and asylum issues.
  Some of the Convention's proposals in the area of criminal procedural law could result in more significant change, but I have made it clear—in this House and in the White Paper—that these proposals would not be acceptable to us. We support the provision of minimum standards at EU level in some areas, such as access to an interpreter to protect British citizens facing criminal proceedings in other member states. However, we will oppose in the IGC any measures that would undermine our system of common law and criminal law.
  It would be rash to predict the outcome of the negotiation in the IGC. What I can say, however, based on lengthy discussion with my EU counterparts in Italy 10 days ago, is that no member state will be seeking to surrender its national sovereignty.
  As the IGC gets under way, there will no doubt be new ideas coming forward, some of which we will want to resist. Tomorrow, the European Commission will publish a white paper on its proposals. The Commission shared some of its suggestions with Foreign Ministers at our informal meeting 10 days ago. Let me make it clear that some of those ideas are not acceptable to us, nor to many others, not least any proposal that would remove Parliament's final authority over changes to international treaties. We are opposed to that, and we shall make that clear.
  Sir Teddy Taylor rose—
  Mr. Straw: For all the froth and fury, what we are witnessing today is a Conservative party not so much raging against the proposed constitutional treaty before us but against the EU—and, more particularly, Britain's place within it. The most impassioned comments of the right hon. Member for Devizes—complaints about the primacy of EU law, a common foreign and security policy, and many other matters—dealt with proposals that were not dreamed up for the future by the Convention. Those matters are existing elements of the EU and were signed up to by Conservative Governments—in 1972, 1986 and at Maastricht in 1992.
  Mr. Mark Francois: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: No, as I am coming to a close.
  Those were the issues that were before the House in 1992, and the House came to the decisions that we know about. The difference today is that the small group of zealots—I remember them very well—who did their best to bring down the previous Conservative Government in 1993 are now in charge of the party. And the greatest zealot of them all—the hon. Member for Stone—is now writing the script for the right hon. Member for Devizes.
  I listened with great care to the right hon. Member for Devizes, who denied that the Conservative party was intent on a policy that would withdraw a Conservative Government from Europe. He should have seen the face

  799
  of the hon. Member for Stone as he tried to assert that the Conservative party remains actively committed to Europe. We know that the hon. Gentleman would like Britain to be outside Europe. We also know that the leader of the Conservative party said, not many years ago, that the public was ready to go for Britain repatriating its powers from the EU, and that that could eventually mean pulling out. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) also went on to say:
  "I welcome everything that moves us closer to the point where we can say 'No' on Europe.
  The truth is that the Conservative party today—and it should have the honesty to spell this out—is aiming to dismantle the existing EU and to undermine Britain's place in it, irrespective of the damage that would be done to Britain's interests, jobs and influence.
  In his heart of hearts, I suspect that the right hon. Member for Devizes recognises the hopelessness of that cause. He knows that none of the 24 other countries that will be attending the IGC over the next few months remotely supports what he says; nor do they recognise the illusory utopia of "associate membership" to which his party is increasingly attached.
  Sir Teddy Taylor rose—
  Mr. Straw: There is a clear divide: between a party determined to take Britain out of Europe, undermining our living standards and our position in the world, and a Government who are working for Britain in Europe, to deliver peace and prosperity. I urge the House to oppose the motion and to support the amendment.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Foreign Secretary was visibly moved a little while ago when he paid tribute to Anna Lindh. He can most certainly be assured that when he attends her memorial service he takes with him the sympathy of the whole House and the sense of horror that some feel that such an event should have taken place in a society that prides itself on openness, tolerance and accessibility to politicians.
  The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who spoke on behalf of the Conservative party, sought to introduce a Scottish constitutional concept to the debate. He argued that sovereignty rested with the people. That is an entirely Scottish constitutional concept, as set out—as he will be well aware—in the case of MacCormick v. the Lord Advocate. However, it is not a British, or United Kingdom, constitutional doctrine, at least not since the Union of the Parliaments in 1707. Furthermore, I am not sure that the concept assists the right hon. Gentleman in the case that he wants to make today. If Parliament is sovereign, it is entitled to repeal the 1972 Act and, as a consequence, the results of the passing of that Act would be rendered nugatory.
  That was always the answer to those who said that there was no mechanism for withdrawal from either the European Economic Community or the European Union. If Parliament, which cannot by the
  800
  constitutional tradition that applies here bind itself for the future, were to choose to repeal that Act, the obligations contained in it and the treaty on which it was based would simply fly off. Despite his determination to try to import a Scottish concept, about which I am pretty sympathetic, the right hon. Gentleman may care to consider whether it sits entirely favourably with the general position that he seeks to adopt on sovereignty.
  There is a distinction in that the Convention proposals provide for an express right of withdrawal, but my view has always been that there was at least an implied right of withdrawal, because of the doctrine of Parliament's constitutional supremacy.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his courtesy. Unlike the Foreign Secretary, he has given way.
  Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the provision allows for withdrawal only if the majority of member states in the European Parliament agree and if there is an acceptance of all the conditions laid down over two years of negotiations? The idea that there is an open exit clause is absolute rubbish. One can only get out if the others agree and if one accepts all the conditions.
  Mr. Campbell: I would read the provisions in the Convention proposals along with the principle upon which I have spent a little time addressing the House. Taking the two together, there is a right of withdrawal and, in my view, sovereignty is not irreversibly prejudiced
  We have discussed this topic on a number of occasions recently, to the extent that I cannot help but believe that a whole industry may grow up dedicated to an exegesis of the speeches made in this and previous debates. In my case, I hope that it will be found that there is little of academic interest as I intend, as far as I can, to say what I have said on at least three previous occasions in the past two or three months.
  First, I believe, as does my party, that the United Kingdom should be at the heart of Europe. In that regard, I pray in aid the Prime Minister and his predecessor. I believe, notwithstanding the events of the weekend, that it is in the long-term interests of the UK to be a member of the single currency. I also believe that the current Convention proposals do indeed raise issues of constitutional significance in relation to the charter of fundamental rights, the passerelle clause and, indeed, the right to withdraw, about which we have just heard some exchanges.
  I further believe that, if the Convention proposals survive the IGC in their present form, there ought to be a referendum of the British people.
  Mr. Cash: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Campbell: I want to finish this part of my speech, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me.
  It is my belief that, as a matter of principle, a referendum is necessary when a Government bring before the House proposals that involve a major shift in control, any transfer of significant powers from member

  801
  states to European institutions or any alteration to the existing balance between member states and those institutions.
  I give way to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). [Interruption.] For the first time in my political life, I appear to have satisfied the hon. Gentleman, but I am not banking on it.
  Mr. Tom Harris: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that the case for a referendum would be undeniable if the current draft made it past the IGC without amendment. Given that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has clearly stated the Government's red lines, if the Government were successful in preventing us from going over those red lines, would the Liberal Democrats agree that there is no case for a referendum?
  Mr. Campbell: If the hon. Gentleman had listened carefully, he would have observed that I chose the charter of fundamental rights, the passerelle clause and the right to withdraw, none of which, I understand, will be subject to Government objection. Indeed, when the Foreign Secretary introduced the White Paper just a few days ago, I said that I thought that the so-called red lines drawn by the Government were entirely right and apposite and that defence, foreign affairs, social security and our own resources should remain the exclusive responsibility of the House.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Campbell: I wish to make some progress if the hon. Gentleman will allow me.
  On this occasion, therefore, we shall support the motion, not because I wish to be part of some outer Europe or, indeed, to renegotiate in its entirety the European settlement, but because I want the United Kingdom's role in Europe to have the endorsement of the people of the United Kingdom. In particular, I want to re-energise the support of those generations who have no knowledge, even at second hand, of the carnage of the two world wars, which so disfigured Europe and which were an overwhelmingly powerful motive in the minds of those who began with the fledgling European Coal and Steel Community. I also want to inform better those who fail to understand the enormous political significance of enlargement, accomplished in 14 brief years since 1989, with the collapse of the Berlin wall and the subsequent collapse of the Warsaw pact.
  Mr. Straw: I simply want to make it clear, as we do at paragraph 62 of the White Paper, that we intend to seek changes to the passerelle clause. I have made that clear before.
  Mr. Campbell: I shall wait to see what those changes amount to. I shall now refer to the charter of fundamental rights because the Government have been rather coy about that issue, and it might be helpful to the House to know precisely what is the meaning of the final paragraph of that section of the White Paper.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: On a point of information, the Government, who tabled more than 200 amendments to the draft constitution in the Convention, did not table an amendment to the passerelle clause, so, yet again, the Foreign Secretary is saying one thing here, but he did not follow it up with trying to amend the draft constitution when he had the opportunity to do so. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right in saying that, by implication, the Government have accepted that damaging part of the draft constitution.
  Mr. Campbell: It might be said to be my night, because I have satisfied the hon. Member for Stone and now the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory).
  Mr. Bercow: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Campbell: No, I will not give way. [Interruption.] No, I do not believe in the principle of third time lucky.
  It is essential that we have some stability in Europe. We had the treaty of Maastricht in 1992. Before that, we had the Single European Act. We had the treaty of Amsterdam in 1997 and the treaty of Nice in 2001. It is as though Europe has been living through a permanent cultural revolution. There really ought to be some stability both in the institutions and the arrangements that are made for the regulation of European Union activities.
  The enlargement to which I referred a moment or two ago is, as the Foreign Secretary rightly says, the stimulus for the Convention and its proposals. It is technically true that we could have enlargement without a fresh treaty. It would be a pretty peculiar union if we did, however, and it would essentially be a recipe for sclerosis, obstructionism and, ultimately, instability. Furthermore, those who see conspiracy at every turn—perhaps that has not been evident in this debate, although it features from time to time in the other place—should ask themselves whether it is conceivable that Estonia, which endorsed the principle of EU membership at the weekend, having broken out of the bonds and the yoke of communism, would voluntarily enter a conspiracy that would have the effect of denying it the freedom that has been so hard won.
  Is the draft perfect? Of course it is not. On subsidiarity and proportionality, it is too weak and requires strengthening. There ought to be a red card rather than a yellow card, if I may use the colloquialism of the time. On freedom of information, I still do not believe that the Convention proposals go far enough.
  Mr. Bercow: Notwithstanding the Foreign Secretary's assurances about his future good intentions in relation to the passerelle clause, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think it significant that the Foreign Secretary made no such commitment to seek improvement in the subsidiarity and proportionality protocol, even though that protocol imposes no obligation whatever on the European Commission to scrap inappropriate legislative proposals?
  Mr. Campbell: The Foreign Secretary did not mention that topic today, but I have at the back of my mind that

  803
  there may be provision in the White Paper. Certainly, on many other occasions when we have discussed this topic, I believe that the Foreign Secretary has dealt with the question of subsidiarity and proportionality, but, as I believe that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and I have agreed in the past, talking about it is not enough. Measures must be found that ensure that the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality is applied and, in particular, applied rigorously. I have said already that in so far as the Government make no concession on defence, tax, social security or own resources that is entirely appropriate.
  At least some of the debate has centred on the White Paper. I hope that it will not be thought churlish if I say to the Government that it is a great pity that we have not had a full-scale debate on it in Government time. I detect a certain amount of coyness in the Government's position as reflected in the White Paper, as I think that only 12 pages out of 60 deal with detailed consideration of the text. That coyness is particularly evident in paragraph 103 on page 39, which I raised with the Foreign Secretary during his statement following the publication of the document. It states:
  "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."
  When I described that language as delphic, the Foreign Secretary was unwilling to agree. Perhaps he might agree, however, with the description "elliptical". It is by no means clear what the Government's position is on the matter. The fundamental question—the word "fundamental" gets thrown about on these occasions—is whether the Government would be willing to veto the ultimate product of the IGC if they did not receive some kind of satisfaction with regard to that particular provision. For my part, I have no quarrel or difficulty with the rights that are contained within the charter. They mirror to a large extent, but not entirely, those provisions contained in the European convention on human rights. The distinction, as I have said previously in the House, is that the Government went to the country on a manifesto in which they said that they would repatriate into domestic law the right to vindicate rights under that convention, so that people would no longer need to go to Strasbourg but could seek to raise human rights issues in United Kingdom courts. On that, it is reasonable to say that the Government had a popular mandate, but they have no such mandate on the charter of fundamental rights. Given that that raises constitutional issues, it is one of the reasons why a referendum is important.
  I confess to some difficulty understanding the Government's attitude to a referendum in general. There is no doubt that the process has gone beyond the tidying-up to which Ministers made reference earlier.
  Mr. Leigh: On the wider political point, it is quite interesting that the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats agree. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman speculate on whether there is concern in the Government about what happened in Sweden and the fact that the European public are apparently increasingly convinced that Europe is run by business and political elites? Whether one is a Eurosceptic or a
  804
  European enthusiast, surely there is a strong case for a referendum to overcome those doubts and give the Government an opportunity to make their case.
  Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman would find careful scrutiny of the Swedish campaign and the decision that was taken in Sweden rewarding, because much evidence suggests that many people who voted against the proposal were worried because they thought that the European Union provided far too much opportunity for the operation of the market. They were worried about the social standards in Sweden that are paid for by substantial tax rates—they are higher than those in this country—numbers of public sector jobs and that the role of the state would be substantially curtailed if the country became part of the single currency.
  Mr. MacShane: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Campbell: In a moment.
  Of course, that position would be somewhat inimical to the one that the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) and his party would prefer to adopt and indeed that of which the Prime Minister tried to persuade the European Union as a result of the Lisbon summit. Does the Minister for Europe wish to intervene? I appear to have satisfied him, so perhaps I should quit while I am ahead.
  If the Government are not moved by principle, how about being motivated by pragmatism? Can you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, imagine the disappointment in the editorial suites of certain newspapers if the Government announced that they were willing to hold a referendum, or the deep depression that would centre over Smith square? The Government should think again. They have been prepared to change their mind on the question of a referendum. Without prior warning or consultation., they determined, on a referendum, devolution to Scotland, which John Smith had described as unfinished business. There is still time for the Government to recant, but in the meantime we shall support the motion.
  5.48 pm
  Mr. George Stevenson: I suppose that one's approach to the debate and the motion on the referendum will be affected by whether one believes that the draft constitution and the intergovernmental conference are simply tidying-up exercises and nothing to worry about because much has been agreed prior to the IGC and the constitution will simplify matters, or whether one believes those who say that the IGC and the treaty are of fundamental importance. I say at the outset that I take the latter view, not because I believe that it is impossible to make the argument that the process is a tidying-up exercise but because we are dealing with a treaty yet missing a fundamental issue: the European Union is a process. Events within the process determine the way in which the EU will move on in the next generation and, in my humble opinion, this is one such event.

  805
  A single currency is not needed for a single market—have never believed that, and we have proved it—but it is needed for a united states of Europe. Why do we need a constitution? A treaty similar to those of the past could have dealt with matters such as enlargement, changes to the Commission and the five-year presidency of the Council. We do not need a constitution for that, but we need one for a united states of Europe.
  Those are the fundamental flaws in this afternoon's debate. Understandably, we are concentrating on the constitution, but, with respect, the Government are making a mistake in ignoring what has happened in the past. The Single European Act and Maastricht were the most important milestones in the development of the European Union. It is rather strange for Ministers to try to destroy Conservative arguments by saying, "We don't need a referendum on the constitution because the Single European Act and Maastricht were much worse, and the Conservatives did not have referendums on those." I do not follow that logic. We should look to consult the British people on the constitution because it is a milestone in the development of the European Union, and if we are prepared to face up to the compelling logic of that process it is clear that it has only one objective—a state of Europe. It is no good having a policy in the Labour party of saying that we are opposed to such a state, given that every step of the way we are bit by bit, piece by piece, putting in place the building blocks for it.
  That is what we should be discussing today. I do not diminish the importance of the subject of the debate, but I fear that we are missing the target by a mile, as I suspect that the British people are beginning to understand. In view of that, how can we sustain the idea of a referendum on a single currency, which I support, yet not have a referendum on the other building blocks that are necessary to create a state of Europe? We are not being honest with ourselves or with the British people, and it is about time we were.
  As far as I am aware, this situation is a first. I have been a Member of the European Parliament, as have hon. Friends sitting next to me, but I cannot remember a European constitution having been presented before. The Government clearly understand the importance of this IGC, because they say in the White Paper that it will affect all our lives and the way in which we govern ourselves. I cannot identify issues that are much more serious than that; the British people should therefore be consulted.
  Mr. Hendrick: Does my hon. Friend not accept the words of our Foreign Secretary today that the constitution is effectively all the previous treaties rolled into one and that that constitutes about 80 per cent. of the text? The word "constitution" is just a label put on those treaties.
  Mr. Stevenson: I have the greatest respect for my hon. Friend, who has served in the European Parliament. I do not have to answer that question, because he knows the process that is going on better than I do—he served in the European Parliament more recently than me. One of the first things with which we were presented in 1984 when I became a Member of the European Parliament was a draft constitution of the European Union, by Altiero Spinelli. The arguments and objectives that we
  806
  are now considering are not new. If Spinelli were alive today, he would be rubbing his hands with glee because his dream of 1984, which was too far reaching for us then, is now becoming a reality. It is not all being realised, not by a wide margin, but the constitution is an important step in the process.
  I shall move on to another concern that I tried to raise the other day in my question to the Prime Minister—public perception. For years, we have tried as politicians to generate interest among the electorate in the European project. No matter what our perspective, we have all agreed that the turn-out at European parliamentary elections is abysmally low. We have failed to generate that interest, most importantly because the British people feel that these matters are the fiefdom of the political elite. I fully accept the results of the Swedish and Estonian referendums on Sunday, which demonstrate that while the people of Europe, particularly the British, are prepared to accept criticisms of apathy or lack of interest, they are no longer prepared to be ignored. If we ignore them on these vital issues I must tell the Government whom I support and whom I am, in the main, proud of, that we shall suffer. The gulf between the political elite—the people driving the agenda forward, whether nationally or internationally—and the people whom we serve is widening at a rate of knots, and that frightens me to death.
  We can lose all sorts of things. We can lose elections because of sleaze and spin, but if we start to lose the faith and trust of the people whom we represent nationally and internationally, that is a recipe for a disaster. If we are serious about moving the European project forward and debating that in the House, a failure to hold a referendum now will alienate our people even more. In many ways, we should not be looking at the draft constitution, but should be considering what will come next. As night follows day, there will be another treaty, which will build on the constitution. We should consider what will happen in three or four years' time when another treaty comes along. As surely as night follows day, however, if we do not consult the British people now, they are not likely to trust us ever again when we do go to them on something like the euro. Not holding a referendum is therefore not in the Government's interest.
  Mr. David Heath: The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech. I am sure that he agrees that every time we get to one of these milestones and do not achieve the informed consent of the British people we lose their trust. The worst enemies of the European Union are those who claim to support it but who are not prepared to consult the people whom we are here to serve.
  Mr. Stevenson: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. We got away with not holding a referendum in 1986 and in 1992. I am arguing as strongly as I can that we will not get away with it again. We have been rumbled—[Interruption.] I hear my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe mumbling. I said "rumble", not "mumble". There is a widespread feeling in my constituency—I am not saying that it is true—that the Government want a referendum only when they can win it. That may or may not be true; only the Government know. But that is

  807
  people's perception, and in politics, as every right hon. and hon. Member knows, perception is an extremely powerful force.
  I hope my contribution has been of some interest to my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe. I have tried to express my views as positively as I can, though not uncritically. If we do not bite the bullet, we shall suffer as a result. I wonder whether we shall ever regain the trust of the British people so that we can move forward as we all want, not only in terms of national policy, but as regards the European Union, which is so important to us.
  6.1 pm
  Mr. Stephen Dorrell: The House listened with considerable sympathy to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson). It will not surprise him to know that I approach the subject from a rather different starting point, but I arrive at a similar set of conclusions to those that he has just enunciated to the House.
  I am an unapologetic pro-European. I believe that the United Kingdom was right to join the European Union, that our future is intrinsically tied up with the future of our partner countries in the EU, and that John Major was right when he said that Britain should aim to be at the heart of Europe. So far, for those who have followed my views on these subjects over the years, no surprises, but I think that those of my closest political friends who argue against a referendum now are profoundly wrong. If we are to proceed with the kind of changes envisaged in the draft constitution, it is essential that we first secure the support of the electorate, not just of this country, but of other countries in the EU—support expressed in a referendum. I shall set out the reasons why.
  The first is the simplest one to explain. It seems likely that before we get to the end of the process, the majority of other EU member states will put the proposal to their electorates in a referendum. I do not know what language I shall use in Charnwood to explain why France, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands will have referendums, yet my constituents, who put me in Parliament to represent their interests, will be denied the opportunity to vote on the proposals—an opportunity that is likely to be granted to the majority of other citizens of the European Union.
  Mr. MacShane: On what authority does the right hon. Gentleman say that France has decided to hold a referendum?
  Mr. Dorrell: I base my assertion on the words quoted earlier in the debate, the prediction of President Chirac, and the fact that when they introduced the euro, the French Government had a referendum—
  Mr. MacShane indicated dissent.
  Mr. Dorrell: I am sorry, but they did. The Maastricht treaty was endorsed by referendum in France by a very tiny majority. Given that history and the French tradition of referendums, in particular under the Gaullist party, it would be a brave Government in
  808
  France who sought to carry the proposals through against the advice of a Gaullist President, without a referendum.
  Mr. Tom Harris: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that he did not know how he would explain to his constituents why this country is not having a referendum, whereas other EU countries are. What excuse did he give to his constituents back in 1992 for the fact that there was no referendum on the Maastricht treaty, whereas France did have one?
  Mr. Dorrell: It might not come as a surprise to the hon. Gentleman that I want to develop the argument addressing precisely that point. However, I wanted to begin with the simplest point—it seems likely that, whether or not a referendum occurs in France, there will be a substantial number elsewhere in Europe.
  Mr. Hendrick: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dorrell: I should like to make progress.
  This is not just a matter of saying "me too", as there is an important issue of principle in saying that the member states choosing to take the referendum route are wrong. The traditional view of British Governments—from Ted Heath onwards—of opposition to referendums is wrong, and I want to explain why. I believe that referendums have art increasingly important part to play in modern democracies. In every western democracy, we face art increasing problem of divorce between our voters and the political elite—exactly the point that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South made.
  Voters increasingly feel that the political elite do not take them seriously and that they think that democracy is about one collective act every four or five years, after which they should be left to get on with it. Increasingly, they are rebelling against that interpretation of how democracy should work. If we insist on maintaining our traditional commitment to a Burkeian representative democracy with only very occasional reference to the electorate through general elections, I believe that, as increasingly important decisions are taken by that route, we shall undermine the legitimacy of those decisions and ultimately put at risk the stability of our institutions.
  I think that referendums will, and should increasingly be seen, as the means by which voters are engaged directly in decisions that affect them, but from which they currently feel increasingly divorced. That principle is most simple to apply in dealing with what are avowedly constitutional questions. It is one type of issue when a controversial decision is taken within a constitutional settlement, but a different one entirely when the question is not how constitutional powers are used, but who should have those powers. That is why, when a document described as a constitution is presented to me in a political climate that should increasingly embrace the principle of referendums, I find it easy to say that it should be the subject of a referendum.
  That general principle is particularly apposite.in the context of the current European debate in this and other European countries. Every observer of the European

  809
  Union recognises that there is what is referred to in Euro-jargon as a democratic deficit. Anyone who is concerned about the operation of the European institutions must recognise that there is not only a divorce between voters and political institutions and politicians in general, but an especially acute version of that divorce between voters and institutions in Brussels. The tendency among some of my European friends is to say that that problem is easy to solve and can be dealt with by introducing enhanced powers for the European Parliament, but that is to avoid the subject, not address it.
  The problem is that voters do not feel engaged with the institutions that have been set up to exercise power on their behalf in Brussels. The divorce that is a general problem with modern politics is a particular problem when applied to the institutions of the European Union. It is for that reason that, even if the Foreign Secretary's argument that there is nothing new in the treaty were true—I do not think that it is—it would not be a sufficient answer to the case for a referendum, as there is an urgent need to re-engage voters in what is happening in their name in the institutions of the European Union.
  I have made the case thus far on the ground of principle, for which I make no apology. However, anyone who is engaged in practical politics should assert a principle and consider the practical consequences. It is blindingly obvious that if the constitution were subject to approval by referendum, it would be less likely to pass in its current form. I want to make a couple of comments about that.
  First, it is a genuine mystery why people appear to expect the constitution to pass in its current form, given the sense of increasing willingness in the rest of Europe to contemplate subjecting it to a referendum. The history of getting electorates elsewhere in Europe to approve such documents by referendum does not support the view that the constitution is likely to pass unchallenged. It would therefore be doubly absurd for the British electorate to witness the fall of a constitution that we did not like at referendums elsewhere in Europe that we were denied.
  The proposition that the constitution would be less likely to pass if we introduced the hurdle of a referendum is hardly a reason to draw back. Surely if we are interested in re-engaging the British electorate with the European process, acknowledging that the constitution would be likely to fall at the referendum hurdle should redouble our determination to tackle the reason for that. We should deal with such questions seriously rather than simply saying, "It's all frightfully difficult and we'll avoid the questions altogether."
  Surely if we are to continue to develop Britain's role as an active member of the European Union we need to re-engage the public in the form of European Union that we want to create. It is instructive to consider what we would have to do to set out down that road. It is sad that the short answer is probably that if we achieved the purpose of the new constitutional framework—I should prefer to call it a new treaty for the European Union—as approved by referendum, we would have to start again.
  We would have to start again the process on which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) was engaged on the Convention. We would need to produce a document that more
  810
  closely reflected the rhetoric about a union of states rather than the continued development of a set of institutions that were born in the political culture of the 1960s. The document would need to be focused much more sharply and demonstrate to the voters of this and other countries in Europe a clear-sighted commitment to providing added value on trade, the single market and the environment. European co-operation on such matters has a serious purpose. We would need an equally clear determination to withdraw the developing tentacles of the European Union from subjects on which its legitimacy is increasingly challenged by me as well as my constituents.
  In the context of the modern, decentralised Europe, I do not understand the necessity for European legislation that aspires to tell me that I cannot work for more than 56 hours a week. That is an absurd extension that goes way beyond the common agenda that should be the shared purpose of all European Union member states. Most important, a redrafted document should include a genuine commitment to make accountable the power of the institutions in Brussels to the voters to whom they should be responsible. Accountability in the political cultures of all European Union member states can be realised only if it is exercised overwhelmingly through their institutions. That is how political power in Europe is currently held accountable.
  It is profoundly unlikely that such a document could be written by a Convention chaired by an octogenarian former French President whose political instincts were formed in the 1960s. What is needed is a new view of the institutions required for a new, more consumerist, more individualist, and more market-oriented Europe. That is the kind of document that would sail through a referendum in this country and others in Europe, too.
  I favour a referendum, first, because other countries are holding them; secondly, because it is right in principle to hold them; and thirdly—and probably most importantly—because a referendum would be the best way to reverse Europe out of a cul de sac and force on the political elites a requirement to move in a more benign direction.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: I am glad that the Government have rejected the calls for a referendum on this issue; they were absolutely right to do so. It has already been pointed out by Labour Members that the previous treaties into which this country has entered were put through without any proposals for referendums by the then Conservative Government. One can only conclude, therefore, that the present calls for a referendum by the Conservatives are nothing less than opportunistic. At least the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) had the grace to look a tad embarrassed when some of his previous statements were read out to highlight the change in his position in so few years.
  We must also remember that it was not only the amending treaties that were not subjected to referendums at the instigation of the Conservative party when it had the chance to do so. The actual decision to join the European Union was not initially the subject of a referendum either. It was, of course, the then Labour Government who allowed the voters a referendum on that issue when they came to power.

  811
  What is particularly staggering about the present Conservative approach is that the treaty of Rome, to which we signed up in 1972, contained a commitment to moving towards an ever-closer union, and every amending treaty since then has reiterated that commitment, yet now that we have a treaty that replaces that commitment with a different formulation that strengthens subsidiarity and gives member states more rights and the ability to have a greater say in the European process, the Conservatives want to oppose that reform.
  The member states will gain from the current proposals, and the larger member states in particular are likely to gain. I know that my hon. Friends the Ministers could not possibly say that, but hon. Members will know that criticisms of the Convention have come not only from the federalist wing but from the smaller states in the European Union. I welcome the fact that the member states, particularly the larger ones, will have the ability to express their views more strongly and effectively through the European Union mechanisms.
  When I see the opportunism of the Conservative party on this issue, I am convinced that its strategy is now motivated—at least for a significant number of its Members in this House—by a desire to block the reforms of the European Union and an attempt to prevent changes that would allow it to work more effectively. The objective of that strategy, in some quarters of the party, would be to lead us to total withdrawal from the Union, or at least to a redefining of the Union so that Britain became part of an outer circle of member states.
  That is precisely the kind of development about which the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) expressed concern. I believe, however, that he and his colleagues are playing into the Conservatives' hands by supporting the undermining of the European Union in the way that he has done today.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: The hon. Gentleman was not in the House during the long and lengthy progress of the legislation on the Maastricht treaty, but Mr. Brian Gould MP as he then was, introduced new clause 57, which sought a referendum. The Liberal Democrats supported that new clause.
  Mr. Lazarowicz: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right to refer to what happened in the past, but now he is playing into the hands of the Conservatives, who are seeking to diminish the role of Britain in the European Union. That was not the position of the majority of Members previously.
  Voices from the Labour Benches have been calling for a referendum. I accept that those Labour Members and the Liberal Democrats are not motivated by a wish to undermine the European Union, but the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) showed the danger of the position that he is taking. As he said, in two, three or four years there may be another amending treaty. Does he believe that every time there is even the slightest change in the European treaties there will have to be a referendum? He may not take that position, but if we went down that
  812
  road it would be impossible to avoid the argument for a referendum every time there was even the slightest change to one of the European treaties.
  Mr. Stevenson: The answer to my hon. Friend's question is no. I can think of occasions since we joined the Common Market when referendums should have been held: the European Single Act, the Maastricht treaty and this proposal. I referred to building blocks and milestones. There will be another treaty, and we will have to examine it to see what effect it may have. I do not accept that every small change should necessarily be subject to a referendum, and I have never argued for that.
  Mr. Lazarowicz: The problem with my hon. Friend's formulation of the argument is that he may not see a minor change as a milestone, but others may see it as such or, more likely, represent it as a fundamental constitutional change. The entire British political debate on European Union membership would end up being dominated by a never-ending series of referendums, pre-referendums and post-referendums, which would have the precise effect of making our participation in the European Union an impossibility and would lead to the ungovernability of the EU, which I am sure is the motivation of at least some Conservative Members.
  I agree with my hon. Friend and other hon. Members that a dangerous gulf is developing between the European elites and the peoples of Europe. Every politician in every Parliament in Europe must recognise that, and must draw conclusions for the operation of our political systems. This problem is not unique to European politics: it is a feature of politics even at local level, as turnouts in local elections frequently prove. There is undoubtedly disenchantment with the European political process. There are many reasons for that. I am not one of those who always blame the media for problems when politicians are not very popular. However, when it comes to the issue of Europe, the diet in some parts of the media of continual Europhobia and of refighting the battles of the second world war is hardly conducive to mature and sensible political debate.
  Much more significant than the role of some sections of the media is the fact that we are now living in a dangerous world. Many people are fearful for the future, and worry about the direction of their own country and the wider world. It is not surprising that in such a climate there is a tendency in some quarters to go for the tried and trusted political solutions rather than to take new directions and find new ways of organising international relations. That tendency is more likely to develop, given that many international organisations—not just the EU, but the World Trade Organisation and the United Nations as well—are seen to be failing to meet many of the challenges that they face.
  In my view, however, the way to overcome the alienation of the European peoples from the European elite is not to unleash the never-ending series of referendums implied by the approach of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South. We need a twofold approach. First, it is for those of us who support active participation by this country in Europe and European institutions to get out there again and sell the benefits of EU membership—the jobs, trade

  813
  opportunities and rights for consumers and workers that it has brought us. We must send that message more strongly, emphasising the gains from membership and the dangers that would result from the withdrawal or disengagement favoured by the Conservatives.
  Above all, we need a European Union that works more effectively and meets the challenges of the time. Following the changes in eastern Europe in the 1990s, many Members will have been struck by the fact that the banner displayed by demonstrators in those towns and cities as they moved towards democracy was most commonly the flag of the European Union rather than their own traditional national flags. That was because they saw the EU as the hope for the future of not just Europe as a whole, but their individual countries.
  As we all know, the hopes placed in Europe by many of those peoples in the 1990s were dashed. The failure of the European institutions vis-à-vis the former Yugoslavia highlights the inability of European structures to deal with the challenges of that time. We can trace much of the disenchantment with the current European arrangements to that failure of the European Union and European bodies to respond to the challenges posed by civil war in the former Yugoslavia, and to the changing political and economic structure of Europe from the 1990s onwards.
  Given all that, it is more important than ever for the European Union to be made to work more effectively. The changes proposed by the Convention are necessary for that to happen. It is because so many Conservatives do not want the EU to work effectively and to succeed that they oppose those changes. The issue today, therefore, is not just our continuing membership of the EU; it is whether we stay in the EU or travel down a road that would lead inexorably to our withdrawal in the not-too-distant future.
  6.28 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I do not think most Members who oppose the Government's present policy of not holding a referendum are interested in slight changes. We are interested in a fundamental change.
  I remind the House that deceptions have come from Europe time and again. I have no problem with my European seat, as I received the most votes ever cast for an MEP in my area, so it is possible for me to engage in a real debate about this issue. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) said that we wanted the slightest changes to be subject to a referendum. The constitutional charter of fundamental rights, which in the past had no legal force, will now have full legal effect. When this proposal was first mentioned, however, the Prime Minister told us that it would have no binding force of that kind—that it was only a declaration. Some declaration, today! That is how the ordinary people have been deceived.
  Mr. Hendrick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I promised not to use too much time, so the hon. Gentleman will have to be quick.
  Mr. Hendrick: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. How many people in North Antrim have said to him, "Well, I'm not very happy about this charter of
  814
  fundamental rights"? How many have said, "We don't need a constitution", or, "We should at least have a referendum on a constitution"? How many people know what is in the constitution? How many people care?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: They do care, because I keep them informed. As the Member for that constituency, I tell them what Europe is up to. We need to feed people the facts, and the fact is that this issue is fundamental. It is not a petty matter to tell the people in one breath that this is only a declaration, and then to enter into a thorough programme to turn it into a law that will be applied by a court that is entirely outside this country. The time has come for this Parliament to say, "We are appointed to rule the United Kingdom, and before we can part with any authority we must know how we can deal with wrong decisions coming from Europe." We do have wrong decisions coming from Europe, and everybody knows it.
  In order to become part of the new constitution, we are going to duplicate the European convention on human rights. The matter will go the European Court of Justice, and there will be an overspill of much legislation and much argument. How will that benefit the people of this country?
  In the past week, we have had an argument about Sweden. Some were saying that the unfortunate murder of the Swedish Foreign Minister would change the people of Sweden, but they had an issue to deal with and their minds were not to be changed. That issue was concern about their country, regardless of the pressures that were applied. Mr. Prodi had the cheek to say, "What has Sweden done! It has put itself outside the heart of Europe." What right has he, an Italian, to tell another country that it has put itself outside the heart of Europe? The Swedish people exercised their democratic rights. People are entitled to those rights, and they must be contested for.
  Certain issues—I raised them in a previous debate—are conveniently forgotten, namely the constitutional and religious issues at the heart of each nation. We have heard not a word about them. They have been glossed over because they lead to controversy, and the Europe of today does not want to talk about controversial issues. So we need to have this debate. If the people of these islands want this new constitution, why do we not seek their support for it? Certain Members of this House say that the people want it, so let us find out whether they actually do. If the Prime Minister were convinced that he could win such a referendum, we would have it, but he is not.
  The euro gives rise to problems far worse and more dangerous than just the single coinage, which I am against. We are dealing with matters that are at the heart of centuries of development of democracy in this country. We have to take a stand, and the day to do that is when we say, "Let us put the question to the people." As democrats, we will have to accept it if the people vote for it. However, I have learned that, in Europe, we always get rigging. The British public are being refused a say in their own political destiny. The Government of our country are still resisting a referendum on the constitution, and it seems that thousands of citizens from continental Europe may get the chance to vote on whether we in this country should have the single currency. According to the Financial Times of 3 August,

  815
  725,000 EU citizens are being negotiated with, so that they can vote on an issue that has nothing to do with them. If they belong to Sweden, let them vote in Sweden, but why should we add to our numbers on the electorate almost a million voters to swing it against what many of the people of this country want? That is not democracy at all; it is rigging the answers. The House should be aware of that and take a stand.
  Let us see the negotiations. Let us hear what the country and the Government are going to do. The Government have asked the questions, so how are they going to answer them? If the Government say, "We want this" and Europe says, "Well, you are not having it", will the Government cave in? That is what we want to know. Will they make a stand anywhere along the line on that issue? I say to the Government that they need to take a stand on this issue and they need to make it speedily, because we are drifting into a position in which ordinary people do not want to talk about it because they do not trust us. When trust between Parliament and the people disappears, the result will be anarchy.
  6.36 pm
  Jane Griffiths: Time is short, but I should like to add a few remarks to this important debate. I should like to quote a former Prime Minister who said:
  "I am the first to say that on many great issues the countries of Europe should try to speak with a single voice. I want to see us work more closely on the things we can do better together than alone. Europe is stronger when we do so, whether it be in trade, in defence or in our relations with the rest of the World."
  That Prime Minister was, of course, Margaret Thatcher, now Baroness Thatcher, and the speech was the one she made in Bruges. It is highly relevant to our debate today. On great issues, the countries of Europe should speak with one voice. That is particularly important when we reflect on why we are debating the draft constitution and why a draft constitution or treaty exists at all.
  Next year the 15 members of the European Union become 25. A Europe that was divided in 1988 will now come together again at last. The countries of central Europe will come back into the heart of the European family. That is a historic change, which is why we are having today's debate. As hon. Members have said, the rules and treaties agreed when there were six, nine or 12 member states have been difficult to make work when we are 15, and they will not work with 25. That is why we, as Europeans, have had to return to the treaties and associated issues. That explains the draft constitution and the draft treaty. We are not changing our constitution or our nation. There is no proposal to do that, so there is no need for a referendum. It is unnecessary.
  What has been the response of Margaret Thatcher's party to the changes? Have they joined all good Europeans in welcoming the historic event of the coming together of Europe? Are they pleased that Europe is one again? No. Their response to one of the most important events in European history is to carp and to nitpick. They have opposed referendums in the past and their natural position is to continue to oppose
  816
  them. I find their stance today to be in bad faith, which is what we Europeans must not have. We must have good faith and work together.
  6.38 pm
  Mr. Richard Spring: May I first associate my colleagues and myself with the remarks made by the Foreign Secretary and the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) about Anna Lindh? It was indeed a terrible tragedy for a remarkable politician and a personal tragedy for her family. We all feel powerfully moved at this time.
  At the heart of this debate is the issue frequently raised by the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and, indeed, the current Leader of the House: how do we reconnect the peoples of Europe with the EU, how do we return to them a sense of ownership, and how do we rid them of the sense that the European project is being driven inexorably and undemocratically by the elites of Europe? Indeed, on the Foreign Office website we are reminded that at the heart of the Convention's considerations was the reconnection process, to make the EU's institutions more effective, efficient and democratically accountable, thus increasing transparency and simplification.
  Well, we know what has emerged. The question is how what is proposed achieves those key objectives. How will that sense of ownership be returned to the citizens of the member states? Most importantly, can the draft constitutional proposals be significantly amended to achieve that? How can the public express their legitimate views?
  In the foreword to the IGC White Paper, "A Constitutional Treaty for the EU", the Prime Minister confirmed that Governments had said that the treaty
  "will be the starting point for negotiations."
  However, the Foreign Secretary appeared to suggest that the essential text had been agreed. At the IGC, many European leaders certainly do not expect or favour substantial changes. It is worth remembering that the Prime Minister, in his Warsaw speech, originally rejected calls for a single, legally binding document called a constitution, and called instead for a charter of competences. In an excellent speech, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) recalled that sentiment.
  So the Government's difficulty is now simply one of trust. As the former Italian Prime Minister and Convention delegate, Lamberto Dini, has observed,
  "Anyone in Britain who claims the Constitution will not change things is trying to sweeten the pill for those who don't want to see a bigger role for Europe. The Constitution is not just an intellectual exercise. It will quickly change people's lives, beginning with the Human Rights Charter…After that it will bring changes in many other areas. Eventually the Union will be able to make legislation of its own. It will become an institution and organisation in its own right."
  Joschka Fischer made a similar comment, when he said
  "We have a draft constitution that is worthy of the name historic."
  That is indeed the case.
  So we have a problem. There is absolutely nobody of any consequence who agrees with the Government's interpretation of the impact of the constitutional treaty. The simple starting point to remedy the sense of

  817
  alienation that so many British people have from the EU and its powers is to tell the truth, and thus give the debate true legitimacy. If people believe that they are being told lies, invariably some will simply switch off or, more disastrously, take on extreme postures.
  For example, let us look at the charter of fundamental rights. We heard that it would not be incorporated into the treaty, that it involved no new set of enforceable rights, and that it was not legally binding. It is now in the treaty, game, set and match. All the way through, other European leaders have made it clear that it would be incorporated and have powerful legal resonance, but the British repeatedly said that the reverse was the case. There is a legitimate argument about all this, but the starting point must be honesty. The idea that what is now before us at the IGC is of no constitutional significance is just untrue, and it ill serves the Government to say otherwise.
  At the heart of the problem in the relationship between this country and the EU has been our almost total lack of influence under this Government. It would be inconceivable that the substantial budgetary rebate, the creation and driving forward of the single market and the opt-out on the single currency—so welcome to our people—could ever have happened under this Government, whose policy on Europe appears to be no policy at all. They are just carried along in the slipstream of others. What really significant part of the constitutional package before the IGC was driven by the British Government? It was not the written constitution, which they originally opposed. Nor was it the incorporation of the charter of fundamental rights, the EU diplomatic service or the collapsing of the three pillars.
  Before the Convention, European leaders and Governments clearly set out their stall—their vision and view—about what an enlarged Europe should look like. It was others who drove this agenda, certainly not us. It has been a cataclysmic failure of British nerve and influence that Britain has been on the sidelines of the debate. The right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), the former Minister for Europe, proposed amendments to the Convention that were thrown out with monotonous regularity.
  At Nice, a campaign should have been started to see off the important constitutional changes. Similarly, in six years not one power has been returned to the member states and our national Parliament in the name of subsidiarity—a principle instigated and fought for by a British Government who talk so freely about the democratic deficit.
  However, we are where we are, and the policy of denial continues. I echo the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), who spoke so tellingly. We know that Denmark, Ireland, Luxembourg and Spain will hold referendums, and that Portugal, Italy, France and the Netherlands may follow suit. The matter is now also being examined in Austria and Germany. Only the British Government deny the importance of this constitutional architecture, and they also want to deny the British people the chance to express their view, whether for or against. The idea that the matter is somehow of less significance than the mayoralty of Hartlepool is beyond parody.
  818
  Opposition Members have been scouring the media for a rational explanation from Government Front Bench Members, to give us an insight into their thinking. At a time when the Prime Minister has admitted that the matter is of fundamental importance, the Minister for Europe gave us an entirely risible insight into this debate in an article in the New Statesman dated 25 August.
  There is no time for me to quote from the article, but I invite hon. Members to read it. It is incredible that this should be the justification—the background, the mood music—for the huge constitutional change that is before us. His notion that cultural identities have not been undermined by the EU has nothing to do with the constitutional problems that beset us. If the Minister for Europe is so confident about his assertions, I invite him to let the people decide.
  Additionally, there is a functional flaw in the Government's position. The Foreign Secretary has spelled out a series of red lines, or "insistences", that he will put before the IGC. Of course, our Government have the right of veto but I simply put to the Minister for Europe the very obvious point that, in the inevitable discussion and horse-trading at the IGC, we have already effectively sold the pass. How much better would it be if the Foreign Secretary were able to say that he could not accept a particular proposal because it has to go before the British people to seek their approval? Even the Adrian Mole school of diplomacy might suggest to the Foreign Secretary that that would greatly strengthen his hand. It might, for example, enable him to win much clearer rights for national Parliaments, including a power of referral back to the Commission, and real powers of rejection that would give real meaning to the principle of subsidiarity.
  Finally, let us remind ourselves of how this Constitution opens. It says:
  "Reflecting the will of the citizens and states of Europe to build a common future…"
  How can the Minister for Europe explain how it does that if the people have not been asked? How have the Government divined the citizens' will? They have certainly not done that through their website on the draft constitutional treaty, and the matter was not even in the Labour party's manifesto. They cannot have made the divination from opinion polls, because the polls' message is clear, or from talking to constituents, because we know that constituents do not want the constitution. There is some sort of Mystic Meg influence guiding the Government's thinking.
  We believe that the constitution takes the EU in the wrong direction. Others certainly disagree with that point of view, but no rational and honest individual can deny that the matter has immense constitutional significance for a country that has never had a written constitution before. It will be to this Government's unending shame, when history makes its judgment, if the people of this country are denied the opportunity to express a view. To deny them that is a dereliction of the Government's obligations to the people of this country.
  6.49 pm
  The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): This has been a good debate. We have just heard a fine speech from the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring),

  819
  the shadow Minister for Europe, although I think that I may have read it in the Daily Mail about nine months ago; apart from the invitation to read the New Statesman, which I thoroughly endorse, he read it out with considerable vim and vigour. I shall not read from a prepared text, but will try to reply to the debate itself.
  The hon. Member for West Suffolk yet again made the point that this matter was not included in the Labour manifesto, but we actually put it to the British people:
  "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."
  That is precisely what we shall now begin to do.
  Occasionally, it is important to read the motions before the House. The Opposition motion refers to the constitutional draft presented by Mr. Giscard d'Estaing as though it were a given—a settled end text—but it is not.
  Sir Michael Spicer rose—
  Mr. Francois rose—
  Mr. MacShane: The hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir Michael Spicer) should have done the House the courtesy of being in the Chamber for more than two minutes of the Rothermere speech that we have just heard. The hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) has been here for the debate so I willingly give way to him.
  Mr. Francois: I thank the Minister for giving way.
  The Government's position, with which I disagree, is that they will not grant a referendum on the current draft of the treaty. However, may I ask the Minister a question about principle? Because of the nature of the IGC there are bound to be some changes in the draft before it finally emerges as a definitive text. When the Government have the definitive text, post-IGC, will they at least reserve the possibility of granting a referendum after the IGC process?
  Mr. MacShane: Both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have made it clear that if in the Government's opinion there are such fundamental changes in the relationship between the UK and its European partners as a result of the end text from the IGC, Parliament can clearly take a view of how it then wants to discuss or ratify the matter.
  May I return to the points made by hon. Members who gave considered speeches? I do so as someone who, like most Members, actually loves being a Member of this place, who likes the House of Commons, enjoys sitting on these green Benches and thinks of all the other right hon. and hon. Ladies and Gentlemen who have sat here over the decades and centuries. When I do not have a final text to consider or to discuss with the House, I am honestly reluctant to accept that several hundred years of parliamentary tradition should be thrown out of the window by conceding the cause for a Rothermere referendum—a plebiscite—that will hand most power to the press.
  820
  The Opposition have been clear from day one that the campaign was launched by the anti-European press; they said that they wanted a referendum to say no to Europe, not to test the will of the British people. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), who spoke after the two main introductory speeches, called for a referendum as a matter in principle, but in another place his colleague, the Liberal Democrat peer Lord Thomson of Monifieth, said:
  "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."
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman is obviously a young fogey, as he wants to throw away parliamentary democracy and sign up for a referendum.
  Another of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's colleagues, the Liberal Democrat peer Lord Dahrendorf, said 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."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 September 2003; Vol. 652, c. 180–204.]
  I invite the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider that point. What will be brought back to the House will be a treaty, which the Government will seek to sign, and its translation into law in this place.
  If we believe in parliamentary democracy, we should wait and see what is in that treaty. The former Prime Minister, Mr. Major, put that point well when he spoke on the "Today" programme. He said that he was in favour of a referendum if the treaty so changes our relationship with the EU, but he said that we should wait and see. I invite the House to be a little patient.
  Mr. Robert Walter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. MacShane: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, as he has been in the Chamber throughout the debate.
  Mr. Walter: I thank the Minister for giving way and for his references to centuries of parliamentary democracy, but perhaps he can tell the House what the point was of the referendum in 1975, proposed by a Labour Government who had renegotiated the treaty. They were not proposing to leave the EU; they were seeking affirmation of their renegotiation.
  Mr. MacShane: Of course if people had voted no, we would have left. Frankly, the 1975 referendum should be examined, as it relates to the point made so strongly by the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), who argued that the process of holding referendums somehow reconnected people to their elected political representatives. Well, I wish I could tell the House that I was persuaded by that argument. I have some experience because I worked in Geneva for some years—as hon. Members used to remind me—where referendums are held on every subject at national, cantonal and city level. I have to say that the turnout at elections and the standing of political leaders in Switzerland is—believe it or not—lower than in this country, so I fear that the notion that a referendum is somehow a magic key, a Harry Potter spell, to reconnect politicians and the people cannot be sustained.

  821
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) argued very strongly that we were going towards a state called Europe. I think that I quote him accurately. With all due respect to my hon. Friend—we have been friends for many years—I have to say that I am not sure that people could make that speech in almost any other European country and have their argument taken seriously. The notion that the eastern European countries that have voted so overwhelmingly to join the EU have done so because they are joining a state that somehow replaces their own is simply not a receivable argument. It is receivable in the Rothermere press and on the Conservative Benches, but it could not be made in Paris, Ireland or Spain, or in any other EU country.
  Mr. Bacon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. MacShane: The hon. Gentleman has been here as well, so I shall give way.
  Mr. Bacon: The first sensible thing that I have heard the Minister say is that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) made a fine speech, as many people would agree. Will the Minister clarify the position on the passerelle clause, because the Foreign Secretary told the European Scrutiny Committee the other day that the Government would seek to get it changed? Did any member of the British Government seek to table an amendment to the passerelle clause in the Convention on the Future of Europe?
  Mr. MacShane: The clause in question was inserted very late in the day. It was not introduced during the flow of things, as the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory)—who is not here, alas—would acknowledge. That is exactly what we shall have to discuss on 4 October, and those in other European capitals all want changes, as I know from my all my contacts with them.
  Many institutions and individuals want changes. I have here a letter to sign off tonight to the Royal National Institution of the Blind, which wants more QMV in EU anti-discrimination legislation. We are saying that that should stay a question of unanimity, so I will have to disappoint the RNIB, but I expect that, as it represents the blind people of Britain, it would rather have more authority at European level to produce Europe-wide legislation, covering the problems that blind people face. The right hon. Member for Charnwood would say, "Oh well, that isn't really a European competence." He should discuss that with the RNIB.
  The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) insisted on the sovereignty of Parliament. I think that I quote him correctly, so I am not quite sure, because I did not quite follow the thread of his argument, why he is proposing to transfer that sovereignty to a referendum. My hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) and for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) made the good point that we, as Members of Parliament, need to discuss—
  Mr. McLoughlin rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 177, Noes 250.

  Division No. 313]

  [6:59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Allan, Richard

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Amess, David

  Gidley, Sandra

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Goodman, Paul

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Bacon, Richard

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Baker, Norman

  Greenway, John

  Baldry, Tony

  Grieve, Dominic

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Hague, rh William

  Barrett, John

  Hammond, Philip

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Heald, Oliver

  Bercow, John

  Heath, David

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Blunt, Crispin

  Hendry, Charles

  Boswell, Tim

  Hermon, Lady

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Brady, Graham

  Howard, rh Michael

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Brazier, Julian

  Hunter, Andrew

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Jack, rh Michael

  Burnett, John

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Burns, Simon

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Burnside, David

  Keetch, Paul

  Burstow, Paul

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Burt, Alistair

  Butterfill, John

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Cameron, David

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Cash, William

  Lamb, Norman

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Chope, Christopher

  Leigh, Edward

  Clappison, James

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Collins, Tim

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Conway, Derek

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Lidington, David

  Cotter, Brian

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Loughton, Tim

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Maclean, rh David

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  Malins, Humfrey

  Doughty, Sue

  Maude, rh Francis

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Mercer, Patrick

  Duncan Smith, rh Iain

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Evans, Nigel

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Moore, Michael

  Fabricant, Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Fallon, Michael

  Norman, Archie

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Flight, Howard

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Flook, Adrian

  Ottaway, Richard

  Forth, rh Eric

  Page, Richard

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Paice, James

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Paisley, Rev. Ian

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Paterson, Owen

  Garnier, Edward

  Portillo, rh Michael

  823

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Randall, John

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Redwood, rh John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Robathan, Andrew

  Thurso, John

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Trend, Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Trimble, rh David

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Ruffley, David

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Viggers, Peter

  Salmond, Alex

  Walter, Robert

  Sanders, Adrian

  Watkinson, Angela

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Shepherd, Richard

  Whittingdale, John

  Simmonds, Mark

  Wiggin, Bill

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Wilkinson, John

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

  Willetts, David

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Willis, Phil

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Wilshire, David

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Spring, Richard

  Wishart, Pete

  Steen, Anthony

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Streeter, Gary

  Young, rh Sir George

  Stunell, Andrew

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mr. Mark Francois and

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Mr. Robert Syms

  NOES

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Cousins, Jim

  Ainger, Nick

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Cranston, Ross

  Allen, Graham

  Cruddas, Jon

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Austin, John

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Baird, Vera

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Barnes, Harry

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Battle, John

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Beard, Nigel

  Denham, rh John

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Berry, Roger

  Dismore, Andrew

  Best, Harold

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Blackman, Liz

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Borrow, David

  Doran, Frank

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Edwards, Huw

  Efford, Clive

  Bryant, Chris

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Cairns, David

  Etherington, Bill

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Farrelly, Paul

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Caplin, Ivor

  Flint, Caroline

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Challen, Colin

  Follett, Barbara

  Chaytor, David

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Foulkes, rh George

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Gilroy, Linda

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Goggins, Paul

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Cohen, Harry

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Connarty, Michael

  Grogan, John

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Hain, rh Peter

  Corston, Jean

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  824

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Martlew, Eric

  Hendrick, Mark

  Merron, Gillian

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Michael, rh Alun

  Heppell, John

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Hesford, Stephen

  Miliband, David

  Hinchliffe, David

  Miller, Andrew

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Moran, Margaret

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Morley, Elliot

  Mudie, George

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Hutton, rh John

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  O'Hara, Edward

  Illsley, Eric

  O'Neill, Martin

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Organ, Diana

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Perham, Linda

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Picking, Anne

  Jamieson, David

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jenkins, Brian

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Purchase, Ken

  Kemp, Fraser

  Purnell, James

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Kidney, David

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Lammy, David

  Rooney, Terry

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lepper, David

  Ruane, Chris

  Leslie, Christopher

  Ruddock, Joan

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Sawford, Phil

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Linton, Martin

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Sheridan, Jim

  Love, Andrew

  Short, rh Clare

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Simon, Skôn (B'ham Erdington)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Singh, Marsha

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  McCabe, Stephen

  McCafferty, Chris

  Squire, Rachel

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  MacDougall, John

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McFall, John

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  McIsaac, Shona

  Straw, rh Jack

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Stringer, Graham

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  McNamara, Kevin

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  McNulty, Tony

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  MacShane, Denis

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  McWalter, Tony

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Timms, Stephen

  Mallon, Seamus

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mendelson, rh Peter

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  825

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Trickett, Jon

  Wills, Michael

  Truswell, Paul

  Winnick, David

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Woolas, Phil

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Ward, Claire

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Watts, David

  White, Brian

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Charlotte Atkins and

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Derek Twigg

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be the added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 241, Noes 165.

  Division No. 314]

  [7:13 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

  Ainger, Nick

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Allen, Graham

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Austin, John

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Baird, Vera

  Denham, rh John

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Battle, John

  Dismore, Andrew

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Beard, Nigel

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Doran, Frank

  Berry, Roger

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Best, Harold

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Blackman, Liz

  Edwards, Huw

  Borrow, David

  Efford, Clive

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Etherington, Bill

  Farrelly, Paul

  Bryant, Chris

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Flint, Caroline

  Cairns, David

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Follett, Barbara

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings &Rye)

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Foulkes, rh George

  Challen, Colin

  Gerrard, Neil

  Chaytor, David

  Gilroy, Linda

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Goggins, Paul

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Clarke rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Grogan, John

  Hain, rh Peter

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Cohen, Harry

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  Connarty, Michael

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Corston, Jean

  Hendrick, Mark

  Cousins, Jim

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Heppell, John

  Cranston, Ross

  Hesford, Stephen

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Hinchliffe, David

  826

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Moran, Margaret

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Morley, Elliot

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Mudie, George

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hutton, rh John

  O'Neill, Martin

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Organ, Diana

  Illsley, Eric

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Perham, Linda

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Picking, Anne

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Jamieson, David

  Plaskitt, James

  Jenkins, Brian

  Pollard, Kerry

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Purchase, Ken

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Purnell, James

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Kidney, David

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Rooney, Terry

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Ruane, Chris

  Lammy, David

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Sawford, Phil

  Lepper, David

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Leslie, Christopher

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Linton, Martin

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Singh, Marsha

  Love, Andrew

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Squire, Rachel

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  McCabe, Stephen

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McCafferty, Chris

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  MacDougall, John

  Straw, rh Jack

  McFall, John

  Stringer, Graham

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  McIsaac, Shona

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Timms, Stephen

  McNulty, Tony

  Tipping, Paddy

  MacShane, Denis

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  McWalter, Tony

  Trickett, Jon

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Truswell, Paul

  Mallon, Seamus

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Martlew, Eric

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Merron, Gillian

  Ward, Claire

  Michael, rh Alun

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Watts, David

  Miliband, David

  White, Brian

  Miller, Andrew

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Moffatt, Laura

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Wills, Michael

  827

  Winnick, David

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Woolas, Phil

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Derek Twigg and

  Charlotte Atkins

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Hague, rh William

  Allan, Richard

  Hammond, Philip

  Amess, David

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Heald, Oliver

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Heath, David

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Hendry, Charles

  Bacon, Richard

  Hermon, Lady

  Baker, Norman

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Baldry, Tony

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Barrett, John

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Hunter, Andrew

  Bellingham, Henry

  Jack, rh Michael

  Bercow, John

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Keetch, Paul

  Boswell, Tim

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Brady, Graham

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Lamb, Norman

  Brazier, Julian

  Lansley, Andrew

  Burnett, John

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Burns, Simon

  Leigh, Edward

  Burstow, Paul

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Burt, Alistair

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Butterfill, John

  Lidington, David

  Cameron, David

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Cash, William

  Loughton, Tim

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Chope, Christopher

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Clappison, James

  Malins, Humfrey

  Collins, Tim

  Maude, rh Francis

  Conway, Derek

  Mercer, Patrick

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Cotter, Brian

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Moore, Michael

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Moss, Malcolm

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  Norman, Archie

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Doughty, Sue

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Evans, Nigel

  Page, Richard

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Paice, James

  Fabricant, Michael

  Paisley, Rev. Ian

  Fallon, Michael

  Paterson, Owen

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Flook, Adrian

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Forth, rh Eric

  Randall, John

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Gidley, Sandra

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Ruffley, David

  Goodman, Paul

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Salmond, Alex

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Shepherd, Richard

  Greenway, John

  Simmonds, Mark

  Grieve, Dominic

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  828

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

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Viggers, Peter

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Walter, Robert

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Watkinson, Angela

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Spring, Richard

  Wiggin, Bill

  Steen, Anthony

  Wilkinson, John

  Streeter Gary

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Willis, Phil

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Wilshire, David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Wishart, Pete

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Young, rh Sir George

  Thurso, John

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Trend, Michael

  Mr. Mark Francois and

  Trimble, rh David

  Mr. Robert Syms

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  "That this House welcomes the Government's commitment to keeping Parliament fully informed of the progress of the IGC negotiations, including through the publication of a White Paper, and to continued intense Parliamentary scrutiny of the draft Constitutional Treaty; believes the proposals from the Convention on the Future of Europe are a good starting point for discussions between the elected governments of the EU's member states; further believes that, as the proposals do not alter the fundamental constitutional relationship between the EU and its Member States, and the role of national parliaments is strengthened, there is no reason to depart from the precedent set by previous governments, which rejected referendums on previous constitutional treaties; and notes that it will be for Parliament to decide on whether it should become part of UK law."

  EU Constitution
    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

    IMPLEMENTATION AND COMPLIANCE OF THE COMMON FISHERIES POLICY
    That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 7623/03, Commission Communication towards uniform and effective implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy, and No. 10509/03, Commission Communication on compliance with the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy: 'Compliance work plan and scoreboard'; takes note of the Government's support for the work plan; and supports the Government's objective of playing a constructive part in detailed discussion of the proposals to improve co-operation between enforcement agencies and of the feasibility study on the proposed Community Fisheries Control Agency.—[Mr. Heppell.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I think the Ayes have it.
    Hon. Members: No.
    Division deferred till Wednesday 17 September, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002].

  PETITION

    Bicester Community Hospital
    7.26 pm
    Tony Baldry: I am glad that the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), is in his place to listen to this petition.
    I am proud to present a petition signed by more than 7,000 of my constituents, mainly from the town of Bicester and numbering more than half the population of that town. The petition expresses concern about Bicester community hospital.
    The petition declares
    that the right hon. Member for Darlington announced in 1999 that Bicester Community Hospital would be extended from a 12-bed hospital to a 30-bed hospital following an extensive consultation on community hospitals in Oxfordshire;
    that The Secretary of State further asserted that an expanded Bicester Community Hospital was "important to developing modern, effective and dependable services alongside improved fairness" in Oxfordshire's health service;
    that NHS Officials have stated that funds intended for the new Bicester Community Hospital, following the closure of Burford and Watlington community hospitals, "have been invested in the system" already; that this "will not be affected even if the Bicester development does not go ahead"; and that there now appears to be no provision either for the building or the running of a Community Hospital in Bicester;
    that there is a sense of betrayal in Bicester and the surrounding areas with the Department of Health and NHS officials on the building of a new Community Hospital in Bicester.
    The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Department of Health to honour its clear commitment to provide a new expanded Community Hospital for Bicester.
    And the Petitioners remain, etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

Royal Hospital Haslar
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heppell.]
7.28 pm
Mr. Peter Viggers: Some of my parliamentary friends and colleagues have expressed mock surprise at my raising this issue in the House as the subject of an Adjournment debate, as I have raised it so many times before. However, I would certainly claim not to be a one-club golfer. I spoke in the House last Thursday about defence and I spoke and answered questions yesterday on behalf of the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission. Nevertheless, it is true that, according to the ever-efficient Library, I have raised the issue of Haslar 63 times, and I shall continue to do so until the Government see sense and act to ensure that these facilities are used properly.
The Royal hospital Haslar was originally a naval hospital that opened on 23 October 1753, so its 250th anniversary will occur shortly. However, I put the case for the hospital not because of its history but because of its superb facilities. Some £35 million has been spent on it in the past 10 years and it has outstanding operating suites and facilities.
The problem arises because the Royal hospital Haslar is the only services hospital that the Ministry of Defence owns and controls. In 1988, a Ministry of Defence committee, which was chaired by Commodore Lawrence and comprised no medical personnel, decided that the best future for service medicine was to proceed with dramatic reconstruction. The committee was facing a significant shortfall of 50 per cent. to 90 per cent. in the key specialties. Recruitment to the armed forces medical services has traditionally been good, but recently retention has been bad. In the important faculties, such as general surgery, orthopaedic surgery, anaesthetics and general medicine, there is approximately a 75 per cent. shortfall. The Ministry of Defence has therefore only a quarter of the personnel that it needs.
The Lawrence committee recommended that there should be a new centre of defence medicine. The Government accepted the recommendation, but after it was touted around various places where they would have liked it to be located, it ended up at Birmingham, which is not a popular centre.
Recruitment to the Defence Medical Services is currently good, but retention remains bad. That is why it has been necessary in Iraq to use reservists, some of whom are charging approximately £1,000 a day in compensation for their loss of earnings. I have read press reports of some doctors being paid £180,000 or £250,000 a year in compensation for loss of civilian earnings to make up for the lack of service personnel. There was a serious problem and the solution that the Ministry of Defence proposed was the closure of the Royal hospital Haslar. The original statement made it clear that it would not close before 2002. There was local uproar and a march of 22,000 people who expressed their deep concern at the loss of the local facility.
There are several concerns, not only in services medicine, but I shall give one more example of the latter. The Ministry of Defence has decided to cut the umbilical

831
cord between medical staff and service patients at the same time as the closure programme. Until fairly recently, service doctors gave preference to service personnel, but that is no longer the case. There is no fast-tracking and 18,338 service personnel are currently medically downgraded. That means that, for example, a paratrooper with a back problem has to queue for treatment with an elderly lady who needs a hip replacement. That is a serious disadvantage from a services point of view. Defence Medical Services has not prospered by the decision.
Let me deal with the sphere of activity for which the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) is responsible. I am pleased and grateful that he is responding to the debate. Although we have a Ministry of Defence health problem. it is also a specific problem for the civilian population of the Gosport-south Hampshire area.
The facilities at Haslar are outstanding. It has 280 beds, nine exceptional operating theatres and a range of other facilities, including radiological equipment and magnetic resonance imaging equipment. Its telemedical equipment is as good as that anywhere in the world. Indeed, it is a world leader in telemedicine. The local community needs the facility. The next piece of the jigsaw puzzle is that the national health service has decided that the Queen Alexandra hospital at Cosham, which is eight to 12 miles away from my constituency, needs to be renewed. A private finance initiative has been proposed for it. The plan is to complete the PFI in 2007, though no one is putting money on that happening. Like most programmes, it might creep to the right and be delayed. Anyway, let us take 2007 as the relevant date.
The original plan was to close the outstandingly good facilities at Royal hospital Haslar in 2002. The subsequent plan was that they would close in 2007. There has, however, been a development since then. I raised the issue on the Floor of the House in the Christmas Adjournment debate, and subsequently received a letter, dated 29 January 2003, from the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), who was then the Under-Secretary of State for Public Health. She pointed out that, following a consultation by the local authority
"a commitment was made to the people of Gosport to develop a substantial facility at RH Haslar (subject to Ministry of Defence agreement on the use of the site), with day case surgery, diagnostic services, outpatient clinics and the Haslar Accident Treatment Centre. The local NHS remains committed to this vision, and are working closely with the Ministry of Defence to take it forward."
The problem is that the caveat
"subject to Ministry of Defence agreement on the use of the site"
is proving quite significant because some people in the Ministry appear to be dragging their heels in regard to the concept of effecting the necessary transfer of premises from the Ministry to the NHS and the local hospitals trust. I have heard it said that the commitment is not the one that I have just read to the House, but one to develop facilities on the Gosport peninsula. That is not what the Minister said, however. She said that the facilities would be retained at Haslar, and that is what we want to hear. If it is indeed the case that they will be
832
retained at Haslar, it is important that all those involved should come together to discuss the manner in which the transfer will be carried out.
I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin), who wrote to me about the transfer of authority and responsibility, and about the proposed MOD attitude after 2007. He kindly invited me to go and see him, which I look forward to doing on the morning of Wednesday 15 October. What we need now is an absolute commitment from the NHS that it understands the need for the Haslar facilities, and that it is committed to an orderly transfer of the premises there from the Ministry of Defence to the national health service.
A few months ago, before the summer recess, there was a fear—indeed, it was a stated intention—that the King Edward VII hospital at Midhurst would need to close. It is a charitable structure. That caused concern locally, because it was widely accepted that the facilities in Hampshire were not sufficient for us to manage without that hospital. Haslar hospital is quite different, however. It is much more substantial, much more important, and much more geared to the Minister's and the Government's initiatives.
The Government have recently introduced significant initiatives, one of which involves diagnostic and treatment centres. In these centres, there is virtually a production line of operations, which can take place in specially allocated premises. Such a production line of hip replacements, cataracts and the like—procedures known as cold surgery—can take place in a dedicated hospital, without the disruptions that can be caused by major accidents and emergencies. Treating the victims of major road accidents would normally take priority over cold surgery. Cold surgery therefore needs facilities that can be used on a regular, structured basis so that it can be carried out in a well-organised way. That is exactly the kind of facility that Haslar can offer.
There is also an accident treatment centre at Haslar, which is ideally suitable for treating the victims of minor accidents who do not need to go to the accident and emergency unit at Queen Alexandra hospital in Cosham. I believe that the number of accident treatment centre cases is about 8,000 a year, and a study has shown that some 6,000 additional cases could be taken away from the accident and emergency unit in Cosham by treating them in Haslar. Clearly, that initiative would take some pressure off the district general hospital at Cosham.
I am pleading for an understanding by Government at the highest level that we cannot do without Haslar hospital. The primary care trust has taken an initiative, and has asked the strategic health authority to consider the future of the Haslar site. We need to bring all the major actors into this dialogue: the Ministry of Defence, which is the current owner of the site, the national health service, which is the holder of the purse strings through the PCT, the ambulance trust, which has a heavy burden because of the extra carriage of patients between Gosport and the Queen Alexandra hospital, Gosport borough council, which is the planning authority, the hospitals trust and all the other participants—stakeholders, as the Government like to call them—in the health scene in south Hampshire. That is urgently

833
needed, because we cannot manage without the facilities at Haslar hospital. I urge the Minister to respond to this debate, and to agree that he will participate in this initiative and ensure that those facilities are not lost.
The Ministry of Defence has said that it wishes to get out of the business of hospital management. I hold my own view on that. The Defence Medical Services has not only surgical and medical skills, but administrative skills. I maintain that it would be helpful to the Defence Medical Services to have a facility at which defence medical personnel could train in administration as well as in medical matters. Haslar, which has superb facilities and is highly regarded, could be a centre for an esprit de corps in the Portsmouth and south Hampshire area. The Defence Medical Services would appreciate that.
Once the premises are transferred to the hospitals trust, the Ministry of Defence, having achieved its primary objective of getting out of hospital management, may well reconsider the facilities and realise that a combination of Queen Alexandra hospital and Haslar hospital would provide an excellent training ground for its own personnel. The Ministry of Defence may come back on side and realise that it has that opportunity.
My plea is for the Minister to recognise the problems, and to undertake to involve himself in the transfer of premises at Haslar hospital to the national health service.
7.42 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) on securing this debate. I assure him that I will draw his comments on the Defence Medical Services to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I am here to answer the hon. Gentleman's questions about the national health service. I am sure that he will appreciate that I must confine my remarks to that subject.
All right hon. and hon. Members naturally and rightly attach the highest importance to developments in the NHS in their constituencies, because access to good quality, convenient health care services is an essential ingredient in the life of any community. That is true in Gosport, and it is certainly true in Barrow and Furness. I fully understand the concerns that have been raised in Gosport by the hon. Gentleman's constituents over the provision of local NHS services, especially the future of the Royal hospital Haslar.
As the hon. Gentleman said, for many years the Royal hospital has played a central role in the provision of NHS services in his constituency. I pay tribute, as I am sure he would, to the professionalism and dedication of all the staff at the hospital. Any fundamental change along the lines that he has talked about is bound to raise concerns and anxieties locally. It is clear to him—it is clear to me, too—that decisions concerning the configuration of local services need to be made. We need to get on and make them in order to allay legitimate concerns and lay the foundations for the growth and expansion in services that he and I want to see.
It was clear from the hon. Gentleman's remarks that he appreciates the fact that these decisions are first and foremost the responsibility of the local primary care trust, the NHS trusts and the strategic health authority.
834
Any decision should be made after the fullest possible local consultation and involvement. People's concerns should always be responded to fully and fairly. They should have the full facts before them, and they need to be aware of all the available options.
I know that the NHS in the hon. Gentleman's constituency is committed to those principles as it takes forward work on the best pattern of local services. If he has any concerns to the contrary, he should raise them with me and I will pursue them vigorously on his behalf.
I also agree that there is a challenging agenda for local NHS organisations, but I believe that the Portsmouth Hospitals NHS trust is responding vigorously. As one of the largest trusts in England, providing acute health care services for nearly 1 million people covering Portsmouth, the Isle of Wight and the surrounding region, it is already planning for the future. As the hon. Gentleman said, central to its plans is the new private finance initiative scheme for the redevelopment of hospital services in Portsmouth, focusing on the current Queen Alexandra site in Cosham. As he knows, the plan is to develop a high quality centre for acute services, which will serve as the hub of a network of services for outpatients, rehabilitation, preoperative assessment and much more, available in local communities for local communities throughout south-east Hampshire. I understand that the plans are strongly supported by local clinicians.
In summer 2002, a review of the proposals was conducted to ensure that the objectives still met the needs of the local health system. Clinical staff from both the NHS trust and the primary care trust confirmed their original view that the integration of acute care on a single site was the most clinically sustainable and effective model, complemented by a variety of local services. Plans for the new hospital are well under way. The Portsmouth NHS trust has recently announced the name of its preferred bidder, the Hospital Company, and is now developing a full business case for approval. It is envisaged that work will start on the site in February next year, and that the new hospital will open in 2007. Once the work is completed, in-patient services currently at Haslar will move to the new site. In the meantime, they will remain at Haslar.
To address short-term capacity problems, the Portsmouth trust is working in partnership with the independent sector on a separate project to shorten the time for which local patients wait for orthopaedic surgery. The idea is to commission an overseas clinical team of surgeons, nurses and allied health professionals who specialise in the delivery of orthopaedic services. A team from the Portsmouth trust and the Plymouth NHS trust is currently in South Africa to assess and select clinical staff and finalise the appropriate contract negotiations. The project will then begin next month, continuing until 2004. I should make clear that the focus for providing the long-term capacity needed in the local NHS to reduce waiting times for patients in south-east Hampshire will be based on the redeveloped Queen Alexandra hospital site in Cosham.
Both projects are major new developments for the local health community which form part of a wider strategic vision for the future of local health services throughout Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. The strategic health authority is currently steering a process known as Healthfit, the aim being to develop a strategic

835
framework for local health services that will be safe, sustainable, affordable—which is important—and fit for the future. A key priority now is to identify the pattern of local health services, and Fareham and Gosport primary care trust is leading a project to consider that. The PCT will ensure that the process fully involves health professionals, local patients and communities, as well as elected representatives. As the right pattern of services becomes clearer, the local NHS will be able to match those services with the most appropriate premises.
The hon. Gentleman rightly said much about the future of the Haslar hospital. It has been a subject of local discussion for many years, particularly since 1998 when the Ministry of Defence first announced its intention of withdrawing from the site in 2007. The commitments made in 2000—confirmed by the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing, and Community Safety, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears), when she wrote to the hon. Gentleman in January—still stand. The NHS in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight remain committed to the pattern of services for the population on the Gosport peninsula that were agreed following the consultation in 2000.
As I have said, however, the future of the Haslar hospital cannot be seen in isolation. The NHS has a responsibility to examine a range of options to ensure that primary and secondary services are meeting the needs of local patients, and conform to wider plans for modernisation. The precise configuration of the services is being discussed locally, as the hon. Gentleman will know. Following confirmation they can be matched with the right premises, at the right price, to ensure that resources are used effectively and efficiently to provide the range of services needed by the local population. As part of that process, the NHS continues to engage in discussions with the MOD so that the Haslar hospital can be considered a possible option for the location of future services. However, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would be the first to acknowledge, the NHS has a duty to use public money wisely, and must therefore consider other options.
The hon. Gentleman again referred to the need for joint working between the NHS and the Ministry of Defence on this issue, and he said that there are no clear arrangements for the transfer of services. I am particularly concerned about this issue and the suggestions that he has made this evening, but I am advised that what he said is not the case. In fact, both sectors continue to work closely not only on the future of the Royal hospital Haslar site, but to confirm the provision of NHS and defence medical services in the local area.
The MOD has confirmed its intention to withdraw from the site in 2007, and that confirmation provides a firm foundation through which the NHS and especially the MOD can ensure continuity of NHS services for local people. It is clear that services will need to be provided from the Royal hospital site until such time as the new hospital is ready to receive admissions.
Work is being taken forward through a local partnership board, which meets quarterly, and through a high level strategic partnership that provides an overview of all aspects of partnership work between the
836
NHS and the MOD. The priority is to ensure a robust and practical way forward that is sustainable for the NHS, and which will meet the needs of local people. However, any decision taken by the NHS on the future use of the Royal hospital Haslar site will clearly need to take into account the MOD's own plans for the rest of the Haslar site. The MOD and the Defence Medical Education and Training Agency take the lead on this issue, and I understand that, as the hon. Gentleman said, the MOD will meet him next month to discuss arrangements for withdrawing from the management of the hospital. Any decisions on the use of the site will clearly be subject to the necessary local planning approval processes.
The future of the Royal hospital Haslar is obviously of great concern to the hon. Gentleman and I genuinely understand the worries that he expressed this evening. It is our policy that primary care trusts, in partnership with local trusts and the strategic health authority, and in the light of their specific local knowledge and expertise, should decide the priorities for the NHS locally, including the location of any eventual services. This is an opportunity to plan for growth and expansion in NHS services locally; we are not talking about contracting the range of services available to the hon. Gentleman's constituents. That is the context in which, I hope, he and his constituents will see these developments.
I conclude by reassuring the hon. Gentleman that every effort is being made by the local NHS to plan ahead for the future. It will continue to work with the MOD, and with him, to ensure a model of care that best meets the needs of the people whom he represents.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes to Eight o'clock.

CORRECTION
Official Report, 15 September 2003: in col. 595, after "The House divided: Ayes 237, Noes 140." insert

"Division No. 309]

[3:46 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

Ainger, Nick

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Bradshaw, Ben

Alexander, Douglas

Brennan, Kevin

Allen, Graham

Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Atherton, Ms Candy

Bryant, Chris

Atkins, Charlotte

Burgon, Colin

Austin, John

Burnham, Andy

Baird, Vera

Byers, rh Stephen

Banks, Tony

Caborn, rh Richard

Barnes, Harry

Cairns, David

Barron rh Kevin

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Caplin, Ivor

Bayley, Hugh

Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

Beard, Nigel

Challen, Colin

Bell, Stuart

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Berry, Roger

Chaytor, David

Best, Harold

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Blackman, Liz

Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Borrow, David

837

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Jamieson, David

Coffey, Ms Ann

Jenkins, Brian

Cohen, Harry

Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

Cooper, Yvette

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Cousins, Jim

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Cox, Tom (Tooting)

Jowell, rh Tessa

Cruddas, Jon

Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

Kaufman, rh Gerald

Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

Keeble, Ms Sally

Khabra, Piara S.

Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

Kidney, David

Dalyell, Tam

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

Darling, rh Alistair

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Dean, Mrs Janet

Lammy, David

Denham, rh John

Lazarowicz, Mark

Dhanda, Parmjit

Leslie, Christopher

Dismore, Andrew

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Doran, Frank

Lewis, Terry (Warsley)

Drew, David (Stroud)

Linton, Martin

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Love, Andrew

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

Etherington, Bill

McAvoy, Thomas

Farrelly, Paul

McCabe, Stephen

Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

McDonagh, Siobhain

Flint, Caroline

McDonnell, John

Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

McFall, John

Foster, rh Derek

McIsaac, Shona

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

McKechin, Ann

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

McKenna, Rosemary

McNulty, Tony

Foulkes, rh George

McWalter, Tony

Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

Mahmood, Khalid

Gardiner, Barry

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Gerrard, Neil

Mallaber, Judy

Gibson, Dr. Ian

Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

Gilroy, Linda

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Grogan, John

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Hain, rh Peter

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Martlew, Eric

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

Meacher, rh Michael

Hanson, David

Merron, Gillian

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Michael, rh Alun

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

Miliband, David

Miller, Andrew

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Moffatt, Laura

Hepburn, Stephen

Moonie, Dr. Lewis

Heppell, John

Moran, Margaret

Heyes, David

Morley, Elliot

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Hodge, Margaret

Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Hope, Phil (Corby)

Organ, Diana

Hopkins, Kelvin

Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

Howells, Dr. Kim

Palmer, Dr. Nick

Hoyle, Lindsay

Perham, Linda

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

Pickthall, Colin

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Plaskitt, James

Humble, Mrs Joan

Pollard, Kerry

Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

Pound, Stephen

Hutton, rh John

Primarolo, rh Dawn

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Prosser, Gwyn

Illsley, Eric

Quinn, Lawrie

Ingram, rh Adam

Rammell, Bill

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

838

Raynsford, rh Nick

Stoate, Dr. Howard

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

Stringer, Graham

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

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

Rooney, Terry

Trickett, Jon

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Ruane, Chris

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Ruddock, Joan

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

Salter, Martin

Vis, Dr. Rudi

Savidge, Malcolm

Walley, Ms Joan

Sawford, Phil

Ward, Claire

Sedgemore, Brian

Wareing, Robert N.

Sheerman, Barry

Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

Sheridan, Jim

Watts, David

Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

Skinner, Dennis

Wills, Michael

Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

Winnick, David

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Woodward, Shaun

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

Soley, Clive

Spellar, rh John

Wright, David (Telford)

Squire, Rachel

Wyatt, Derek

Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

Steinberg, Gerry

Tellers for the Ayes:

Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

Vernon Coaker and

Ms Bridget Prentice

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Djanogly, Jonathan

Allan, Richard

Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

Amess, David

Duncan Smith, rh Iain

Ancram, rh Michael

Evans, Nigel

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Fabricant, Michael

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Fallon, Michael

Bacon, Richard

Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

Baldry, Tony

Baron, John (Billericay)

Flight, Howard

Bellingham, Henry

Flook, Adrian

Bercow, John

Forth, rh Eric

Beresford, Sir Paul

Foster, Don (Bath)

Blunt, Crispin

Fox, Dr. Liam

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

Brady, Graham

Garnier, Edward

Brazier, Julian

George, Andrew (St. Ives)

Breed, Colin

Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Browning, Mrs Angela

Goodman, Paul

Bruce, Malcolm

Gray, James (N Wilts)

Burns, Simon

Grayling, Chris

Burnside, David

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Burstow, Paul

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Burt, Alistair

Greenway, John

Butterfill, John

Hague, rh William

Cable, Dr. Vincent

Hammond, Philip

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Hancock, Mike

Cameron, David

Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

Carmichael, Alistair

Hawkins, Nick

Cash, William

Hayes, John (S Holland)

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Heath, David

Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

Chope, Christopher

Horam, John (Orpington)

Collins, Tim

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Jack, rh Michael

Cotter, Brian

Jenkin, Bernard

Curry, rh David

Johnson, Boris (Henley)

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Key, Robert (Salisbury)

Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

839

Lansley, Andrew

Moss, Malcolm

Laws, David (Yeovil)

Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

Letwin, rh Oliver

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Ottaway, Richard

Lidington, David

Page, Richard

Loughton, Tim

Paice, James

Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

Pickles, Eric

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

Maclean, rh David

Redwood, rh John

McLoughlin, Patrick

Rendel, David

Malins, Humfrey

Robathan, Andrew

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Mercer, Patrick

Roe, Mrs Marion

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

Rosindell, Andrew

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Moore, Michael

Sanders, Adrian

840

Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

Walter, Robert

Simmonds, Mark

Waterson, Nigel

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

Watkinson, Angela

Webb, Steve (Northavon)

Soames, Nicholas

Whittingdale, John

Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

Wiggin, Bill

Spring, Richard

Wilkinson, John

Steen, Anthony

Willetts, David

Syms, Robert

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Willis, Phil

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Wilshire, David

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Wishart, Pete

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Young, rh Sir George

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Tellers for the Noes:

Tyrie, Andrew

Mr. Mark Francois and

Viggers, Peter

Mr. John Randall

Question accordingly agreed to."

Preamble
[SIR NICHOLAS WINTERTON in the Chair]

Transport (London)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Heppell]
9.30 am
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The first debate this morning will be initiated by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on the important subject of transport in London.
Mr. John Randall: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What could be better than starting the morning by debating transport in London under your excellent chairmanship?
When making my way into London, I find that if things are going well it can be a pleasure. Driving along the Embankment and seeing the Thames in all its glory can be wonderful. London is my city, and I am proud of it. However, those are the good days. All too often, for many residents and commuters, the daily business of moving around London is not a pleasure. Indeed, it can sometimes be a trauma.
To a city such as London, transport is vital. I do not have to explain why; it is self-evident. The Government, in their usual brilliant way, have managed to hand over many responsibilities for London. However, I am feeling particularly magnanimous this morning, so I shall not harangue the Minister; he is a jolly fine chap. I feel particularly magnanimous today because, on Friday evening, Uxbridge football team managed to beat Wealdstone football club, a club that I believe he supports. Wealdstone's supporters were magnanimous in defeat, which is unusual, so I shall extend my courtesy to the Minister this morning by not attacking the Government—at least not virulently.
The Government have an important role to play—they hold a watching brief over those aspects of transport that they have handed over to Transport for London—because if things go wrong, the country goes wrong. One of the most obvious problems was the recent power failure on the underground. Interestingly enough, those of my colleagues who are on a pay scale above me have decided to use an Opposition day to debate that subject this afternoon, although it will be answered by the Department of Trade and Industry rather than the Department for Transport. That power failure was a serious matter, but as it will be debated at length this afternoon, we need not spend too much time on the subject now. Suffice it to say that the Government must keep a close eye on things and consider what back-up is necessary.
I know that London Underground is undertaking a full review, and that emergency lighting and other aspects will be considered, but bearing in mind the current situation in the City and elsewhere, with the threat of terrorism as well as having to put with ordinary cock-ups, the Government have a duty to ensure that
176WH
things are being properly looked after. While we are on the subject of mistakes, the Central line comes to mind. Not only did we suffer the fiasco of the line being out of action, which inconvenienced tens of thousands of people, including my constituents, but more problems have been found since. I remember that, because I was a member of the Select Committee on Transport for a while; the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), whom I see in his place, was also a member. The people from the Central line came before us and gave some pretty poor excuses. To see it going wrong again underlines what we thought.
Next year will see the centenary of the arrival of the underground in Uxbridge. The steam locomotive that came into the station where Sainsbury's now stands is still in existence, and I am hoping to arrange for it to come down the line for a celebration. I am not convinced that much has improved in the 99 years since the Metropolitan line first came to Uxbridge. It might be of benefit to those living along the line that the service is no longer steam, but if we consider reliability and the time that it takes to get into London, we have not advanced from those Edwardian times. That is a great shame. The Metropolitan line and the underground are part of the culture in which I grew up. I am proud to be part of Metroland, as is the Minister. I do not know whether the Minister's constituency regards itself as the rolling Middlesex countryside beloved of John Betjeman—in Uxbridge, there are still vestiges of that—but the underground is an important lifeline for us and it must be improved.
I notice a rather striking absence of Government Members. That might be explained by the fact that they have taken the Jubilee line to Willesden Green and other places near Brent, East; it is not for me to cast aspersions. In our previous interesting discussions about London Underground, there has been a range of opinion about public-private partnership. It is now in place, and we have to make it work for the good of all Londoners, so it would be not only pointless but churlish to have an argument about alternatives.
To expand the underground system is expensive and difficult. Because of the built-up nature of the area that I represent, it would have to go overground rather than literally underground. However, in Uxbridge, we have a campaign that we take very seriously. I know that the Minister has no responsibility in the area but, working on the assumption that somebody might one day read what we say in this place, I urge again that serious consideration be given to the extension of the Central line to Uxbridge. That would not be difficult because a siding comes out of Ruislip Gardens station on the Central line, a few yards, or perhaps metres—in Uxbridge, we are probably into yards and chains—from the Metropolitan and Piccadilly lines. It would not only bring enormous benefit to Uxbridge—I declare an enormous interest in Uxbridge from the business side of things—but bring job opportunities to areas closer to London, such as Notting Hill, because it would open up an area that is short of applicants. That would be useful. It would also give us a link to the Chiltern line, which is generally reckoned to be a good thing that works well. That would leave an opening for lots of commuters from the Chilterns.
The overground is not at all bad. However, it does have very bad days. I have only one overground station in my constituency, which is West Drayton station. A

177WH
little work has been done to improve it with the Hayes and West Drayton single regeneration budget. The back of the station is still a bit mucky, but we are working on that. Last year, I managed to commute quite happily from West Drayton to Bournemouth to the Conservative party conference. In fact, I arrived more fresh faced than many of the delegates who had stayed overnight; I cannot work out why that was. Sadly, that will not be so easy for Blackpool, but it is something that we should give more publicity to.
At Hayes, in the neighbouring constituency to mine, they have done a great deal to improve services. There is a line to Heathrow, and, of course, we are all waiting for the advent of Crossrail. We may have to wait some time, but I hope that the Government will get on with Crossrail; I have urged them again and again to do so. We have the added impetus of the Olympic bid. I am very much in favour of that, not just because the event itself would be greatly prestigious, but because it would provide us with a real incentive to sort out transport in London.
I understand that the recent athletics competition in Paris was marred by the fact that its transport could not be sorted out. Of course, the Francophobes in the British press might have been making out that Paris could not get it right, but I recently drove past the Stade de France and was surprised by how far out it was. If we are going to have successful sporting events, we have to get our act together on the matter of transport. We should be seriously considering that.
One thing that we all require from the rail system, whether overground or underground, is safety. I mean not just safety in terms of the running of the train, but safety at the stations and on the way home. Although many people might think that I am a big chap, I would use the underground more often to get to Uxbridge from this place were it not for the fact that on late-sitting nights I do not particularly fancy walking from Uxbridge station to my home, 20 minutes' walk away. It is probably unfounded, but I do not feel particularly safe. Although improvements have been made at Uxbridge station over the years, it is still not a very welcoming place. I think that a lot of people would use the public transport system more if they felt that public safety around those areas had increased. That is obviously not a matter for the Minister's Department, but generally speaking it is something that we must consider if we want to increase the use of public transport.
Reliability is another issue. Using my own example, the journey to Westminster in the mornings might be a bit crowded and unpleasant but it tends—unless one is unlucky and there is a leaf on the line or something like that—to be reasonably quick. Late at night, by which I mean after 8 or 9 o'clock, although I know that people have had other experiences at different times, I may get turfed off the train at Harrow-on-the-Hill; it may not be going as far as Uxbridge. Harrow-on-the-Hill is, as the Minister knows, a marvellous place. It is not quite as good as Uxbridge, but it is not bad. However, the platforms get a bit boring after an hour or so. That is the sort of thing that puts me off the journey, and makes me
178WH
think about using the car to get in and out of London. That is a bit of a blow, of course, because I have to pay the £5 congestion charge.
Anecdotally, things improved a little for me when the congestion charge was introduced, but they seem to have worsened again. When I am already late for a Bill Committee, there is nothing more annoying than thinking that the first thing that I have to do when I get to my office is to log on and pay my £5 charge. I am starting to wonder whether the scheme is as successful as it is claimed, although I am prepared to review the figures.
As a lapsed retailer, I must say that the figures for central London appear to have worsened. John Lewis, among others, says that its sales figures have reduced dramatically. That worries me greatly. It is very easy to take such businesses for granted and assume that they are a milch cow that can provide rates endlessly, never mind what is imposed on them. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) may touch on that if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
On a more positive note, buses seem to have improved a little, although I am disappointed that bus fares have gone up. I use buses a lot in central London. We have problems in my constituency. Again, that is not a matter for the Minister, but the people running those bus services might take note if I raise it in this place. The 207 service is being re-tendered, and a jolly good thing too. I have heard of gaps in the peak evening service of an hour or more. Buses are even taking short cuts, which is an interesting concept for a bus route—"We are running a bit late. Let's not take the usual bus route. Let's take a quick turn down there. That'll get us back on time." That is a little tough for people waiting at a bus stop, but never mind: the bus company is trying to improve its reliability.
There have also been problems with the 222 bus service, but perhaps my remarks are becoming a little parochial. Westminster may not be the place to take up this matter. However, I have a great deal of sympathy for the bus drivers, who must put up with an awful lot: a lot of abuse, even violent attacks. They have many problems with schoolchildren. I recently asked a bus driver which time of day he found the most threatening. I expected him to say that it was late at night, but he surprised me when he said that it was when the children came out of school. I use the word "children" loosely, as they do unmentionable things and cause the vehicles to stop. There is also the sheer weight of them, which means that bus companies must lay on more buses.
I am certainly not a union man—the last union to which I belonged was the students' union: I was responsible for ordering the beer—but London has a problem with the recruitment and retention of drivers. I understand that the shortage of drivers may have an impact on services. The Transport and General Workers Union told me that, between 1992 and 2000, the number of train drivers increased on average by 51 per cent, while during the same period the number of bus drivers increased by only 23.9 per cent. I am not in a position to dispute that, but I know that there is a shortage of bus drivers.

179WH
A problem affecting my constituency is that drivers are trained but then go off to Heathrow where the job is more lucrative, leaving the bus companies, which have paid for the tuition, short of drivers. The turnover rate is very high. There are also problems in the engineering sections. This problem must be addressed. It is part of a larger problem of recruitment and retention that affects London's public services. Everything costs so much that many people move out of London because they cannot afford to live there.
I should like briefly to touch on taxis. They are a part of transport in London that we sometimes do not talk about too much. We all want taxis when we are in a hurry and they always seem to be about, although I think that taxi availability has gone down as London has expanded. I understand that taxi drivers are a little concerned about the Knowledge, which is the test that they take. They think that it should be modernised. I am not suggesting that the Government should consider treating the Knowledge in the same way that, it seems, educational qualifications have recently been treated, so that more and more people pass the Knowledge, because it is an important part of the job. However, the issue should be looked at.
One of the good things about taxis is that most of them—nearly all of them in London—are wheelchair accessible. That brings me on to almost my final point: the accessibility of public transport in London for the disabled, which is not looked at much. The disabled are obviously a wide group, and I understand some of the problems. In the case of the underground system, it is difficult suddenly to put in disabled-friendly access, but we must look at that. Buses now have some accessibility, but I understand that the policy is to allow only one wheelchair user on at a time, which could be a bit frustrating if one is waiting with a friend or somebody else comes along.
I also have concerns about the new pre-payment ticket machines for buses, which, I understand, might cause problems for people with learning disabilities. I would not speak for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because that would be very unwise, but let us face it, although people try to make things easy with colour-coded knobs and so forth, when one is looking at a machine and trying to follow the instructions, one can sometimes get it wrong.
Therefore, I am a little worried that sometimes we forget about people with such disabilities. That applies even when they come in with their own vehicles. We know that there is abuse of disabled parking bays. There is also sometimes abuse of the disabled badges that enable people to park in those bays—I can never remember whether they are orange or blue these days, and must get colour blind on them.
Transport is one of the keys to success in London, but we must be careful not to add to the problem. In the light of that I finish with a note on airports, inevitably. Any expansion at Heathrow would increase the need for transport in London, never mind whether it would be disastrous for the environment and the quality of life of people living there—this is the place but not the time to discuss that. However, from an economic point of view, an expansion at Heathrow would throw the west and central London transport systems into even more chaos.
180WH
That includes anything done at Northolt, so I hope that the Government will rule both of those out as soon as possible.
In that context, I have a question for the Minister. Can he say when he expects the aviation White Paper to be published? I have heard Ministers, including his boss, the Secretary of State for Transport, saying that it will be published at the end of the year, and of course I believe that, because I believe everything that the Government say—they are always right. However, I have heard whispers that the publication might be delayed. I wonder whether the Minister can assure me, so that I can rest easy today, knowing that I have done my bit to ensure that the Government are living up to their promises.
As I said at the outset, I do not want to have a go at the Government—well, I do really, but on this occasion I might get more if I am trying to be nice. Transport is very important. We must consider all its aspects and bear in mind the environmental consequences. I hope that the Government will adopt one of their famed joined-up approaches not just in the Department for Transport but in all other Departments.
9.54 am
Mr. John Horam: We are all grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) for introducing the debate in his usual felicitous way. He represents a north London constituency, so may I introduce a south London perspective? I shall make only two brief points because I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) also wants to speak.
Connex's decisions affect the whole of south-east London and many of my constituents who use its commuter services through Bromley and south London. The Chamber will be aware that the chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority decided a few months ago to terminate Connex's franchise at the end of this year. Connex will continue to run its services until then, after which some unspecified people—he more or less said friends of his whom he knew and could trust—will run it for a further 12 months, after which there will be a competition and the franchise will be re-let on different terms. I understand that those new terms will include a higher subsidy. I am pleased about that because it is necessary and one of Connex's problems has been financial difficulties arising from miscalculation of the subsidy required.
The transitional 18 months has been handled extremely badly and Connex now has no incentive to provide a decent service. It knows that its time will be up in six months, so why should it bother to do other than what its conscience dictates? That is quite high in Connex's case and I have regard for it in that respect, but there is no commercial or financial incentive for it to carry on providing a good service. The chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority will have had consultations with the Government, and the right approach to the matter would have been for him to say that the service is unsatisfactory, a new franchise would be set up in 18 months with new conditions and everyone could apply. That would have given Connex an incentive to improve its performance and to re-apply with other people.

181WH
Half a dozen train operating companies might apply for the new franchise and that would have led to a better result, because I fear for my constituents during the 18 months of uncertainty and while friends of Mr. Bowker are running the railway line from south-east London for a year. If the Minister allowed the chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority to make that decision, it was the wrong decision and I would like his comments on how we can get through those 18 months.
The first decision as a result of the change—it is common to all parts of the rail service, not just in London—is that trains have been taken out of service because the chairman of the SRA hopes that greater attention can be paid to punctuality and reduced crowding. I do not know the experience of other Members in the Chamber, but the greatest complaint in my area is not lack of punctuality. People become concerned when, for example, at Charing Cross they struggle to get on an extremely crowded train in the evening, because they are aware that there are sometimes safety issues. If people are pressed into a train with their faces against the window, they worry about safety. That is not a happy situation for people going to and from work and there have been instances of commuter rage because people are really worried about crowded trains, trying to get to work, trying to get home and so on.
The idea of paying the same fare for fewer services and, therefore, for punctuality—I understand the reasoning behind that—seems to be evasion of train operating companies' responsibilities. They should pay attention to their own efficiency. The reason for overcrowding on trains, in my experience and that of my commuter constituents, is that a four-car train often rolls up when there should be an eight-car train. That is often because old rolling stock that has not been properly maintained breaks down at the depot and, therefore, does not arrive at the station. Alternatively, there has been a recruitment problem and there are not enough people to run the trains. Those are efficiency problems to which the operating companies should pay more attention, rather than penalising commuters by having fewer trains in order to get back on track with punctuality. I would be grateful for the Minister's comments on those two problems, which immediately affect my commuter constituents.
My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge was characteristically generous in not particularly attacking the Government in this debate. His tactics might be right as he may get a more felicitous answer from the Minister, but he was over-generous. Transport has been a very bad area for the Government. Just before the last election, Jonathon Porritt, chairman of the Government-appointed Sustainable Development Commission, singled out transport as the worst area of Government performance in the whole sphere of their activity. We must lay the blame at the Deputy Prime Minister's door, as he was in charge of transport for the whole of the last Parliament. He set absurd goals, and the Government have had to perform a U-turn. His approach was completely misconceived. It is at its worst in London because he and the Chancellor of the Exchequer simply could not agree with the Mayor of London on how to finance the necessary investment in
182WH
London Underground. That has been a disaster for London. For four or five years, nothing has happened except that piles of legal documents have mounted up to no avail. The result is that badly needed investment in London is barely under way.
Transport has been close to a fiasco from the Government's point of view. I feel sorry for the present team of Ministers. I am pleased that they now have a dedicated transport Department because that may mean that they can concentrate on this matter more effectively than the previous gargantuan Department, but they have major problems to sort out in London as a result of a period when they did absolutely nothing and London suffered as a consequence.
10.2 am
Mr. Mark Field: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), who is a colleague in the Whips Office, on introducing this important debate.
As my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, and as, I am sure, the Minister will confirm, one of our problems as London Members of Parliament, whether they be the small crowd of 13 on the Conservative Benches or the rather larger, albeit today invisible, massed ranks on the Government Benches—the exception is the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen)—is that much of this issue has become devolved over recent months and years to the Mayor of London. It is therefore inevitable that in any debate in this place about transport issues in London we have to touch on his role during the past three and a half years in the post. Of course, the matter is now under the auspices of Transport for London, but there remains some parliamentary input.
I shall briefly touch on one or two issues as I examine the concerns of many of my constituents in central London. The main concern for many of us in London, and what transport in London means to many people outside the capital, is the tube network. There has been a catalogue of disgraceful delays and bureaucratic bungling. As my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) said, much of the blame must be laid firmly at the Government's door. It is difficult to go into great detail, but the last six and a half years have been a catalogue of wasted time and my hon. Friend was right to cast aspersions on the role of the Deputy Prime Minister. His tenure in looking after the transport system throughout the country, let alone in London, will be remembered only as a never-ending disaster.
Unfortunately, the wrangling between the Government and the Mayor of London over the tube, which finally ended with power being passed fully into the hands of Transport for London, has effectively meant that there have been three wasted years in which no improvements have been made, for all the best will in the world. Many Londoners now have a grave concern that there are going to be appalling blackmail tactics by Mr. Bob Crow and his friends at the Rail, Maritime and Transport union, who have Mr. Livingstone in their pocket—a situation which there is little doubt would continue if he won a second term as Mayor of London, because the RMT will be a major funder of his independent campaign in June.
We have grave concerns about what will happen to the underground system. A lot of money will be spent, but much of it will go into the pockets of union members

183WH
who will constantly complain about safety measures, despite having had no great concerns about safety in past decades. It is interesting that most railway accidents in recent years have been down to driver error or the incompetence of unionised staff, rather than Railtrack, to which blame has been attached. We are in for yet more difficult times, and the commuters who rely on the underground and the rail system to get from far-flung suburban areas to work in central London are the ones who will suffer.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge pointed out, the bus service is one of the success stories of recent years. It is only fair to say that, although perhaps the success has been slightly over-hyped by the Mayor of London in the past three years. In my constituency there have been marked improvements, including the addition of new hopper buses, but at a great cost. The Transport for London budget is now out of control. A shortfall of £500 million is estimated for future years and the Mayor will, I fear, throw himself on the mercy of central Government, who, I suspect, will have relatively little sympathy for his antics.
Above all, Londoners will suffer. Some advertisements in London buses are about the advantages of a congestion charge—notionally, the money raised will be put into buses, but we all know that that is far from the truth. I shall not go into detail about the congestion charge, because I have spoken about it in this Chamber several times and led a debate on it in February. It has not been quite the failure that we all feared, in the sense that there have not been riots in the street. However, many central London retailers and traders have suffered greatly, and my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge mentioned the comprehensive survey by Sir Stuart Hampton of John Lewis, outlining the many grave concerns of central London retailers. However, at least in the first few months of the congestion charge, there was less congestion. That was one reason for retailers suffering—passing trade was radically reduced, although there is evidence that that is beginning to change.
The real concern about the congestion charge is that so little money has been raised. It has been a bureaucratic nightmare; it now appears that the over-hyped assumption that £200 million a year would be raised is being downplayed, not just to the latest figure of £65 million a year given by the Mayor of London, but to a mere fraction of that, for the next two or three years.
The raison d'être of a congestion charge was to raise a pot of money that could be securitised for a range of other transport initiatives, such as Crossrail in particular, which people in London consider an important part of a long-term strategy. Crossrail is an issue that dates back to the post-war era as it was recommended as long ago as 1948. The Conservative Government in the early to mid-1990s first put the project on hold, and a repeat of that by this Government appears almost certain. I should be glad to hear the Minister's comments about Crossrail. The tragedy is that a decision must be made now to bring about improvements 10 or 12 years down the line. An Olympic bid would be almost unsustainable without a commitment to—and the reality of—Crossrail, at least for those areas in the near part of eastern London that would be affected.
184WH
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge about taxis, although I appreciate that the subject is a little outside the Minister's area of authority. There is a grave concern that there has been an explosion in the number of unregistered cabs here in central London. My feeling is that we need to encourage the licensing of reputable black cabs, despite concerns about the dumbing down of the Knowledge. My real concern is safety for the elderly and for young women, many of whom come to socialise in my constituency in such places as Soho and Covent Garden on a Friday or Saturday night and want to know that they can return to the suburbs safely. There have been appalling statistics on rape and assault in recent months.
Mr. Randall: My hon. Friend may be interested to know that I am a member of the Sexual Offences Bill Committee. One of the presentations from the Metropolitan police was on rape resulting from taking a minicab. That obviously does not happen everywhere, but it is a serious problem.
Mr. Field: I thank my hon. Friend. There is little doubt that there has been an explosion in the number of unregistered cabs, and we all feel very strongly about that on behalf of our constituents.
I shall touch on airports, although that issue is closer to the heart of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and I appreciate that he has expressed grave constituency concerns. When walking in such places as West Drayton in his constituency and Harmondsworth and Sipson in the constituency of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), one cannot fail to be impressed by the number of posters, which are all over the place: the campaign involving many local residents in that part of west London is massive. One of the benefits of our long parliamentary recess is that it gives us a chance to do some research, and on one of the warm summer days this year I spent some time walking through much of that area and looking at the beautiful 12th century foundation church of St. Mary's, Harmondsworth, which is likely to be entirely obliterated, or find itself a mere stone's throw from a third runway, if such a runway is built.
However, the business argument cannot be lightly dismissed, apart from the very questionable Department for Transport methodology on aircraft usage. I am a great believer that freedom to travel gives freedom to think, and one of the benefits of living in a cosmopolitan and open-minded globalised society is that if people are allowed to travel and experience other cultures, many of the problems highlighted by the global terrorist threat of the past two years will begin to be dissipated. The discussion on the third runway at Heathrow is ongoing, and I understand that the final decision on that and on runways at Stansted and Gatwick is likely to be delayed until the new year. I hope that the Minister can confirm the precise state of play.
There has been a savage attack on private car usage by central Government through fuel duties and by the Mayor of London's anti-car policies—not just the congestion charge—but car usage must be seen as an integral part of sensible transport planning.
I shall conclude soon, because the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead wants to say a few words. Our concerns about transport in London reveal a mess of the

185WH
Government's making. The Secretary of State may well be seen as a safe pair of hands who was appointed to neutralise this as an issue, but the conclusion, first aired by the Evening Standard, that the Government really have it in for London and Londoners is inescapable. As a capital city, we make a vast contribution to the national coffers—some £20 billion net per year—yet we receive considerably less than our rightful share in terms of infrastructure projects. That applies not only to Crossrail, but to the general state of the railways and roads, and to hospitals and other matters outside the Minister's transport remit.
To me, that is an attack on the quality of life of all but the very richest Londoners, who can in effect opt out. It may well be that national pay bargaining suits the trade unions and a Labour Government dominated by Scots and northerners, but it is an absolute disaster for Londoners whose public services are thereby denuded of cash and staff. I appreciate that the Minister will want to address specific transport issues when he sums up. but I hope that he takes back to his boss the grave concerns— felt by many of us who represent Londoners—about the general quality of life. Much of that is, I fear, in the hands of central Government and I hope that they will act positively in the months and years ahead.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) is an assiduous Member of Parliament. He is also a London MP. I am sure that, if I call him, as I intend to do, he will provide some explanation of why he could not be present for the opening of the debate.
10.15 am
Harry Cohen: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for not being present at the beginning of the debate and missing the speech of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), which I will read assiduously. I was across the road at St. Thomas's hospital getting my tetanus and diphtheria jab. I am in a bit of a sweat—I do not know whether that is to do with the jab, or running across the bridge.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that those injections are necessary for travelling on public transport?
Harry Cohen: They are necessary for travelling on public transport in Bangladesh, where I am going on a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association trip early next month.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Uxbridge for securing the debate. It is incredibly important for Londoners and commuters, and for business, that public transport flows smoothly in London. I know that the matter has been devolved to the Greater London Authority, but Parliament must keep its hand in, as public transport is important to the national economy.
Rail transport has never recovered from the appalling privatisation by the Conservative Government. The costs just keep going up, particularly in relation to safety. Trying to make the railways safe has eaten up a vast amount of money that the Government put aside
186WH
for investment. The Government must consider that. They are right to make safety the top priority, but investment must be increased again. We need to make rail an efficient means of transport throughout the country, as well as in London. Crossrail is an important new investment that should get the go-ahead. I am not convinced that it will be relevant to any Olympics bid, but it should go ahead in any case to improve the efficiency of rail in London.
The Government should reconsider the urban rail network rather than throwing all their eggs into the M25 and road widening and road building on the outskirts. The Labour Government came in in 1997 saying that they would do much more for the urban rail network. That seems to have been a low priority for investment. It should come back up the order of priorities.
The Government must do something about fares. That issue does not relate only to rail transport, but it is relevant to it. Rail fares are too high. With all the different companies, there is great confusion about what fares people pay. Again, we were promised that that would be sorted out and that people would be able to see clearly which fares were the cheapest or the best, but that has not come about. We need to end the confusion that arises from private companies charging different fares for the same journey and enable easy comparisons to be made. The overall level of fares should also come down if we want to encourage people to use the railways and the tube as opposed to their cars.
I have had debates on the public-private partnership and I do not think that it was the best value for money. The Audit Commission is to carry out a major review in the coming months and I suspect that it will confirm that PPP is not the best value for money. However, the contracts are signed. I remain concerned that there are delays in getting the improvements that even those contracts say should happen. Pressure must be put on infrastructure companies to ensure that those improvements come about.
The Government must consider issues such as air conditioning that are way down at the end of the queue. People may be stuck in trains, as happened when the electricity was cut off. It is appalling that they should be stuck in tube trains for any length of time, whether it is due to a power cut or some other reason without proper air conditioning. Air conditioning should be higher up the order of priority.
The Central line has been experiencing more problems after all that happened earlier this year. The compensation payments were a bit mean and are only now being increased to a reasonable level for regular commuters. In recent times, it has become evident that the tracks are in disrepair, which has caused some problems. I hope that under the PPP scheme the responsibility for that will fall to the private companies and that they will not call on their letters of comfort or tell the Government, "You foot the bill." That would defeat the object of what the Government said that PPPs were about. I will be following that aspect with interest.
The congestion charge has been a success, but increasingly traffic is creeping back into central London. Unpleasant though that may be for many drivers, the Mayor may have to consider increasing the congestion charge. It is important to ensure that traffic that has to enter London can flow. I would like the congestion

187WH
charge scheme to be extended into urban areas where local authorities want it. It is a tool that they could use to tackle congestion in their main high streets and shopping streets. Legislation and more flexibility may be required to allow that to come about.
On signage, traffic signs showing directions and destinations in London are very poor. Attention has been drawn to that, but no one has overall responsibility for it. It should be put into the camp of Transport for London, which should be given the power to do something about it to improve signs across London.
We should give Transport for London and local authorities more flexibility where they want to introduce a local tram scheme, such as the Croydon light rail scheme. That came in over budget, but it has been an effective transport project. Similar projects would be effective in many other parts of the country. Coming in over budget is a problem that goes beyond transport. The Government need to get a grip and ensure that estimates are realistic. That is a bigger problem, but it should not put us off trying to introduce such tram link schemes, which could be effective on a small scale in suburban areas. I ask that consideration be given to bring that back on to the agenda of Transport for London.
10.23 am
Tom Brake: I congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on securing the debate. I know that he has a keen interest in transport issues, and I enjoy sitting on the Transport Committee with him.
The contributions this morning have all concerned transport issues, and I do not think that anyone has made political points. I hope that the points that I am going to make will not be deemed political either. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) referred to overcrowding on the trains. I had hoped to do a little reading on the train this morning for this afternoon's debate on electricity supply and London Underground. Unfortunately, the slam-door train that arrived consisted of four carriages rather than eight, so I was packed in there with other commuters. That was good for being able to talk to people about the train services, but not very good for travelling in comfort.
Other Members have made good contributions. The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) made a very good point about the confusion over rail fares. The Liberal Democrat party conference is in Brighton next week, and we have been informed that the cheapest fare is two single tickets. I fail to understand why two singles are cheaper than a return, and such confusion must be sorted out if more people are to use train services.
I welcome the Minister's presence today, but, given the issues with which we are dealing, where is the Mayor? He is, no doubt, in Brent, East at the moment, along with others. My colleagues are doing mystery shopper exercises on the Westminster to Willesden Green section of the Jubilee line. Presumably, that is where several other Back Benchers are as well.
The Mayor and the Government must have as their objective a transport system in London that is safe, reliable, affordable and of a quality that the world's greatest city deserves. The transport system must
188WH
improve the quality of life in London. In every survey, Helsinki and Stockholm are always at the top for quality of life while London is at No. 60, 64 or 70. Quality of life must be addressed so that people think of London not only as an exciting city but as a city in which it is enjoyable to live.
The Mayor in particular will be judged on his ability to meet that objective. He will be assisted by his Government supporters, as they are now working together to meet it. The Liberal Democrat mayoral candidate, my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), will also seek to meet that objective if elected. He would have liked to be here for this debate but is, presumably, in Brent, East.
What are the obstacles to meeting the objective? Clearly, the key obstacle is the lack of funding. It is unlikely that the fares box will be a great source of additional revenue, given that London already has the highest transport fares in the world. As well, there seems to be a downward trend in the Government's contribution to London's transport—it has fallen from £1.3 billion in the 2002 spending review to £1 billion in 2005. Finally, as several Members mentioned, the congestion charge is raising less money than expected.
That is the background against which additional funds must be found for transport and necessary transport infrastructure improvements in London. There is probably only one significant source of such funding—the businesses that will benefit from new transport infrastructure projects. Such arrangements are widely accepted in other parts of the world and should be considered in this country. For instance, if property prices for office premises increase significantly because a new Crossrail line has been built outside the front door, it is entirely right that the owners should be asked to contribute.
The evidence from surveys by London First is that the largest businesses—although, admittedly, not the smallest—have responded positively to past suggestions that, for instance, business rates be increased temporarily if funds are earmarked specifically for transport improvements. If anyone believes that that is not the way to fund infrastructure improvements, which are needed in London, they must come up with an alternative. Everyone accepts that Crossrail is needed. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how much private funding has been secured. The Government have said that private businesses will contribute significantly to the project, which will not happen without such contributions. That is the principal problem.
The tube is also a problem. In the Select Committee last week, it was interesting to hear the Secretary of State for Transport say that Metronet will be responsible for funding if new rolling stock is required on the Central line. If the current rolling stock is unreliable and the technical flaws, which appear to exist, cannot be remedied, he expects Metronet to pick up the £700 million to £800 million bill. I would be interested to know whether Metronet considers that an option. Would the public-private partnership deal involving Metronet fold if it were required to stump up such sums of money? One can imagine the effect that such expenditure would have on Metronet's profit margins. There is a problem with PPP, which many Members, including the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead,

189WH
have identified: what happens when a major consortium or one of the major players in a consortium goes belly up? Who comes in and saves the day?
There are also problems relating to buses. I can only assume that journalists, Ministers and some Members of Parliament tend not to travel on them very often because, if they did, they would, like me, want to see the resolution of the problems with the Countdown information system. If we want people to travel on buses, they must know when the buses will arrive. A replacement for the Countdown system was supposed to have been identified, but I do not know whether that has happened. Currently, no one can rely on the information provided at bus stops. No one can rely on being told when the next bus will arrive, so there is complete confusion about whether it is worth trying to make alternative transport arrangements or whether it is better to wait for the next bus.
The congestion charge has a role to play. If it is going to be extended, it may be necessary to examine alternative ways to deliver it, which may involve a global positioning system. I hope that the Minister can confirm whether the satellite tracking system, which is being examined for lorries, will be specifically designed for use in cars. That point is extremely important.
It is not clear how far the retail industry has been hit by the congestion charge—it depends on which survey one reads. The London Chamber of Commerce and Industry asked businesses whether their productivity had increased because journeys were faster. Some 21 per cent. said yes and 74 per cent. said no. If that means that 74 per cent. of journeys take exactly the same time as before and that 21 per cent. are faster, I suggest that the congestion charge has been a success.
When businesses were asked whether they were considering moving to a site outside the congestion charging zone, 25 per cent. said yes, although they did not give a reason why. They were not necessarily saying that they were considering moving because of the congestion charge. An independent survey of 500 business found that only 2 per cent. said that they would consider relocating their premises outside the zone. The only conclusion that one can draw is that the congestion charge's impact on retail industry is unclear.
Mr. Randall: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether the figures concern businesses in general or exclusively retail businesses?
Tom Brake: The first figures are about retail businesses, and they come from the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry. The others are from an independent survey of businesses by an American research firm. The survey does not specify which lines the businesses are in.
Clearly, one solution is Crossrail, and we must hear from the Minister what progress is being made to identify the private funding that is key to its development. However, the Mayor's latest gimmick with the Oyster card is an unnecessary addition to the range of solutions. I do not know who has been given one of them, but they are being distributed free to, among others, London Assembly Members, the
190WH
Association of London Government, chief executives, council leaders, London MPs, rail and other transport groups, bus companies, Government transport representatives and several reporters. They are exactly the people who probably already have free travel, or who are aware of the Oyster card. That freebie would have been better aimed at people who are less informed of the advantages of the card, rather than those who are already well informed. As the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) said, when the buses budget is out of control, the Mayor needs to consider the pennies and the pounds.
The Minister is responsible for ensuring that there is guaranteed, stable funding for transport in London. However, the spending review states that funding appears to be decreasing and we need an assurance that Crossrail is not going to drift year on year. If it does. the expansion that the Government want to see in east London—in the Thames gateway—will not happen.
I have not touched on airports, but will the Minister confirm whether the recent reports in The Sunday Times, suggesting that BAA has already been given the go-ahead for new runways at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, have any truth in them?
10.36 am
Mr. Christopher Chope: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on securing the debate and introducing such a broad range of subjects. He demonstrated his great sense of tolerance, which has more to do with his character than the feelings of the public and visitors in London, who possess a mood of great intolerance towards the dire state of the transport system in London.
I begin with a reminder of the verdict of the British people on the Government's transport and public transport record halfway through their second term. According to MORI, 53 per cent. of the public think that the Government have a poor record on transport and public transport, compared with 25 per cent. who think that their record is good. In answer to the question whether they think that transport and public transport will get better, get worse or stay the same over the next few years, 39 per cent. think it will get worse, compared with 23 per cent. who think it will get better. My hon. Friend has done us a great service by getting the Minister in the dock to answer the charges of people who are fed up to the back teeth with the poor quality of public services.
It is all very well to say, "Not me. guv, because it has all been passed off to Transport for London," but the Government initiated plans for transferring responsibility to Transport for London. They said that that meant that things would get better, but we now know that things are getting worse. To add insult to injury, we have not only a decline in the quality of service, but further, sharp fare increases for bus and rail passengers. That is a hallmark of the Government's approach to public services, which cost more and decline in quality. On Thursday, the people of Brent, East will express a strong indictment of the Government's public transport record and policies.

191WH
My hon. Friends the Members for Orpington (Mr. Horam) and for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) also added to the charges against the Government, and I hope that the Minister takes time to respond to the pertinent points that were made.
I shall start with the congestion charge. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, who is in splendid isolation today, suggested that the charge is all right—indeed, it is his party's policy to extend congestion charging across the country—but he pooh-poohed an important survey conducted by the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry. That survey attracted a surprisingly high response, and although only an interim report has been produced, the concerns expressed should be taken seriously. If the retail sector inside the charge zone suffers a significant loss of custom as well as a possible loss of investment and threatens to move out of central London as a result of the congestion charge, people should take the threat seriously.
The rationale for the congestion charge was that it would be a double benefit—we were told that it would reduce congestion inside the zone and that the income generated would be used to improve public transport. We now know that the scheme is not generating anything like the income forecast. Originally, that figure was more than £200 million a year, but it was downgraded to £200 million. Based on the Mayor's latest figures, it will now be £65 million. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster said, a more realistic assessment is that we shall be lucky to achieve a surplus of £6 million in the first year. What a poor return on an enormous capital in vestment.
Our consistent charge against the Government is that they have wasted a heck of a lot of public money. If one looks at the detail of the congestion charge, one can see that it is another example of public money being wasted hand over fist. I do not know whether my hon. Friends or you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have had a chance to look at a document that has relatively recently come into the public domain—the rebaselined combined services agreement between Transport for London and Capita Business Services Ltd., which was published on 29 August and which includes a supplemental agreement dated 19 August. Those who are worried about where the money is going could do worse than look at the money being paid to Capita in respect of routine work in connection with the congestion charge.
You may be surprised to learn, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that an administrative assistant is charged at the rate of £250 per day. Those with a little more technical expertise are charged at the rate of between £800 and £1,000 a day. That is where the money is going—on the exorbitant charges being imposed by Capita under its agreement with Transport for London. No wonder the Mayor resisted publication of that document. He did not want people to see exactly where the money is going. If administrative assistants, who need only two A-levels to qualify, can be charged at £250 per day, that surely is overpricing, particularly as most of them are based not in a high-cost area such as central London, but in Coventry, which is where Capita's activities are centred.
192WH
That is where the money is going—it is being wasted in administration. That is why the Opposition say that it would be better to invest capital in London's transport, where it is really needed, and scrap the irrelevant and increasingly problematic congestion charge.
Tom Brake: If a Conservative mayor took such action, what would the hon. Gentleman do to address the resulting significant increase in congestion and how would he fund the shortfall in revenue?
Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman asks about funding the shortfall. It looks as though the revenue generated this year might be £6 million, which is not a proper return on the capital employed. So far as the other costs are concerned, he has just said that he believes that the shortfall in funding for Transport for London, estimated at £500 million for each of four successive years starting next year, can be made up only by increasing the business rate. That would place an additional burden on the business community, whereas we know from the reports that we already have that scrapping the congestion charge would relieve it of a significant burden.
While congestion in the centre of London has been suppressed by using market mechanisms, the evidence is that outside the inner London area congestion is as bad as, if not worse than, it was before. If the hon. Gentleman believes in adopting public policies that use the market mechanism to suppress demand, I can understand the logic of his position—if he applied that principle to the health service, the charges would increase enormously and demand would decline. We do not accept that. Almost everybody who uses our transport system does so out of necessity rather than because they want to go out on a frolic. People find it necessary to get between the place where they live and the place where they work and most of them have no alternative but to go by public transport. Those who have small businesses and need to deliver have no alternative but to take a van and park it close to where they work. We do not think that artificially increasing those people's costs is a way forward. We should improve the transport system overall.
My hon. Friends have covered many aspects of this policy, but I think that the most important is crime. That is highlighted by the appalling news that a seven-year-old child who was supposed to be in the care of social services has been brutally murdered in a case that was almost dismissed as one in a separate category that does not concern most people, as it is a so-called black-on-black crime. That is an appalling expression, which should be excluded from the language of politicians. Any victim of crime should be treated on a par with everybody else, and the colour of the perpetrators and the victims is irrelevant. The case illustrates the violence and the threats of violence that permeate much of London life and affect those who use public transport, whether they are on the buses or on the underground. Unless the Government and the mayor get to grips with that, we shall never have a public transport system in London of which we can be proud.
10.48 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): I congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on the

193WH
characteristically generous way in which he opened the debate, on having secured it and on all his opening comments save the unnecessary dig over a very lucky goal that means that Uxbridge rather than Wealdstone will proceed in the early rounds of the FA cup. I declare a partial interest in that, when Wealdstone gets its glorious 3,000-seater stadium in my constituency, I shall become a non-executive director, having laboured in the vineyards for some 12 years, both as a councillor and an MP, to get the club into that position. In the words of football fans, "Come and have a go if you think you're hard enough," in terms of the new pitch.
Many of the points raised by Back Benchers of all parties were well put and well argued. Some were cogent, some I would disagree with. I shall try to comment on them in the short time available. If there is time at the end, I might indulge the boring and vacuous contributions of both Oppn Front Benchers, which were not terribly worth while. Although I am temporarily a Front Bencher, I always consider Westminster Hall and general Adjournment debates to be the purview of Back Benchers. If I am allowed a passing comment on parliamentary traditions as they grow and on being a Minister during the past year or so, the notion of Opposition Front Benchers winding up in a Back-Bench debate adds nothing whatever to such debates and I would rather that they desisted. However, that is not for me to say.
Turning to what the hon. Member for Uxbridge said, of course the Government still have a significant role concerning transport in London. Although some matters have been devolved, there is still a significant job to be done with scrutiny, oversight and ultimate decisions on the overall quantum of transport spend. I assure the Chamber that whether it is on Transport for London generally or what it is seeking to do in terms of traffic management, street work, the roads network, the tube and so on, we shall certainly continue to meet regularly for discussion and liaison. That is important because Transport for London is partnership focused. We are not saying, "It's all yours now, so get on with it—it's not my fault." Nor shall I indulge in saying, "That is a matter for them, so go and see them." If London Members are concerned about London's transport system, whether it is my responsibility or that of the Mayor or of TFL, I am more than happy to deal with them.
I appreciate what the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) said about the power supply debate, which will come later. It is a Department of Trade and Industry and Department for Transport debate, and it is better for the matter to be dealt with then.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) said that he will keep a watching brief on the Central line. I assure him that I shall do so as well, and with interest.
I wish the hon. Member for Uxbridge well in plans for next year's centenary of the tube going to Uxbridge. It does not hurt to go to the very end of the line and the far reaches of the Middlesex area of London every now and again, and if he wants me to come along in any capacity I am more than happy to do so. I might even have a cup of tea in Randall's or some other obscure little retail
194WH
outlet in Uxbridge. Unhappily for me, I suspect that he has far more of the rolling hills and dales of Middlesex countryside a la Betjeman than I have in Harrow, East where the Metroland developers were perhaps otiose in covering much more of the green bits than in West Drayton, Harefield and other areas that he represents.
I agree that the underground must be improved. I also agree with the hon. Gentleman that when London's transport goes well, whether people are driving in or travelling by tube or train, it can be very pleasant, but I fully accept that there is much that we can and should do. Members have suggested that now that the PPP is in place, the message should be, "Get on with it." I could spend time apportioning blame for the delay, which is three years and not longer, as the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) and others have suggested. I could regale people with the history of mayoral interventions via his legal friends in and out of the courts and so on, but that is not worth dwelling on.
I suggest that we simply need to get on with not only the PPP but subsequent suggestions to develop the tube network, which, on the whole, is an extremely efficient way of transporting many millions of people around London every year. It is easy to dwell on the serious occasions when things go wrong, such as with the Central line. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead said, we never see headlines saying, "Another good day on the tube. Millions transported to and from work safely and securely." I appreciate that that is not news, but it is the reality more often than not.
I accept Members' exhortations on Crossrail. We have set out the framework and I shall try to give an update on that. The Government never suggested that the Olympic bid depended on Crossrail. The sponsors' business case states that it will be 2013 or 2014 before the rail link is finished, even if it has a fair wind between now and then. Those who link the fortunes of Crossrail and those of the Olympic bid do this city a grave disservice. The rail link will not be ready. It is unnecessary for those purposes, and the Olympic bid team are on record as saying that it is unnecessary, given possible improvements elsewhere. To talk down our bid before it has even started does not say much for London Members.
On the congestion charge, Mr. Kylie would say that there is a range of opinions. I agree. I partly accept some of the points made about retail, although, as someone said, the position is murky. We still do not know the complete picture. Mr. Kylie would say, "Give it a year and we will take full stock of what is going on." Figures have risen and fallen. My office was in Whitehall, which was a ghost town when the congestion charge was introduced. Admittedly, it was half term and there were road works, but it was a delight. One might have been at work in the middle of the day, but given the traffic it felt like Sunday at 5 o'clock in the morning. We must wait and see. The congestion charge was never meant to be a revenue-raising instrument, as is suggested by those Norrisites who would revise history. It is about relieving congestion. Revenue was very much a secondary issue.
I am sorry, but I do not have a great deal of time left to talk about other matters. I broadly accept what all Members said, especially about public sector workers and bus drivers in particular. We will work closely with British Transport police and/or other authorities to

195WH
ensure that threats and violence against bus drivers are dealt with and that the full force of the law is brought to bear against the offenders. I worked in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister last year, so I know that much of its work relates to the broader issues of transport and affordable housing for public sector workers.
I can tell the hon. Member for Uxbridge, although I am sure he already knows, that there were major increases in the frequency of the bus service on the 222 route from August 2003. Sadly, I have no information to hand about the 207 service, but I wish the re-tendering process well.
Members talked about the importance of taxis, which I recognise. Much of the taxi industry's concern is twofold. First, the process—not the amount and the substance of the Knowledge—should be reduced. People very often fail one part of the test but pass another and have to wait for ever to reach the next level because all sorts of time slots are built into the process. That needs to be reconsidered. Secondly, I strongly accept the point about touting and the increase in the number of minicabs. The sooner that we can work with the Public Carriage Office to introduce the new licensing regime, the better. I do not yet have the date, but I know that I shall have the great pleasure of going out at midnight with the British Transport police and the Met on one of their purges.
I know that getting home at night is difficult, but if anyone outside ever listens to our proceedings I strongly advise people—male or female, but especially female— not to get into cars that pull up and say, "I am a cab. Where do you want to go?" Some 5 million more passengers now use night bus routes and services. People must use reputable taxi companies, or not use taxis at all. That is a matter of grave concern.
The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) talked about Connex. I shall write to him about some of the more detailed aspects, as I cannot do the matter justice now. I am bemused to see not one but two talking Opposition Whips. I spent a couple of years in the Whips Office. I talked, but not publicly, so this is a relatively novel concept for me. Again, I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster said, but I strongly disagree with the notion, which I am sure was merely a flippant, throwaway remark, that most accidents are the result of driver error or incompetence and that unionisation has something to do with the level of error.
The debate was wide-ranging, and I shall write to Members about any other matters that I have not addressed. I say simply to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), who seems so confident about Thursday's by-election in Brent, East, that he is deluded.

Yarl's Wood Fire
11 am
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Nicholas Winterton): Order. The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who has initated this debate, is an experienced and long-serving Member and an ex-Minister. He will be aware that certain matters are covered by the sub judice resolution of the House. In particular, that resolution applies to any reference to matters relevant to outstanding criminal charges, which in the present case may include the performance of Group 4, which operates the centre. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear that advice in mind.
Alistair Burt: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I appreciate that advice and will do my utmost to stick to it and ensure that any references fall entirely within the rule.
I am thankful that this debate on such an important subject has been allowed, and I appreciate the attendance of the Minister and the attention of her office in the past few days to ensure that she would be briefed about what I would be asking. This is no attempt at an ambush. I appreciate her interest, because I know that she intends to try to provide the best possible answers to my questions. I also acknowledge the presence of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall), who has had a considerable interest in the matter for a long time. We share a number of concerns over the issue.
Briefly, this is the story so far. Yarl's Wood was designed as the largest asylum, detention and removal centre in Europe, and was opened in my constituency in November 2001. It was several months late and built at an unknown cost—questions about the cost are deferred, owing to commercial confidentiality, to which I shall return. The centre was run on behalf of the Home Office by Group 4, which had also been part of the private consortium that had designed, built and insured it under the authority and, presumably, the supervision of the Home Office and the immigration service.
On 14 February 2002, barely weeks after opening, one half of Yarl's Wood was burned down and completely destroyed, following an incident of disorder. There were 385 detainees on site at the time, less than half the 900 that the centre could have held when fully operational. Injuries were mercifully slight all round—one security officer was hospitalised with a broken pelvis after leaping from an upstairs window in fear for his life. A number of security officers remain affected by the incident and there were minor injuries elsewhere. A number of detainees escaped in the confusion. Although there were fears that some had died, an exhaustive police search of debris concluded that, mercifully, this was not the case.
The fire was a disaster and the Home Secretary came within a hair's breadth of seeing major loss of life. That he did not was sheer good fortune, as the chain of events that led to the incident was a series of errors and incompetence. As a result and due to the potentially serious consequences, in terms of loss of life, and the real financial consequences, I am bringing the issue back to the Chamber today.
Following the incident, there were further significant developments. Most bizarrely, the private insurers of Yarl's Wood, having presumably collected fat

197WH
premiums for their trouble, decided to sue the blameless Bedfordshire police under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 for upwards of £100 million. That may be business, but it is shameful. The police are vigorously contesting the claim and the Government, belatedly, are examining whether the Act has outlived its usefulness. Although the outcome remains in doubt, my constituents are acutely aware that they will technically be liable for the bill if the private insurers win. In passing, will the Minister say whether the Crown is joined in any way in that action? If so, I should like to know which side it is on, as it has an interest in Yarl's Wood that is insured, I understand, by the same insurance syndicate.
An internal Home Office inquiry commenced after the fire. That, however, was doomed to failure, as the Home Secretary was advised. It took some limited evidence in secret and reported in secret to the Home Secretary in September 2002. The report could not be published because of the next significant event—the criminal trial of those accused of violent disorder and arson at the centre. The trial concluded this August after about four months. Of the 10 accused people in the dock, only two were convicted—neither of them for arson. The trial concluded with a series of startling allegations of incompetence made against Group 4 not by the defence but by the prosecution, the Crown. I shall refer to that obliquely later.
In summary, 18 months after the fire we do not know what led up to it, who started it, precisely what happened on the night or who is liable to pay for the damage. To its great credit, Bedfordshire county council held its select committee inquiry in public. The report was published in the summer of last year and raised important questions. It could not compel witnesses, however, and as the criminal trial had yet to take place, critical evidence was sub judice and could not be given. Accordingly, now that the major criminal trial is out of the way, it is time to take the next steps and bring the matter to the Floor of the House again.
I shall ask the Minister about a series of major issues, on all of which her staff have been briefed. First, there should be a full public inquiry. The appointment of Stephen Shaw as prisons ombudsman, to pick up where Mr. Stephen Moore of the Home Office left off, is a good appointment. However, to justify what he is going to do, he must hold meetings in public and he must cross-examine. That is because we are now aware of a series of contradictions over potentially serious incidents, which must be dealt with. I shall mention two.
The first is the decision whether to fit sprinklers in the building. The former acting chief fire officer of Bedfordshire, Jeff Goddard, gave written evidence to the Bedfordshire county council inquiry. He said that he was at a meeting about sprinklers with Home Office officials at which the issue was absolutely one of cost. The decision not to fit sprinklers was in his opinion made purely on the grounds of cost. That is not what the Home Office says. Which is right? It is only for the independent inspector examining witnesses in public to determine the answer.
Secondly, there is confusion about the chain of events on the night, particularly whether the police had access to the Yarl's Wood site at a time of their choosing as opposed to a time of Group 4's choosing. Having
198WH
spoken to Group 4 and the police, I am now in possession of two completely contradictory accounts of that vital time. Again, which is right? That is of major importance. If the police had been allowed on site at the time when they say that they asked for access, the incident might have been dealt with before the fires were started and before the tremendous cost that resulted and the danger to people. Is that the case or not? We do not know. I maintain that that should be brought out in public, so that the public can see people examined to determine the answer.
Will the inquiries be held in public? Will the inspector be able to cross-examine? Will he be able to compel witnesses to come? Does the Minister agree, and will she back him in his efforts to hold meetings in public? While she is about it, will she now publish the Stephen Moore report that came to the Home Secretary last year?
Mr. Patrick Hall: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the issue is not just whether the inquiry is held in public but whether it is a judicial inquiry? If it is not, we may be in exactly the same situation, with a revamped Home Office overarching internal inquiry, as we have been during the past year or so, for the very reason that the criminal investigations have not yet been completed. The reasons for the delay and the eventual demise of the first part of the inquiry could remain relevant today, whereas a judicial inquiry might he able to open up matters a little.
Alistair Burt: I am entirely with the hon. Gentleman. It is vital that the inquiry has the opportunity to delve into all the facts. Although I welcome the appointment of Stephen Shaw, who will be more independent than the previous official appointed, I have no doubt that the powers sought by the hon. Gentleman are the correct ones. I, too, want a judicial inquiry. I hope that the Minister can respond to that.
On my second issue, will the Minister say that commercial confidentiality will not be a defence for anyone who is required to give information to the inquiry? I referred earlier to the fire and the fact that the buildings were destroyed very quickly. The construction of the Yarl's Wood buildings and the way they caught fire and were destroyed so quickly are major issues. The point is simple: the loss of the buildings, and the allegations about the competence of those who were running the centre, mean, in my view, that the right to stand on commercial confidentiality should be forfeited. My constituents, and everyone who has already paid for Yarl's Wood and will do so again, are entitled to know how much it cost us and who is pocketing all the money.
An incident that illustrates my argument has been reported in the Bedfordshire on Sunday newspaper. It published an allegation that the cost of the sprinklers, which was originally considered to be about £750,000, jumped to about £14 million at the time when the Home Office rejected efforts to have them installed. Why did the amount rise so rapidly? What were the costings for the sprinklers? We do not know. Why not? I think that the public are entitled to know the cost of construction, operation, maintenance and insurance at Yarl's Wood. I should be grateful if the Minister confirmed that it will not be possible for any of the companies involved to rely on commercial confidentiality to continue to hide the true cost of Yarl's Wood from the British public and my constituents.

199WH
Thirdly, I should like the Minister to ask the inquiry—judicial or otherwise—to extend its remit to include the allegations made about Group 4 at the end of the criminal trial. For the reasons that you suggested, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall not go into the allegations in detail. However, it was curious that the allegations were made not only by the defence but by the Crown. They are serious and go to the heart of the integrity of the company. The company was not represented at the trial and had no opportunity to defend itself. If the allegations are true, Group 4 should not be running anything. If they are not, an apology is required. I do not think that the matter can be satisfactorily settled until the allegations have been properly examined and that is why the remit of the inquiry should be extended.
Fourthly, and consequent on what I have said, Yarl's Wood should not be reopened until the matter relating to the competence with which it has been run has been dealt with. Yarl's Wood is shortly to reopen. A series of consultations has been held and I appreciate the efforts of the Home Office, on this occasion, to tell local residents what is intended, who will be housed at Yarl's Wood and how it will be run. My constituents appreciate that too. However, the overriding issue is whether, in view of the allegations made about Group 4, it should be running the establishment at all. The county council, local councillors and the local liaison committee, which has worked hard on the issue from the outset, often in co-operation with the Home Office, agree with me that the centre should not be reopened. I should therefore appreciate it if the Minister, even at this late stage, told us that until allegations about the competence with which the Yarl's Wood centre was run have been cleared up, it would be unsafe to reopen it.
Finally, I ask the Minister for a commitment to complete openness by the Home Office and the immigration service, on questions that will be raised during the inquiry. There are serious charges to be made against the Home Office and the immigration service, and I shall run through some of them—in no particular order, and without expecting an answer to every one.
The Home Office changed its policy in autumn 2001 so that asylum detainees would no longer be held in prison. Did that lead to the placing of inappropriate detainees at Yarl's Wood? When the Home Secretary visited Yarl's Wood in March 2002, he certainly referred to inappropriate detainees being placed there. When Yarl's Wood was first opened, local residents were told that the low level of security and the light regime were entirely appropriate because the detainees to be placed there required low security and were a low risk. If the policy changed during the autumn, without that being made known to the local residents or me, and inappropriate detainees were placed at Yarl's Wood, did that contribute to what happened subsequently?
Will the Minister publish the names of everyone who was at Yarl's Wood during the short period from November 2001 to February 2002? Had some of those people been in prison? Had they been involved in previous disturbances, and if so, were they involved in the disturbances at Yarl's Wood? Had Bedfordshire police offered to run background checks on everyone who was being brought to Yarl's Wood, particularly if they had been in the UK for a period of time and something was known about them? If that offer was made, was it refused by the immigration service? Is it
200WH
true that Group 4 was required to take everyone that the immigration service brought to Yarl's Wood regardless of whether it had any information on their background?
What responsibility does the Home Office take for the matters relating to Group 4 complained about at the trial concerning the design and build of the centre, training and the running of operations there? Was the Home Office involved in the allegations made by the Crown at the trial that appeared to some to deflect attention away from the Home Office and on to Group 4? What happened to all those who escaped from Yarl's Wood? What happened to those detainees who were deported?
Is there any truth in the suggestion that some of the detainees who were subsequently deported could have been charged with offences, including arson, that might have led to the conviction of someone for the fire started at Yarl's Wood? Will the Minister tell us of the latest situation in relation to the outstanding legal matters concerning Yarl's Wood, further criminal trials, and the conduct of further civil litigation?
I am sorry to put such a number of questions to the Minister, who I know will endeavour to do her best to deal with them, but she will appreciate that for me, and the hon. Member for Bedford, Yarl's Wood remains a serious matter. The Minister knows that I have every sympathy for her in dealing with issues affecting asylum and immigration in the UK at the moment. That is exceptionally difficult. She also knows that I support the policy that those who have had their claims denied will have to be returned, and some of those people may have to be held before they are returned. Because of that, and the rolling out of centres intended to hold people in such circumstances, it is vital that we get it right. What happened at Yarl's Wood was a disaster; things went badly wrong. To give full confidence in the system in future, we might as well be as open as we can be now about what happened. I put it to the Minister that the series of suggestions that the hon. Gentleman and I have made give her the best opportunity to do just that. I would appreciate her response.
11.17 am
The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes): I know that it is customary to do so, but I genuinely congratulate the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) on securing another debate on this important issue. I thank him for the energetic way in which he has represented the legitimate concerns of his constituents and the constructive way in which he has taken up some very difficult issues, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall). I also note your important guidance at the start of the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for which I am grateful. Finally, I thank the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire for his assistance in preparing for the debate. I shall need further advice on some of those questions, particularly the ones that he raised latterly. I shall write to him about those, but I shall try to cover most of the important points in my reply today.
I appreciate that the events at Yarl's Wood on 14 February 2002 are still of great interest and concern, not only to local people, but to myself, officials in the Home Office and the Home Secretary. He is right to say that we

201WH
need to ensure that we move on and do not repeat whatever mistakes were made that led to those events. I am determined to do that. I understand and share the disappointment that there were not convictions for arson despite the seriousness of those events. Clearly, those are matters for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to consider because it is for them to bring charges.
Hon. Members will be aware that the events of February are the subject of an inquiry by Stephen Shaw, the independent prisons and probation ombudsman. I do not want to pre-empt the outcome of his inquiry in any detail, although I want to touch on some of the points that the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire raised. We are some considerable time on, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says. It is not the case that nothing has been done in that time. Lessons have been learned about the design of the building, and management, and that has all been taken into account in reaching today's position.
The hon. Gentleman raised several general but very important issues. The first of those is that Stephen Shaw's inquiry should be conducted in public and that it should be a judicial inquiry. I remind the House that, in the light of the interest that has been shown in this important matter, we decided at the outset that it was preferable for the outcome of the investigation that the proceedings should be fully independent. Stephen Shaw was therefore asked to take overall responsibility from Stephen Moore, with the same terms of reference, and to bring the matter to a conclusion. The decision followed careful consideration of the work that Stephen Moore had done, and it was in line with the original commitment to have an independent element. Stephen Shaw will draw on Stephen Moore's work and the material that he gathered, and build on that. I conveyed that information to the House in a written statement in June.
I think that that was a sensible approach and it follows that I do not feel that a full public inquiry is the best way of getting the information that we need into the public domain at the earliest opportunity. The question of whether the evidence should be given in public should turn on whether that method is most likely to get at some of the core issues and contradictions that the hon. Gentleman identified. I have absolute confidence, and I know that he shares this, that Stephen Shaw will do that. He is most likely to be able to do so under the terms of reference that he has accepted. If he comes back to the Home Secretary and me and tells us that he feels constrained, we will have to consider a response to that.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether it should be possible for someone to hide behind commercial confidentiality as a reason for not giving information. I accept the general premise that it should not. If that were to happen, I have no doubt that Stephen Shaw would come back to me. For the hon. Gentleman's information, Stephen Shaw has already been given all the Yarl's Wood contracts and all the documents relating to contracts and costings. He will use those as a basis for the line of questioning that the inquiry will take.
Alistair Burt: Does Mr. Shaw need formal permission from the Minister, or the Home Secretary, to dispense
202WH
with commercial confidentiality, or can he make that sort of decision and a decision about public hearings on his own? What is the chain of accountability and authority?
Beverley Hughes: We have agreed the terms of reference with Stephen Shaw, and having been given the relevant information he can pursue issues in line with those terms of reference as he wishes. We have decided that the hearings will not be public at the moment. That is the situation unless Stephen Shaw comes back to me and says that he feels constrained, and that we need to rethink any aspect of the conduct and parameters of the inquiry.
Mr. Patrick Hall: On the matter of timing, surely my hon. Friend will agree that the time things will take is a possible constraint. The fact that the matter has gone on for so long without the investigation being completed, never mind anything being published about it, and that further criminal investigations are likely to take place, could lead to months of delays that would not help to restore public confidence. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a constraint?
Beverley Hughes: With the greatest respect, my hon. Friend cannot have it both ways. I know that Stephen Shaw wants to conclude the inquiry in the most comprehensive way that he can in the shortest possible time. A balance is needed. The material gathered by Stephen Moore was very much work in progress, but Stephen Shaw will draw on that and will take the inquiry as far as he needs to to get to the bottom of the important questions being asked. I can assure the Chamber that his report will be published. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that there is a balance to be struck. It is more important for us to get to the bottom of those questions than it is for me to ask Stephen Shaw to rush the inquiry through. When I met him just after he had started his work, we talked about timing and discussed that very point. He will do it in the shortest time he can while feeling that he has done the best work that he can.
On whether the centre should reopen before Stephen Shaw's work is done, I say to my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire that I do not want to delay the reopening of Yarl's Wood any longer than is necessary, but we will obviously take great interest in the results of the inquiry, when it is published.
We have already put in place revised arrangements, which include mandatory fire training and drills. They are witnessed by Home Office officials under a permitto-use process, and they have to be successfully and satisfactorily completed before the Home Office will allow the building to open. Members already know that sprinklers are being installed throughout the centre together with additional fire-breaks, fire alarms and other associated safety modifications. That work has been undertaken following extensive consultation with other bodies, including Bedfordshire fire and rescue services. Operational procedures have also been scrutinised and enhanced, and improvements have been made to the building's internal security features. Contingency planning is being developed with the police, fire and ambulance services.

203WH
We plan to open the undamaged part of Yarl's Wood incrementally. On 28 September, the first phase will open for 60 single women. Following the successful establishment of that group, there will be a progressive reopening of the undamaged part of the centre to accommodate up to 400 people—single women and families—by spring 2005. We are not rushing that. We are introducing it in a planned, progressive and managed way to ensure that it is a success. There will be an incentive scheme to encourage responsible behaviour. Participation in constructive activity has been planned to encourage a safe and controlled environment for detainees and staff.
The hon. Gentleman wants details of detainees who were in Yarl's Wood on 14 February. Whether or not it is right to divulge that information, it would be very difficult to provide it. We would have to go through the files of every detainee to find out who they were and where they came from. That is the information that the hon. Gentleman wants. He wants not only their names, but where they came from. He is concerned that a disproportionate number of people with difficult backgrounds, such as those from prison, ended up in Yarl's Wood after the closure of remand places. I will check, but the policy that he outlined has not changed.
There were 385 people in Yarl's Wood at the time and they came from various sources. Some would have been detained for the first time at a port and brought to Yarl's Wood, and some would have been brought from other parts of the removal estate. There would have been others from the prison estate, and those dispersed from
204WH
the prison estate were dispersed around the detention estate. They were not disproportionately placed at Yarl's Wood or any other detention centre.
The spirit of that policy was retained. I will check and write to the hon. Gentleman, but there was no deliberate attempt disproportionately to place difficult people at Yarl's Wood
Alistair Burt: I know that it is late in the debate, but my point was not that a disproportionate number of people may have been sent to Yarl's Wood, but that any were sent there. There was such a low-level and light security regimes, that no one from a difficult background should have been sent there.
Beverley Hughes: I need to check the policy commitment at that time. The hon. Gentleman implies that it meant that nobody from the prison estate would be placed in Yarl's Wood. I need to check if that was a policy commitment, and if so, what happened. The hon. Gentleman has asked several questions about checks and about Group 4's requirement to take everyone, and I will write to him about those matters.
I guarantee that Stephen Shaw will have access to all the information that he needs. He will do an excellent job. It will include the behaviour of all concerned, and he is aware of the comments made in court about Group 4. He has asked for a transcript of them and he will deal with them in his investigation. I have assured him that, to assist him in his inquiry, he will receive the full cooperation of the Home Office.
11.30 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Community Policing
2 pm
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Nicholas Winterton): The first debate this afternoon is initiated by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). The subject is community policing. Before I call the hon. Gentleman, may I congratulate him on being a prolific user of Westminster Hall? I think few hon. Members recognise the opportunities that this Chamber offers, but the hon. Gentleman certainly does.
Mr. David Drew: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not sure that I can live up to that billing, particularly as it was you and I who got the idea off the ground. If nothing else, we will serve as a memorial to the long-term future of Westminster Hall. It is a wonderful Chamber, and we have debates here that we could never have in the main Chamber. We were right to push for it in the Modernisation Committee.
That is my first explanation for what I am doing. My second, as I have said to a number of colleagues, is that I asked for a debate on community safety and, thanks to the good offices of the Speaker, the title has come out as "Community Policing". I shall refer to community policing, but I shall refer also to community safety. If all else fails, do not blame me, blame the Speaker's Office. It is important that we consider the debate at this time. Before we started, I said in an aside to my hon. Friend the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing, and Community Safety that this was a coming debate.
Mr. James Paice: Would it he in order for the hon. Gentleman to seek an adjournment while I find my colleague who deals with community safety issues rather than community policing, which is the subject on which I was intending to embark?
Mr. Drew: I shall not be so indiscreet as to veer completely away from the subject. particularly as I have a lot of support from the police in Gloucestershire. It is good to see several hon. Members here today including a near neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda).
I can talk on this matter with some expertise because, since I was elected in 1997, I have been out with the police at least every three months with inspector neighbourhood area patrols, so I have seen things at the raw end. Many of the experiences that I will talk about are the result of that.
I want to discuss the positive issues of community engagement and the preventive measures that are encapsulated by the title "community safety". I owe the police thanks for helping me construct the debate. I will quickly run through the roll of honour and then say no more about it. I thank the chief constable, Tim Brain and Superintendent Nigel Avron, who has briefed me carefully. I thank the three inspectors of the inspector neighbourhood areas, which is the structure we have in Gloucestershire: Pete Craddock, Mac McGarry and Paul Donovan. I also thank the district council's community support officers Phil Sullivan and Dilys Warren.
206WH
To complete the cycle of greatness, I would not want to ignore the voluntary sector. I have done a lot of work with neighbourhood watch with Eddie Whitlock and Phil Hughes, and with victim support with Richard Lacey, with whom I raised some money on the back of a tandem. We rode around 100 miles of Gloucestershire, so I know his backside if nothing else. I shall move quickly on.
The context of the debate is that people care passionately about law and order. All the evidence coming from polling or social organisations shows that the issue of law and order is highly salient. By chance, a group of pensioners came to visit me yesterday from Minchinhampton in my constituency. With no prompting, their first questions were all about law and order. It was the classic thing: "We used to have a sergeant; we used to have two constables in Minchinhampton, and we've got no one now, yet the problems—the burglaries and the disorder on Friday and Saturday night—seem worse than ever."
That problem is the crux of my debate. I said to that group what I always say at police consultative committee meetings: we want visible policing. People have a right to expect, when they pay their bill to the police authority—and there was a whacking great increase in Gloucestershire last year, which I shall not dwell on, but which people noticed and took a view on—that they will see the police actively engaged in their community. However, visible policing is not the same as effective policing.
Mr. Parmjit Dhanda: My hon. Friend mentioned the police precept—which was very big—but does he agree that it is often forgotten that the police precept is 9.7 per cent. of the overall community charge bill for Gloucestershire?
Mr. Drew: I agree, and I am not attacking the police. I spend a long time listening to them, and have great respect for them. However, the high precept has made an impression; people want to know what they are paying their money for. Visibility is what they want. Many people still have the notion that the best form of policing is the bobby on the beat. Unfortunately, the criminal fraternity has moved on and society has become somewhat more difficult. Hon. Members know that the police tell us that what is required is intelligence-based policing and the use of modern technology. Policing is now about working in a different way, although there is no escaping the fact that in rural areas—and I make no apology for focusing a great deal on rural areas—a conflict arises. It is not an easy question to resolve.
It is not only through an increase in police numbers that the Government have set about resolving the problem. When I visit INAs, I always meet new police who are in training. The numbers are greater than they have ever been, but so are the pressures. The Government's approach uses a raft of partnerships, which are incredibly valuable. The key ones are the crime and disorder reduction partnerships, but community safety partnerships are also important. The work involves agencies that were previously discrete; now probation and health are locked into the partnerships.

207WH
On Friday, the chief fire officer of Gloucestershire, Peter Jones, was saying how much the fire service appreciates being involved in going out on preventive work—not just dealing with smoke alarms. He suggested that, rather than expecting officers to retire at 48 or 49, it would be good to enable them to go on to that work, instead of using front-line officers to do it. I hope that the Minister will take note of that inspired aside from him; I have always argued the same about the police. They retire far too early; I do not mean that they retire from front-line work too early, but we could use their expertise when they retire.
In Gloucestershire, the key to what I am talking about has been the evolution of the tri-service facilities at Quedgeley in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester. Ambulance, fire and police services have come together in a new way of dealing with emergency calls and what is happening is also linked to the new police station at Quedgeley. Those responsible should be congratulated. I have always been in favour of the regional agenda, but I should he grateful for an assurance that it does not go as far as trying to undermine the tri-service arrangements that were put together with a lot of time, money and private finance initiative schemes. We do not want those to be ripped asunder by a sudden decision that the fire or ambulance service is to be reorganised in a way that means they cannot use the facilities.
I want, finally, to look at the importance of the voluntary sector. I have mentioned two voluntary organisations, but I would also include some of the preventive work that is being done with housing and health. Although such matters are not seen as the police's main responsibility, the police welcome engagement with those agencies. Another relevant agency would be social services, as the police argue that too often their biggest problem in the community is that they pick up the responsibility for jobs that others could, and in some respects should, do.
I make no apology for saying that the way that such things best come together is through some form of mutuality. I am interested, as is my hon. Friend the Minister, in concepts of mutuality and new forms of cooperation. I do not think that we should stay with existing systems and structures when better ones could encourage the greater sharing of responsibility and of the resources applied. That sounds like nice fluffy-bunny stuff, but in reality if that is made to work, it can be much more successful.
Much of the issue of community policing is tied in with two important pieces of legislation. They are the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the Police Reform Act 2002. The first set up the whole agenda—making organisations work together in a different way so that they bear down on crime and disorder. Whether we like it or not, crime and disorder are the problems of our time. The latter Act brought in more organisations and introduced a more targeted approach—and a more effective one—to specific problems.
In Stroud, the strategies and organisations created on the back of the 2002 Act are working very well. They are clear, popular and easy to defend by those who explain them at meetings. The people who make them work—the police and the CSOs in Stroud district and those in the county council and other organisations—are heroes in a way because they have put so much of their own
208WH
time into making the strategies as effective as they have become. I make no bones of the fact that trying to persuade the public that the system is working as well as it could is still a problem.
We need to give things time, but the structures are right and the legislation has spawned different areas of activity, such as the work of the racial incident unit. In Gloucestershire, we have not traditionally had a problem with a high level of racial crime, but sometimes an undercurrent of racism has been found in rural areas. Other issues, such as runaway children and domestic violence, have been around for generations, but now, because of the way in which crime and disorder reduction partnerships work, we are at least putting measures in place that can highlight what needs to be done. People come forward with their complaints with more confidence that something will be done.
The Police Reform Act 2002 broadened the crime and disorder context to bring in other organisations. The Government are to be congratulated on that. The Act also brought new appointments; there is a link with current changes that are establishing the idea of community well-being in the framework of local government. That has led to the establishment of new positions. In Stroud, we now have a number of neighbourhood wardens who go into the community, not necessarily under the auspices of the police, although they work very closely with them, and deal with all the relevant issues. They do not deal just with crime-related issues, but with good neighbourliness. They are already making a difference.
Mr. Dhanda: My hon. Friend and I both have a habit of slipping into speaking Gloucestershire from time to time. He mentioned INAs earlier, but I am not sure that all hon. Members are familiar with INAs, but they are policing areas in Gloucestershire. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) was not aware of that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) also made an interesting point about the involvement of local authorities. Does he agree that one of the most helpful things that the Government have done is to provide match funding to ensure that officers funded by city councils, such a park wardens and city centre managers, can now be beefed up to community support roles?
Mr. Drew: We are always willing to take more funds, wherever they come from, but particularly from central Government. I am sorry if anything was lost in the translation, but we in the west country tend to talk in a dialect and sometimes use abbreviations. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford, but no doubt he has similar arrangements in his constituency and refers to them slightly differently.
My final point about the 2002 Act is that it highlights what needs to be done about disorder, but that was not happening with antisocial behaviour orders. We in rural areas have not been great users of such orders, but we are beginning to use them more now because they have been streamlined. I do not entirely belong to the same school of thought as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) when he argues about that, but the public have been way ahead of us in realising the

209WH
problems that antisocial behaviour causes and we must be seen to be doing something about that sooner rather than later. That is something that rural, as well as urban, Britain should learn from.
Another issue on the back of the two Acts is that so much is tied up in the word "partnership". It has not only spawned many new activities, but has reconstituted some existing activities so that people, certainly the professionals, can see the delivery of services being clearer cut. We are fortunate in having help from central Government. We have a number of bobby buses so that we can send the police out to rural areas. Police stations disappeared generations ago and the visibility of policing is important.
We have also begun to pull together some of the drug and alcohol strategies with the work of drug action teams and a very successful substance abuse group in Stroud. They are now reporting directly to the community safety group and through that to the crime and disorder reduction partnership.
Last, but not least, we were proud to pioneer—not internationally because the idea came from Canada—messages in a bottle whereby older people are encouraged to put a medicine bottle in their fridge with all their details inside. That was encouraged by the police because when they break into a place where someone may be ill, they fear having no easy access to the details. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford pressed that idea with the support of the police. There is much good going on, but much more could be done.
In conclusion, I refer to what I see as the key problems and how the Government are setting about trying to overcome those problems, but I could do with some advice from my hon. Friend the Minister on how we could do better and how the message could be taken to the Strouds of this world to ensure that people understand exactly what is happening. First, there is a degree of complexity between people and partnerships. I have already referred to many of them and one day I shall get someone to draw out for me all the different interrelated partnerships that exist between the statutory, voluntary and private sectors.
There is a worry about lack of co-ordination, as well as expense in terms of time, let alone money, because people must attend so many meetings nowadays. I suppose that we could look at some form of rationalisation, but that, again, has been overtaken by events with the start of the local strategic partnerships within which, supposedly, all the other partnerships sit. I sit on the Stroud local strategic partnership, as I do indirectly on the county partnership. There is much good will but some question about what it is turning up. The crime and disorder agenda often sets the wider agenda for the local strategic partnership. That may be a good thing or may show that other areas are weaker than they should be.
The second issue concerns resources. As always, there will be special pleading by people in rural areas. Sparsity issues and the fact that such areas have traditionally been less well funded do not mean that there are no problems with drug abuse and disorder and that people do not ask why they do not see the police. We must take
210WH
account of that in the funding structure. The issue must be addressed by local government, police authorities and, of course, central Government.
The raft of measures that the Government have introduced, though highly creditable, are expensive to run. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will assure us that we are not looking for quick fixes but are providing long-term funding streams. The programmes may change slightly over time, but we must see how they work. That is important as places such as Gloucestershire begin to get access to CSOs, who will work with neighbourhood wardens, specials and the full-time police. We must ensure that there is proper protocol and that each office knows what it is to do and that it will be appropriately funded.
Another issue is how we engage the public in policing, particularly the kind that they want: traditional, old-fashioned policing that tackles the criminal fraternity. The approach in Gloucestershire is good. There are regular meetings with consultative committees, and I always find the police accessible. I am not so keen on their phone line, but I believe that they have ironed out many of the problems.
Unfortunately, research from the Local Government Association indicates that people's opinions of the police tend to be worse after they have had contact with them than before. I am afraid that that is not unusual. People have contact with the police in the most pressured situations—when they have been robbed or attacked or something has gone badly wrong in their lives—so it is not difficult to understand that finding. However, improvement is needed in that area. For that reason, the call from the police for support from the other organisations is crucial. It is no good putting together all these different partnerships if the police end up at the front doing all the difficult business. It is important to know that everyone is capable of pulling together. The ASBO experience is a good example. The police have been calling for ASBOs to be used much more often, but other organisations have been less than forthcoming.
I seek from my hon. Friend the Minister guarantees that, once the system is in place, it will be left alone. We must let it work its way through to a natural conclusion, so that people know what the different roles are and that resources are in place. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester rightly pointed out that there was a big debate in Gloucestershire on the precept. People want to know that they are getting value for money and that things are being done.
My last point is that policing must be done in a very positive light. If it is seen to be purely negative—all about catching people rather than prevention—I am afraid that society will always lose. Policing will work much better if partnerships continue and build on a level of positive engagement in which the public and the voluntary sector are included. If that happens, the Government will have done well. More particularly, people will feel much more confident. They will go out in the evening, which is something that many say that they are not prepared to do at present.
2.24 pm
Mr. David Kidney: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on securing this very important debate and, as you said, Mr. Deputy

211WH
Speaker, on his hard work in securing many other debates like this one. Luck, as well as assiduity, plays a part. I ask for many debates in this Chamber, but they are never called.
In Staffordshire this year, there has been an impressive reduction in crime, and an impressive increase in Staffordshire police's detection rate. I trust the figures, because a few years ago, Staffordshire was ahead of most forces in adopting the ethical recording of the crime that was reported to it. As a result, it bore the pain of an apparent increase in the number of offences committed. I am therefore inclined to trust the improvement shown by the current statistics.
I am pleased to pay tribute to our chief constable, John Giffard, and his police officers, for their enormous contribution to this year's very happy situation. I am sure that they would agree that there is much more to community policing than putting police officers in uniforms and sending them out on to the streets. The police are supported by a great team of people, including the very professional civilian staff who greatly contribute to the work of police officers and help them to carry out their other duties by supporting them in those duties.
Increasingly, we see closed-circuit television cameras on our street corners, which of course means a control room somewhere that is usually staffed by employees of the council or private security firms. Again, they support the police in the valuable work that they do.
Traffic wardens, too, are part of the family of the community police. They do very important work, especially in more rural areas where people get quite het up about those who break road restrictions with impunity. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said, CSOs are the latest addition to the police family. He also rightly mentioned neighbourhood wardens, who have been doing valuable work in areas that may be more built up than those in the Staffordshire constituency that I represent.
I draw particular attention to the local authorities that are part of the crime and disorder reduction partnerships, and to the support and the resources that they bring to community policing. I shall talk later about special constables, who have an important role to play in supplementing the work of full-time police officers, as do the neighbourhood watch schemes and the public.
The tremendous success of the Staffordshire police relates to other parts of the country in that the police are aided greatly these days by the technology that they use. From a shaky start six years ago, Staffordshire police are now so good at handling calls that, this year, they won two awards, including a European one, for their call- handling prowess. I am grateful to them for making that great improvement in their call handling, which was necessary.
My hon. Friend the Minister may want to talk about the radio system because of the great amount that is being invested in it and the fact that it is diverting funds from other parts of the policing budget because of its importance. Another important new piece of technology is the automatic number plate reader—the ANPR—which is a tremendous aid to policing in Staffordshire. I have been with the police when they have used ANPRs by the side of the road in a
212WH
community and on the motorway. Last year, I attended the V2002 pop concert, not as a concert-goer but as an observer of the policing operation for what was a huge event. The ANPR was a valuable tool there, too.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud also mentioned the visibility of the police in rural areas where there are no longer any police stations. Staffordshire is one of the few forces that possess their own mobile police station. At the V2002 concert, the front desk and holding cells—an important attribute of that service—were in full use. The sergeant, whose idea it was, proudly showed me around it and told me that police forces around the country had shown great interest in hiring it from Staffordshire police when they are not using it, for use in rural locations in their areas. That tool has helped Staffordshire police and, it seems, other forces around the country.
Full-time police officers do such magnificent work every day of the year in every community. Thanks to the crime fighting fund, record numbers of police officers in uniform are doing their valuable work for our communities both nationally and locally in Staffordshire. When I was elected in 1997, the police authority in Staffordshire had recently made the difficult decision to freeze recruitment of police officers for three years because of financial difficulties. That caused a problem, and we have been slightly slower in reaching a new high for numbers of police officers than other parts of the country because of the continuing effects of the freeze. We have, however, certainly taken full advantage of the crime fighting fund.
In Staffordshire, the police authority showed political courage in raising the council tax precept for policing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud observed, however, we have suffered electorally as a result. In this year's local elections, there was a big swing away from Labour candidates. When I talked to people about why that happened, many of them mentioned the large increase in their council tax, which was a function of the councils, which raise the majority of council tax, and the police authority. There is an interesting lesson there for politicians of all parties: the public may well clamour for more police officers on the beat, but there is a cost. In Staffordshire, people are beginning to notice the cost. Perhaps they will be more willing to listen to solutions that complement the valuable work of police officers. I want to develop that idea later in my speech.
In August 2002, we moved to a new system of allocating a uniformed police officer to every local government ward in Staffordshire as community beat officers. It is now possible for any Staffordshire resident to know the name and see the uniform of the police officer allocated to their area. That is particularly valuable in rural areas, which have alleged that they have been denuded of police officers and that they therefore never the see the police. Rural areas are now seeing the police.
I can speak from personal knowledge about the presence of a police officer on the beat. In the summer recess, I took the opportunity to accompany a couple of community beat officers as they pounded the beats of the rural areas that they represent. I walked the streets of Penkridge and Wheaton Aston with officers, and I saw the areas that they police. We took the opportunity to stop and speak to local people. For example, PC Calladine, the officer for Wheaton Aston, and I were

213WH
called across by the local neighbourhood watch coordinator to discuss an issue. Because PC Calladine knows his beat, he took me to a woman who was concerned by vandalism to the local public payphone, and we were able to exchange information about it.
That shows the value, especially in rural areas, of the individual police officer on the beat. I must say that, in the several hours that I spent in Penkridge and Wheaton Aston, the most serious crime that we detected by pounding the streets was an out-of-date tax disc on the windscreen of somebody's car. The police officer cautioned the person responsible and explained that he was going to report them to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, which might well prosecute them and would certainly demand repayment of the back duty. That is a valuable service, but police officers are expensive resources.
People must understand that, while police officers are performing such duties, they are not performing the other services that people also want. If, for example, I am woken up by the sounds of an apparent burglary downstairs and dial 999, I do not want to hear that the beat officer will start walking promptly towards my house and will be with me in an hour; I want to hear that the police will be there in minutes. Indeed, I have had to ring 999 once during my six years as a Member of Parliament. I thought that someone was trying to break into my next-door neighbour's house. I did not say, "I am an MP. I expect a super service." Nevertheless, two police cars appeared within minutes of that 999 call, and that was impressive. However, it is important to remember that there has to be a balance between the visibility of police officers walking their beats to give reassurance and to collect human intelligence, and the ability of the police to respond appropriately to situations that might need a fast response or the attendance of many officers.
That brings me to community safety officers. Again, it is marvellous that the Government are offering money from central funds to allow police forces to recruit community safety officers. As a result of that fund, Staffordshire has just announced the recruitment of its first 10 CSOs. I am grateful to the Minister for that. I have spoken to the chief constable about how he intends using that resource, and he is minded—I agree with him—to focus the work of the CSOs on antisocial behaviour.
I feel sorry for the police officers bombarded with calls about antisocial behaviour, because it is often the case that no crime has been committed. Nevertheless, everyone wants to know why the police cannot knock on a neighbour's door and ask them to turn down the music, to stop the argument or to stop using bad language. The police are under public pressure to turn up, so they do what is wanted, but it is not their job because no crime is involved. Using CSOs is a good alternative, because they can add presence with their uniform. They can also supplement the work of the local authority and the housing authority, as they are more likely to be responsible for dealing with antisocial behaviour. I believe that CSOs can play a valuable role. I would be interested to know whether the Minister envisages that being a front-line use of community safety officers.
214WH
When people speak of their dissatisfaction with crime levels, they do not say that are too many burglaries—we have seen a hugely impressive reduction in the number of burglaries in Staffordshire. Nor do they talk about car crime or theft, which have also seen huge reductions. They tend to talk about antisocial behaviour. As I said, much antisocial behaviour is not criminal and it is not a priority for the police. However, people consider that it comes under the heading of community policing, and they want something to be done about it. I hope that CSOs will be used in Staffordshire as part of the police response.
I want to talk about the valuable role of special constables, because I have walked the beat with them. I have talked to them about why they chose to do that brave and good work, which they do for no financial reward. I have been impressed with their motivation and their desire to do something good for the community. The fact that such people have the valuable intention to put something back into the community should be encouraged and facilitated.
Since the crime fighting fund starting paying for more police officers to be recruited, special constables in Staffordshire have decided that that they like the work and want to convert to full-time police officers. That has left us with fewer special constables. We have finally woken up to that, and Staffordshire has started a number of campaigns to recruit new special constables. I hope that the Minister can say something about national support for those local recruitment campaigns. I have assured the police in Staffordshire that I want to support them in their recruitment because I know how valuable the work of specials can be.
That brings me to the other partner in policing—the public. The police in Staffordshire organise the neighbourhood watch. The crime reduction partnerships obviously give verbal support to it, and councils pay for neighbourhood watch signs on lamp posts showing that an area has a scheme in operation. I do not think that the commitment of the other partners to neighbourhood watch schemes is as good as that of the police. I would like it to be better, and I would like to hear the Minister's views on that.
The police's support for neighbourhood watch in Staffordshire is excellent. They have dedicated officers, and a good telephone warning and messaging system for their co-ordinators. Neighbourhood watch coordinators have strong support. They have an annual conference, and between conferences they do some recruitment. I support all that, and I have been ever-present when they held their annual conferences in my constituency. I am committed to neighbourhood watch, but I think that the scheme could be much better. That is an example of the public accepting some responsibility for the policing of their areas. I believe that the most effective deterrent to crime is the fear of detection. The police on their own cannot detect criminals very well or frequently without the support of the eyes and ears of the public. So often it is thanks to information provided by the public that the police are able to secure convictions.
Neighbourhood watch is a good example of the formal organisation of the public into recognising their responsibilities and having the opportunity to carry them out. Every area should be a neighbourhood watch area, which is not yet the situation in Staffordshire. I

215WH
want to hear the Minister say that she agrees with me on the value that I place on that, and that there will be national support for neighbourhood watch recruitment and support once systems are in place. It is so important that, as is the case in Staffordshire, the police can share their successes with their neighbourhood watch schemes as a result of the information collected. Those successes constantly reinforce for people the message that something useful and valuable is being done for their community. I hope that the Minister can speak on that, and also say that the status of neighbourhood watch schemes in the crime and disorder reduction partnerships will be raised in coming years, and that they will be a priority for the support of those partnerships.
It is the personal responsibility of each of us to take care and follow sensible crime prevention advice over matters such as property marking and locking windows and doors when we go out. We should also go that little step further and actively support the police in their difficult and courageous work, in whatever ways we can. That can happen as long as it is not difficult—as long as we can get through when we make a phone call and that members of a neighbourhood watch scheme have the support that they need. That is my wish, and I hope that the Minister will comment on it.
2.41 pm
Mr. Parmjit Dhanda: The debate has already been quite an education for me as I have listened to my two colleagues. I now know where to go if I want a ticket for V2002, although I might be dragged into doing a little community policing work. I have also learned that if I ever need to speak to my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), I should come to Westminster Hall first. It is very useful to know that this is where I am most likely to find him.
I wish to make a couple of brief points on the Gloucestershire background to this debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said, we have had a vigorous debate in the past 12 months on policing and funding issues. When last year's settlement came through, we were a little disappointed because we were one of the 19 authorities that received a 3 per cent. increase. At the same time, we must bear in mind that inflation is 2.5 per cent. and that the police grant for Gloucestershire for 2002–03 is at its highest ever level, £55.34 million.
The story does not end there, because we need to take into account a number of subsequent grants to get the full picture for Gloucestershire, not least the rural policing fund that this Government introduced in 1997, which is now worth some £778,000 for Gloucestershire, and is going up. Other contributions include money—about £190,000—towards Airwave, the local communications channel. Just before last Christmas we were told that we would get another £180,000 towards the provision of video interview and rape examination suites. Perhaps the most satisfying thing about being the Member for Gloucester, however, is the tri-service centre, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud referred. It is a £6 million private finance initiative scheme and the first such centre in the country. It works superbly. It is a great capital investment project, reducing crime and doing its bit for the ambulance service and the local fire authority as well.
216WH
In addition, we are to have a £25.2 million brand new police headquarters at the same site in Quedgeley. We are lucky. As my hon. Friend also said, we are blessed with some very good local community officers. Dominic Everiss, who works on the boundary between Gloucester and Stroud, is one of many officers who do a good job at a local level. When considering the Gloucestershire experience, we must remember the neighbourhood projects and the work done by people such as Mark Gale—I know that the Minister knows this—in reducing crime and working with communities. They make a huge difference.
During this debate about policing and whether we are making a difference, my hon. Friends have put the case about police numbers and uniformed presence very well. I dug up some figures from the House of Commons Library the other day because I wanted to get a good look at the picture in Gloucestershire. I have a brief summary of the position since 1979, which is as far back as the Library's figures went. In 1979, there were 1,096 police officers in the county. Numbers rose steadily until 1984 when they peaked at 1,149. The figure stayed around that mark for a number of years. It gradually peaked again at 1,174 in 1992, but that was the highest level that it reached under the Conservative Government. It then fell steadily year on year and kept falling until 1999—it takes time to turn round such a problem. At its lowest ebb, in 1999, the figure was 1,104. The crime fighting fund came into force in the subsequent year and the figure steadily rose. In 2002, it had reached 1,183, and it has now risen to its highest ever level of 1,240.
I pay tribute to one of the police officers we have left out: Chris Merrick, who is the divisional commander for the Gloucester and Forest of Dean division. Chris Merrick deserves the plaudits that he gets because he challenged the scaremongering that sometimes goes on. The weekend before last, a front page in our local paper in Gloucester, The Citizen, claimed that the city centre was not being adequately policed. Chirs Merrick put that right on the letters page. He said that, as well as the work that was going on in the city centre, there were
"another three INAs in Gloucester—Hucclecote, Gloucester South and Barton Street—which all have officers working in them 24 hours a day to respond to incidents and support officers in neighbouring areas".
He said:
"Furthermore, we have many other officers working from Gloucester Central Police Station, such as our Operation Resolve robbery squad, CID, scenes of crime officers, Operation Gemini, Professional Development Unit, the Crime Management Unit, the Divisional Support Group, and our Barton Street-based Road Policing Unit to assist as and when required.
Add to this our Force Operations Unit, which includes the Motorway Unit, the Dog Section and firearms teams, and readers may be assured that rather than the 20 officers your article suggests are policing the city centre, the figure can be multiplied many times."
He said that the article was inaccurate. He continued:
"The force as a whole now has more than 1,240 officers—the most it has had in its history".
My two colleagues made good points about the uniformed presence. It is not only a question of police officers; it is also about community support officers and others. I got some statistics from the House of Commons Library on the civilian support staff based in

217WH
our head offices. In 2002, 545 civilian support staff were based in police offices in Gloucestershire. That is an increase from 1992 when there were 367. The figure is still rising. We have another 60 community support officers, who will be out patrolling the streets. It is important to point out that a uniformed presence on the streets—community support officers—is not about policing on the cheap. It is about communities being empowered and people from communities helping to police their own areas. Involving communities in the policing of their areas can reduce crime. That is the whole idea behind the CSO scheme.
My hon. Friends the Members for Stroud and for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) mentioned specials. We are lucky to have a number of specials working in Gloucestershire and we have a long and proud history of specials. Will the Minister talk about the protocols for specials and how they will continue to fit into the scheme when we have a uniformed presence with police officers and CSOs? It is important that we maintain our specials and that they continue to feel a valued part of policing in our county and beyond.
Mr. Drew: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Dhanda: I was about to conclude but I will gladly give way to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Drew: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree with what I have to say, and I want to address the Minister through him. Getting time off to serve is one of the biggest problems that specials face. We ought to encourage employers to see the benefit of serving with the specials as a form of community engagement. The issue is important and it is getting more difficult to resolve.
Mr. Dhanda: I agree and I hope that the Minister can elaborate on that.
We are blessed locally with very good private companies that are ethically minded. Our local Barclays bank and Cheltenham and Gloucester building society are keen to become involved in community initiatives, and I would like the Government to do more to involve them in communities and policing,. If we gave them the opportunity. they would grasp the nettle.
2.51 pm
Mr. David Heath: I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on securing the debate. Stroud is the constituency most similar to my own, so I recognise several of the matters that he has raised—I recently met Gloucestershire's chief constable, Tim Brain, who served part of his career in Avon and Somerset police and whose work I commend.
Listening to the hon. Gentleman, I had running through my head the memory of one of my rare excursions to Gloucester to play a rugby match many years ago, in which a Gloucester forward decided to bite me on the top of my head. I have had a very poor opinion of law and order in Gloucester ever since, but no doubt things have changed.
Mr. Dhanda: The hon. Gentleman is welcome to return to Gloucester. We had the same discussion on
218WH
Select Committee business in the United States recently, and I assure him that no one will bite him on his head.
Mr. Heath: That is a welcome reassurance.
Community policing is about keeping the peace. That is one of its prime functions. I am a great believer in community police patrols for several reasons. I accept that they do not result in a massive decline in the clear-up rate, and I accept that detection is not their primary function.
The police patrol function distinguishes itself in three ways. First, it deters. That can be over-emphasised, but a uniformed police presence has a deterrent effect. Secondly, it reassures communities and individuals who would otherwise feel vulnerable. Thirdly, it informs the detection process through a constant flow of low-level intelligence, which may have a significant effect.
I am constantly worried by the perception that community policing and the patrol function are marginal activities for police forces, and that those are expendable when times are difficult and resources are stretched. That is not to say that other factors to which hon. Members referred are not important. Policing can be put only into the context of the community that it serves. Environmental considerations such as lighting, children's facilities, the strategic partnerships that have been mentioned, other uniformed presence and other agencies in the field all play a part in creating a safe, law-abiding environment.
I return to whether we have an effective community policing strategy in this country. Inevitably, I refer to my experiences and I make no apologies for that. I had a long involvement with the Avon and Somerset police authority, but for some time I was also a member of the Audit Commission. One of the functions of the commission was to look at the effectiveness of police forces. Just before I left the Audit Commission back in 1996, I recall that we published an extremely useful document, which I revisited to see whether it had any lessons that were still relevant. The document is called "Streetwise: Effective Police Patrol". It was published in February 1996 and it examined the patrol function.
The document came to the conclusion—much of this is still relevant—that the public attach great value to police patrolling, as many hon. Members have said. It asserts that uniformed police officers have a function in reassuring the community. People like to know who their local bobby is and I commend Gloucestershire for achieving that sort of recognition. Effective patrolling underpins an important and basic concept in British policing, which is policing by consent. When a police officer is part of a community and known by it, that underpins a feeling that is the basis of British policing—policing by, for and from within the community rather than something applied by the external force of state control.
Back in 1996, most people were dissatisfied with the way that police functions were carried out and about 80 per cent. of people wanted to see more police. I do not know what the more recent figures are but I would be surprised if they have changed much. People want to see more police and they are worried when their police officers seem to disappear at regular intervals. That is a

219WH
particular problem in rural areas, as police officers often seem to be taken from rural communities to the cities to meet the latest targets.
The Audit Commission study revealed that at any given time only 5 per cent. of police strength was on the streets. I shall return to that matter in a moment because it is an education as to what happens in reality. There were also criticisms of the way in which the police patrol function was managed. Too often, officers who are on patrol are unsure about what they are expected to achieve and their principal role. The lack of adequate briefings or debriefings was criticised. Often, when a police officer returned to the station at the end of a patrol they could not pass on what they had learned that day to anyone and patrolling was not well targeted.
I return to the figure of 5 per cent. as it is an interesting illustration of where all the police have gone. The Audit Commission considered a medium-sized force of 2,500 officers serving a million people. Of those 2,500 officers, many are on specialist duties of one sort or another, and there are probably about 1,350 available for patrol at the outset. Of course, policing is a 24-hour-a-day activity, so there is a shift pattern. During each shift, 335 of the original 2,500 officers are available. However, that number is cut down by sickness, training, attendance at court and biannual leave. It is reasonable to say that only 250 of those 2,500 officers are available for patrol at that point. People on patrol have to do other things. They have to interview prisoners and fill in forms—they have to do all the things that are associated with their function as officers. Making all those assumptions, we end up with just 125 of the original 2,500 officers available on the street to that county or policing area. That is a rapid and telling decline.
The Audit Commission put it another way. It considered the case of a reasonably big city with a population of, say, 180,000. Such a city will have 1,400 miles of pavement, 850 acres of parks and open spaces, 770 miles of road, 75,000 houses, 230 pubs and 95 schools, and it will have just 10 police officers on the streets. When they are spread as thinly as that, is no wonder that people say that they do not often see a police officer.
There are ways in which the problem can be addressed and the dilution can be mitigated. Geographic policing has been mentioned; it should be standard practice throughout the country. Named officers should police named areas, so that everybody knows who they are. If that is done, one way of undermining it is to move the officer on every five minutes and put a new named person in place. That happens alarmingly often and for a variety of reasons. A named officer in a geographical area has a problem-solving remit and can analyse patterns. He might do it on an ad hoc, unscientific basis, but that can help to identify where the problems lie in the patch and he can feed back information about the patterns. There can also be intelligent patrolling, targeted to ensure that the police officer is visible at the time when it will have most impact on the people whom we seek to reassure—when the pubs chuck out in the middle of a market town or when the pensions are collected at the post office.
If a patrol function is carried out properly, it will go wider than simply policing and will touch on community safety, the subject that the hon. Member for Stroud really wanted to debate. Community policing is more
220WH
than just a marginal area of police activity. It is not just part of the police function, it is vital to good community relations and the quality of life of an area. At the moment, it is beset by continual funding problems. I accept that there are more officers in our provincial forces than there were a few years ago, but there are still too few to reassure people that they have adequate policing. There are inequalities, and there is a feeling that not only the police but other agencies. such as the magistrates courts, are retreating from rural areas. Everything seems to disappear into the nearest town, or even further away, and there are difficulties with police management.
Notwithstanding all the difficulties mentioned by the hon. Member for Stroud, and the fact that so many officers have joined he regular force, it is important to keep the special strength up. We should have retained officers, as I have said many times. However, the council tax business is now a real deterrent. It is causing problems. People are refusing to pay because they say that they are being asked for more money but are not getting a better service. That is why we hear wild talk about splitting up police authority areas and electing sheriffs—a sort of wild west scenario. It is a consequence of people feeling that they do not get value for money from their police force. The Government need to deal with that; they neglect it at their peril.
3.3 pm
Mr. James Paice: I cannot pretend to be the aficionado of this Chamber that the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) is, but it is a useful forum for less partisan discussions about issues of concern. I welcome the debate because, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) has said, it concerns something that actually matters to the people whom we are elected to represent. I sometimes think that the House spends too long debating issues with which many people cannot readily identify, but today's debate is certainly about an issue that most people identify with. It takes place against a background of rising public disillusionment with the police and the law and order system.
There is an increasing perception among many members of the public that someone who is largely law-abiding—obviously, the description must be qualified—will get everything thrown at them for doing the slightest thing wrong, whereas habitual criminals and people who present a serious problem seem to get away with impunity. That may not be an accurate picture, but I believe that it is a common perception in the communities that we serve.
The term "community policing" is used by different people to describe different things. Some use it to describe the function of a police officer walking down the street or round the village. That is often coupled with references to reassurance, as if that is the be all and end all of the matter. I get very angry when I hear people talking about community policing as a means of reassurance. Reassurance comes as a result of doing what people want, which is preventing, deterring and detecting crime—not from being able to see a police officer. Reassurance is a result, not a fundamental objective, of effective community policing.
My definition of community policing is one in which officers are actively involved in the community. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) made reference

221WH
to an example in his constituency. There are good examples throughout the country of officers being available almost day and night, often setting their own shift patterns and deciding the best times for them to be on or off duty. Officers are involved with public sector and other organisations that serve the community, such as housing associations, the housing and planning authorities, environmental health, waste collection and so on. They have a vital role in that respect, but they also play a key part in the detection and deterrence function of the police.
It is true that community police officers carry out the function that we have heard about from New York, explained in the broken windows theory about helping to keep the environment attractive, so that it is less of a cause of crime. However, good community police officers are also familiar with the people whom they serve; they have their ear to the ground and pick up low-level intelligence, which often leads their colleagues to significant policing actions. What I am describing raises issues of personnel, including civilians and the countless people who have been described as the police family—not just police officers but CSOs, civilians, street wardens, the accredited community safety officers and, importantly, special constables, whom several hon. Members have mentioned.
I shall not rehearse today the arguments that I have had with the Minister's predecessors about CSOs. The Conservative party has never opposed, and would never oppose, a role for civilians in helping the police. Indeed, a Conservative Government worked hard to promote the concept of civilianisation of police authority posts that did not need a police officer. There are two matters on which we differ strongly from the Government; on one of them we are on the same side as the Liberal Democrats.
One of those matters is police powers. It is our fundamental belief that police powers should be given only to people who have been trained at the same level and with the same rigour—which effectively means regular police officers. The second matter involves our belief that the decision whether to employ CSOs or regular officers should be made at force level, and should not be imposed by Government. Of course, many forces have CSOs, but when the Government produce a ring-fenced fund that is available only to be spent on CSOs, it is hardly a surprise when CSOs are appointed. If the Government had said, "Here's £60 million that we're going to add across the board to police forces' budgets," and left police authorities to decide how many CSOs or regular officers to employ, in whatever permutation, we might have a different picture from that which we have today. That is particularly so as it becomes increasingly obvious that the cost of employing a CSO is not dramatically cheaper than that of employing a regular officer. The cost is cheaper, but not to the extent that was perhaps once perceived. The training costs are obviously very much cheaper, because CSOs get comparatively little training.
The problem of policing versus civilians and the way that that links through to police numbers, to which all hon. Members have referred, is connected to the issue of crime numbers. In the last 30 or 40 years, the number of crimes per police officer has increased at least tenfold,
222WH
and I have some statistics that estimate that there has been up to a seventeen-fold increase. The burden of crime that we are expecting each police officer to deal with has therefore increased dramatically.
That leads me on to issue of council tax precepts and the growing increases that we have seen over the last few years. We have heard about the increases in Gloucester and Staffordshire, and one can find similar figures in Cambridgeshire and most other police authority areas. However, coupled with that is the point that the hon. Member for Stafford made, which is the increasing public resistance to and concern about those increases. I am quite certain that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome is correct that part of that concern is due to the fact that people do not see any benefit as a result of that increase. That is partly because they do not see the police officers, but it is also due to the increasing problem that police officers do not attend the scenes of crimes that they do not believe to be significant. That is particularly true in rural areas, but I believe that the situation is the same in many urban areas.
There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that many crimes are reported not because the victims ever expect them to be solved, but because they need to report them to claim on the insurance for whatever has been stolen. The consequence of that is that more and more local authorities—both the London boroughs and those outside London—now use their council tax either to pay accredited CSOs or, in some cases, to buy in officers from the police force, because they want to have more control over what is going on, and to feel that they are providing police officers to be seen on the streets by the people they serve. That is an indication of the lack of accountability between police forces and the communities that they serve.
That lack of accountability is largely due to the huge increase in centralisation that we have seen over the last few years of both direct and financial control. There are so many ring-fenced, penny packets of money in police budgets, and the only decision that is open to the discretion of police authorities is whether they get them, rather than how to spend them. One extreme example that my local authority has given me is of an apparently national budget of £2 million to be used for video systems. Dividing £2 million up between 43 forces does not add up to very much and, when one takes into account the huge cost of compiling a bid, which is so commonplace these days, one ends up with a big question mark over whether the plan is worth it.
Lack of accountability is also related to the question of whether the visibility of police officers has anything to do with effectiveness. It was suggested earlier that there is somehow a conflict between visible policing and effective policing. I do not believe that that is the case, as I made clear earlier. The role of a visible community police officer is critical not only in deterring, but in combating and detecting crime. There is ample evidence of that from some parts of the country—the North Wales police has pioneered this approach—and from the United States.
Other hon. Members mentioned the particular problems of rural areas. I stand second to no one in my concern for rural areas, where problems of lack of police numbers, visibility and attendance at crime scenes may be more obvious than anywhere else. It is difficult to see how effectiveness can be increased if the police do not

223WH
attend crime scenes. There can be no expectation that a crime will ever be solved if no statement, or any other evidence, is taken. Such failures, which are caused by several factors such as centralisation, give rise to public scepticism about policing and encourage the public's resistance to increases in the council tax precept to which all hon. Members have referred.
The fundamental issue that all politicians must challenge is how we rebuild a system of trust and accountability between police forces and the people whom they serve. That is not a criticism of, or a negative reflection on police officers—I have huge admiration for them—but a criticism of the system in which they are ever increasingly forced to operate.
The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) referred to the huge increase in the number of civilians in his local constabulary from 367 to 545. Has he looked into the breakdown of what they do? How many of those extra civilians are involved in anything that could be described as combating crime, and how many are involved in the bureaucracy that is now enshrined in every police force, such as filling in forms about Government targets and the countless other administrative functions that now burden every authority?
Mr. Dhanda: I can inform the hon. Gentleman that quite a few of those civilians—I do not have a specific number—are civilian statement-takers, which frees more police officers to provide a greater uniformed presence on the streets.
Mr. Paice: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is right, but most police forces went down that road a long time ago. I suspect that many of the 367 civilians that he referred to at the starting point, which I believe was in 1997, were already performing the functions that police officers need not do. That idea was pioneered by the previous Government.
This afternoon, I have heard some side-swipes at what may be perceived as Conservative policy. As we have made no announcements on that front, any such sideswipe is purely speculative. The role of Government must now be about refocusing the linkage between the communities and the police forces that serve them. That must involve an element of democracy. The partnerships about which hon. Members have spoken highly are a step forward—I would not decry that—but they are not the sole solution.
We have to consider more clearly direct accountability between police forces and their communities. We will then see the dramatic step change in the role of community policing that I believe is behind every hon. Member's speech. We all want that. There is an increasingly widespread belief that it is an important part of policing, but the issue is how we make that happen. We have a long way to go to achieve that.
3.18 pm
The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing, and Community Safety (Ms Hazel Blears): I am delighted to reply to the debate. I believe that I am one of the few Ministers who spend more time in Westminster Hall than in many other places in Parliament, and I am delighted to be here again.
We have had an excellent debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on his thoughtful and perceptive contribution, which considered the wider issues of community policing and how that is central to making our communities safer, healthier and more vibrant places for people to live and work in. That is the breadth of today's debate.
I am also delighted that my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) and for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) have been able to contribute the views from their patches. I have been impressed by the connection that all hon. Members have with their local police forces. I had no idea that most Members of Parliament were in effect community support officers in their free time. I am delighted to welcome them to the extended police family and I am sure that they are making an excellent contribution to safety in their communities.
In the short time available, I want to address many of the issues that have been raised. First, community policing is not just a warm, friendly feeling. It is not simply about reassurance, but it is key to making our police services both visible and effective. I am glad to agree with the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) at least on that. Community policing is not a mutually contradictory way of policing; good community policing means gathering intelligence, knowing what is going on in the patch, feeding into strategic responses and increasing the confidence within communities, so that their members feel able to come forward and give the police information on which they can act. In our drive towards community policing, we must be clear that we want to value, reward and enhance the skills involved. In the past, the community officer was almost at the end of the chain; he did not play the central role that we now envisage.
Community policing is not just about police officers. We have heard a lot about the extended police family, community support officers, neighbourhood wardens, street wardens and neighbourhood watch, and latterly schools watch and hospital watch. Finally, what can people do to re-establish the norms of decent behaviour in the places where they live and work? The extended family embraces all of us. We face a step change, moving from policing by consent, which was emphasised by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), to policing by co-operation. That is a significant step. If one is policed by consent, one is a passive recipient of police services, whereas if one is policed by cooperation, one becomes an active player—a citizen with an important role in the process.
Despite the initial reluctance of the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, the introduction of community support officers has been welcomed across the country. In Lancashire, we are piloting an innovative use of those officers, a tri-service project that mirrors in some ways the one in Gloucestershire between the police and the fire and ambulance services. We are beginning to pilot community support officers as the first port of call for all the blue-light services. That is an exciting development, creating added value by co-ordinating all our services. It is not about policing on the cheap; it is about thinking creatively about the skill mix that is needed. I am disappointed by the lack of creativity and imagination of the hon. Member for

225WH
South-East Cambridgeshire when considering how we can use that skill mix to get a bigger impact from the investment in our police resources.
We have learned the lesson in the health service. By getting nurses to do things that only doctors used to do and involving therapists more, we get better value out of the trained professionals in the service. The same challenge faces the police. How do we utilise civilians who are beginning to do not only routine tasks, but important forensic investigation, which has not happened in the past and was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester? We can bring people with a range of skills into the service and we have to be creative about it.
I turn to funding, because it would be remiss of me, as a Minister, not to do so. Hon. Members have acknowledged that funding has increased in the past three years.
There has been a pretty generous police settlement, and I would be the first to acknowledge that local communities, too, have done their bit by being prepared to accept higher precepts and make a contribution from their local areas. I know that precepts have increased significantly but if we look at the absolute numbers, even in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud where there was a 50 per cent. increase, we are talking about 93p a week to pay for those extra police officers and the extra community support officers who are tremendously valued by local people.
There is also the rural policing fund in areas of sparsity and, in addition to the general police grant, specific grants for the crime fighting fund. That is not simply imposed from the centre but has been introduced with the support of all members of the tripartite organisation. There has been Airwave funding, which means that our police officers have better means of communicating with each other. That can make a difference on the ground. The basic command unit funding enables unit commanders to have more autonomy to decide where resources should be put. The building safer communities fund helps the crime and disorder reduction partnerships.
On multiplicity of funding streams, I am delighted to be able to say to my hon. Friends that, by bringing together the money for communities against drugs and for safer communities, we have been able to put into a single pot funding for the crime and reduction partnerships to make a difference in local areas. We have also put into a single pot the money for diversionary activities, the positive activities programme that has been taking place throughout the summer. What were in the past various different funding streams that people found very difficult to access are now in a single pot.
We have significantly more work to do to try to simplify the partnerships and ensure that people are in the "doings" world rather than the "meetings" world. I am hugely conscious of taking up people's time in a whole range of meetings and I want to examine where we can streamline them and make them more effective.
I am delighted to confirm that police numbers are at record levels: 132,268 police officers was the latest count, and there are also 1,600 community support officers out there on the ground and a number of neighbourhood
226WH
wardens acting locally. We are increasingly providing visible and high-profile funding locally to reassure local people that officers can be out there preventing and detecting crime, because this is not just about reassurance.
In the remaining couple of minutes I shall mention specials and home watch, about which hon. Members have expressed concern. It is right to say that many of our specials have joined the regular force, which is one reason why we have struggled to keep numbers up. I am delighted that we have now got a whole programme to support the recruitment of specials. We have invited forces to bid for co-ordinators and we have a programme to persuade employers that it is in their best interests to have the extra skills that people gain by being a member of the specials and to encourage them to provide time off and ensure that employees are not disadvantaged by becoming special constables. We are making sure that the job of being a special is more worth while and are tasking specials in the same way as police officers. There is always a temptation to get the specials to do the jobs that the mainstream force does not want to do. If specials are willing to volunteer, it is important that they are right at the heart of the action as well as doing local work. Involving them in the way in which they are tasked is very important.
I am pleased that, in Gloucestershire, the number of specials has gone up in the past six months. We are beginning to see numbers come back up through some of the recruitment campaigns that are taking place, but we have to think very carefully about the role of specials in relation to that of community support officers in the future. As we widen the police family, we cannot allow any one section of it to remain static. We must see where they fit in and how work can be done to support them.
Home watch and neighbourhood watch are very under-utilised resources. I went to a conference of neighbourhood watch co-ordinators in my area last week. We have 300 schemes in my relatively small city with several thousand local people prepared to do something to make a difference in preventing and fighting crime in their neighbourhood. That is a huge pool of people whom we can perhaps engage more realistically and substantively in future. Community engagement is a thread that will now permeate every part of our police reform programme and how we can re-establish our relationship with local communities. We need to do that in a real and practical way; we should not talk about community engagement but make it a reality for people on the ground.
I welcome the contributions to the debate made by all my hon. Friends. I can think of nothing more important than increasing the trust and value that local communities have in their police force, and the role of the wider police family in making our communities safer and healthier, and more vibrant places for people to live, work and bring up their families. We face a huge challenge, but I am certainly not pessimistic about it. A great deal of good work has already been done, and a great deal of exciting work remains to be done, in which we can all engage, for the benefit of our constituents.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Time is up. We thank the Minister for her reply to that important debate.

Rail Infrastructure (East Coast)
3.30 pm
Mr. lain Luke: As a Member who represents a constituency that is some considerable distance from this capital city, I shall continue to raise this subject in the House. The Minister may be aware that, last year, I had an Adjournment debate in this Chamber on the electrification of the north-east section of the east coast main line. After the recent visit of the all-party rail group and the Rail Freight Group on the east coast main line to York and Doncaster and enjoying a trip on the North Yorkshire Moors Railway, on a steam engine especially named "The Parliamentarian", I return to the House revitalised and ready to refocus on the important issue of the reinstatement and fast-tracking of the stalled improvements desperately needed on the east coast main line infrastructure.
Looking back on my Adjournment debate on 26 June 2002, I was disappointed by the response of the then Minister for Transport—now the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar)—to my pleas for the electrification of the most northern part of the line. I am sure that the Minister who is to reply this afternoon will be much more sympathetic to my representations.
I am greatly saddened that the much needed improvements to the infrastructure of the east coast railway, which were promised and promoted as the best way to secure faster travelling times between London, Dundee and Aberdeen have been so badly delayed. In retrospect, I accept that those improvements would be a useful and positive step in an investment programme that would make the long-term prospect of electrification much easier to achieve—if it ever makes it back on to the agenda.
My major concern in today's debate, however, is that even those hoped-for improvements to the east coast main line have been shelved. Furthermore, the prospects of improving the line north of Edinburgh have disappeared into the highland mist that we so often experience at this time of year, despite the sunny weather that we are having in London. Once again, the northeast of Scotland's rail aspiration has, as a result, been ignored and forgotten. That is to the detriment of travellers, business users and rail freight opportunities alike.
It is time for Members of Parliament who represent constituencies in the north-east of Scotland to start clamouring for a higher priority for an agenda that does not discriminate against the east coast at the cost of a vastly improved rail transport infrastructure on the west coast. Given the Strategic Rail Authority's review in January of this year, even those improvements are now at risk. The question is whether the Government's target of increasing the number of rail passengers by 50 per cent. and rail freight traffic by 80 per cent. over the duration of the 10-year plan is at risk.
I hope that the Minister will reassure us that the Government will do all they can to ensure that the SRA and Network Rail get their priorities back on track, and that improvements to the west coast line are delivered on time and on target. With the completion of the works being timetabled for 2007, the focus needs to be shifted
228WH
to the east coast, and improvements on the east coast main line need to be made as swiftly as possible. It goes without saying that without improvements to the east coast line, the economic benefits that can accrue from fast, efficient transport links to the south and Europe will be seriously diminished.
The Prime Minister highlighted the importance of the east coast main line when he was interviewed earlier this year for Great North Eastern Railway's house magazine, Live Wire. When asked how important the east coast main line was to national and regional prosperity, he replied:
"This line is vitally important both nationally and regionally. Everyday it carries 200,000 passengers, 1,900 trains and 200,000 tonnes of rail freight."

Malcolm Bruce: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is absolutely crucial fully to understand that when we discuss the east coast main line we are talking about the line from London through Dundee to Aberdeen? Unfortunately, some people think that it starts at Edinburgh. We must never allow that to be accepted.
Mr. Luke: I shall deal later with that matter, about which I have had discussions with the chief executive of GNER.
Referring to the economic relevance of the east coast main line, the Prime Minister said that he knew how important it was to people in the Sedgefield constituency to have a safe, reliable and frequent service to York, London and Edinburgh. In the context of my constituency, I entirely concur with those sentiments. Furthermore, if such connections are important for the constituents of Sedgefield, they are doubly important for my constituents and those of other Members whose constituencies are farther north and more isolated.
Since the debate last year, I have continued to get a negative response to my pleas for electrification. You will not be surprised to hear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have continued to pursue the required improvements to the rail infrastructure to ensure that the constituents of Dundee, East and Sedgefield have parity of service. In the wake of last year's debate, other hon. Members and I have had meetings with GNER. Virgin Rail and the SRA to put the case for electrification and improvements to the east coast line north of Edinburgh. The Minister who replied to that debate accepted the need for such improvements. He made it clear that the line from Edinburgh to Aberdeen was in need of some improvement and that several projects were in hand to assist with that. In subsequent discussions that I have had with the SRA, to which I shall refer, there was no evidence that those projects were in hand.
The need for improvement was also recognised by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire), when I wrote to her following last year's debate and the comments of the then Minister for Transport. In her response to my inquiries, she, like the Minister, argued that increased line speeds could be achieved without electrification of the route. I am sure we all appreciate that that would be a very expensive option, because of the nature of the line. She said that electrification would, unfortunately, not overcome the physical difficulties that the route

229WH
presents. As a consequence, her initial priority, like that of the Minister, was to improve the line and increase line speeds. As both Ministers pointed out, however, and as has been recognised by everyone who is involved in the debate, the only way to do that north of Edinburgh is to straighten the line over its entire route through Fife and to lay further track north of Dundee at Usan to ensure that travellers get the travel times that they deserve. To allow such improvements to go ahead would mean a significant shift in priorities and spending once the improvements to the west coast line are completed. Any lengthy delay there would condemn travellers on the east coast line to a second-class railway service for an even longer period.
Christopher Garnett, the chief executive of GNER, shares that worry. In March, in his response to a letter from me, he stated:
"As far as the East Coast Main line is concerned, wherever we say it ends"—
I had taken issue with him about remarks from GNER and others that indicated that it stopped in Edinburgh, whereas it goes on to Aberdeen—
"the key issue for me is to ensure that Network Rail and the SRA provide the funding to the highest level of operational and safety standards."
His great worry, voiced in that letter, was that any delay in the supposed upgrade of the east coast main line would result in ordinary maintenance renewal delays such as those that occur on the west coast main line. In truth, I believe that he worries, as I do, that the current delays in the implementation of the 10-year plan condemn us to a second class—not a standard class—east coast rail service. Indeed, instead of getting faster services and shorter travel times on the east coast, we are getting some slower services and longer travel times.
In his letter to me, Mr. Garnett goes on to conclude that we need to keep up the pressure on Network Rail and the Strategic Rail Authority to achieve the best service possible on the east coast line. It will come as no surprise to the Minister that I have had several meetings with the SRA to that end. The main objective of my dialogue with the SRA has been to extract a costing of what would be needed to upgrade the line north of Edinburgh.
In his letter of 19 May 2003, Chris Austin, the executive director for corporate affairs with the SRA pointed out that, following discussions he has had with Network Rail,
"the only scope for achieving any further significant line speed improvements on this corridor would be through a programme of route realignments and strengthening works on some of the major structures".
That has already been highlighted. The major structure to which Mr. Austin refers could be the Tay bridge, which causes something of a block on the line on the way north. He goes on to say:
"Each of these items carries a significant price tag and as a consequence no work is planned on raising line speeds by the Scottish Executive on the route at this stage."
In the letter, he goes on to give an interesting comparative exercise on the costing arrived at for the Midland Mainline railway improvements by Railtrack in 2000. That placed a price of £60 million on the
230WH
upgrade of the route between London and Sheffield—a distance of about 159 miles. Mr. Austin points out that, given that that level of investment would achieve a saving of only 10 minutes, that work could not be seen as cost effective and as a consequence Railtrack and Midland Mainline were unable to make a value-formoney case. However, the £60 million was an alternative used on the introduction of new trains that had the ability to reduce the travel time between London and Sheffield through better acceleration.
I have yet to respond to Mr. Austin on that but, although there are little geographic differences between the London-to-Sheffield line and the north-east part of the London-to-Aberdeen line, if £60 million were spent on improving the east coast main line north of Edinburgh to Aberdeen—a distance of 126 miles—the travel time would be significantly reduced. I believe that it would be halved. That is a value-for-money case if ever I heard one.
That type of improvement would lead to a dramatic increase in the number of passengers using the railways along the east coast main line from the north-east to Edinburgh and London. Cutting travelling times from Aberdeen to London to six hours or less and from Dundee to London to five hours or less would create that demand. The improvement would be a huge benefit to travellers. It would be a massive boost to the prestige of the railways in the area and would provide a tremendous vote of confidence in the Government's transport plans for the next 10 years. The improvement would also bring the Government closer to achieving their target of increasing passenger numbers by 50 per cent.
Is the improvement achievable? In the light of the celebrations today—I am sorry that the Minister is not at Waterloo—surrounding the completion of the first phase of the fast-speed link to Europe, which, for the first time on a regular service in the UK, allows trains to travel at 186 miles per hour and which has cut the travel time between London and Paris by 20 minutes, I believe that it is eminently achievable, if we use that kind of approach. If we have the confidence in our railways that the French and the Japanese have in theirs, the improvement will be achievable. Let us make the next 100 years of the railways as exciting as the first 100 years of their existence. The UK should take the initiative it gained in pioneering the railway age to recapture its lead in promoting this universally popular, environmentally friendly and accessible form of travel in the 21st century. Empty trains are rare in the UK. The need to boost rail traffic is always the Government's prime concern.
We need to set an ambitious agenda, however, if we are to regain the momentum that we have lost in the development of our railways in the past two to three decades. Certainly, in the past five years, we have lost further ground in some aspects. First, we need to review and speed up the works on the west coast main line, and given the current crisis in funding, we need new innovative ways to do that. The SRA and Network Rail will have to look at new models of finance for that project. One option open to them could be to enter into discussions with companies involved in rail maintenance that have developed new ways of laying track at lower costs. As part of the railway delegation that visited some of those companies during our time in York, I believe that underutilised potential for

231WH
completing the work on the improvement of the railway system in the UK more cheaply is waiting to be harnessed if those companies are given the opportunity to be more fully involved.
As I said, on completion of the west coast line, the emphasis has to move eastwards. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) is here today, and improvements such as upgrading Waverley station in Edinburgh have to be progressed. The delay in delivering a faster, more efficient rail service on the east coast was featured on the front page and in the editorial of Glasgow's newspaper The Herald. In those features, the SRA and its failure to deliver the much-needed £800 million worth of improvements—an upgrade to the Waverley station as a way of speeding trains up the east coast has been shelved—and the stop-gap funding to be provided by the Scottish Executive were much criticised. About £100 million was to be spent on the improvements, rather than £800 million over the next 10 years. A sub-heading in the article read:
"Cost cutting plans will not benefit suffering rail users."
The point was well made.
My colleagues from Edinburgh will continue to put the case for these draconian cuts to be reversed just as I will continue to argue for greater investment in the east coast main line north of Edinburgh in pursuit of the much improved rail service that rail users and the taxpayers in that area deserve.
The £60 million mentioned in relation to spending on Midland Mainline, or indeed a small fraction of the billion or so spent on the completion of phase one of the fast service Eurotunnel rail link, could be put to good use—some might argue better use—in my part of the east coast. The Minister in his response may say that the Scottish Executive have a major role to play in that area of transport policy. I will not deny that, but the Minister can rest assured that I and other Scottish Members will be working with colleagues in the Scottish Parliament to ensure that the points I have made today will be forcibly relayed to the Scottish Executive.
I will send the Scottish Transport Minister a copy of this debate and ask him to meet me and other Members from the north-east to discuss issues relating to the Scottish end of the east coast main line. However, saying that the Scottish Executive are involved does not excuse the United Kingdom Government from their responsibility for cross-border transport links and the overall co-ordination of national transport strategy throughout the UK.
To ensure the excellence of the rail service that we all want in the years ahead the Government and the SRA need to take action now to ensure that the targets they have set out are achieved. They need to give a commitment that UK rail travellers, whether they live in Doncaster, Darlington or Dundee, should enjoy the excellent levels of service taken for granted by so many citizens of our European Union partner states. We need a world-class rail service to transport a new generation of rail users
In conclusion, I hope that the Minister will endorse that aim and give a commitment to do all he can to achieve the goals we set as an outcome of this debate. I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for granting me the opportunity to go on about the rail infrastructure on the
232WH
east coast—a subject close to my heart. It is a theme I will return to time and again until we achieve the improvements in the rail infrastructure up and down the east coast that are needed to provide the service standards required throughout that area.
3.49 pm
Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke) on the persistence with which he has raised this issue. He referred to Edinburgh's Waverley station, which is a vital hub for the rail network in Scotland and the entirety of Great Britain. Most of us were looking forward to the major upgrade of Waverley station, which has been under discussion for a number of years. I share my hon. Friend's concern at the way in which the original proposals for a major upgrade—ambitious, but essential if rail services in Scotland and on the east coat are to develop their full potential—seem to have been reduced to the minimum. As my hon. Friend says, the signs this week—I hope that it is just press speculation—are that the proposals will be reduced to the most basic scheme possible. Moreover, those proposals would have to be funded entirely by the Scottish Executive and, notwithstanding the UK-wide importance of the Waverley upgrade, without a contribution from the Strategic Rail Authority.
I do not expect my hon. Friend the Minister to be able to respond to the issue in any detail today. However, given the concerns raised by so many hon. Members and others, I ask him to meet me, the other hon. Members who represent Edinburgh seats and members of the local authority, so that he can hear our concerns about the future of Waverley. We can then find out the time scale and the current situation for that project, which is important both to Edinburgh and the entire country.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Nicholas Winterton): Order. The Minister will reply in the time that he has got left.
3.51 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall try to respond to the points in the time that I now have available.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke), not only on securing this debate but on having secured the second debate on the subject in 18 months. He is a powerful advocate for his constituents on matters of transport, and he has spoken powerfully about today's railway system. I listened carefully to the points and issues that he has raised. I hope to be able to respond to some of those and I will write to him about any I cannot deal with today.
I would like to say a few general words about the Strategic Rail Authority that were raised by my hon. Friend. The authority is responsible for the development of the east coast main line and Network Rail has responsibility for its maintenance. Those bodies are addressing the key problems in the rail industry that were inherited from the previous Government—the years of decline, poor management and fragmentation following privatisation and a lack of strategic direction. We now have those things in place, which I am sure is good news for his constituents.

233WH
The statutory purposes of the Strategic Rail Authority are to promote the use and development of passenger and freight networks and to contribute to the development of an integrated transport system. Its primary objectives are the achievement of the key targets in the Government's 10-year plan for transport, to increase passenger and freight usage and to improve the punctuality and reliability of train services. The SRA is tasked by the Government to work within allocated resources and to secure value for money from its expenditure.
The SRA will determine national investment priorities and take forward the enhancement programme in its role as the strategic specifier, working closely with Network Rail as its delivery agent. The SRA assesses proposed improvement projects for affordability and value for money on a Great Britain-wide basis.
Britain's railway network is now under the new ownership and strengthened management of Network Rail. Network Rail is a private sector, not-for-dividend company, whose key objective is to provide a safe, efficient, reliable and affordable network rather than to generate profits for its shareholders. I think that those are some of the points that my hon. Friend made in his speech.
The creation of Network Rail was a turning point for Britain's railways, and a real opportunity to reverse the years of decline. In its first year, Network Rail has made a promising start.
Mr. Frank Doran: I have a simple point. The Victorians invested in the railways and built the line to Aberdeen. We have heard from two hon. Members about the failure to invest in the line north of Aberdeen. In the past 30 years, the North sea oil and gas industry, one of the key economic generators in the country, has been based in the north-east. Last year, that industry accounted for about 20 per cent. of investment in manufacturing industry. Throughout that 30-year period, transport links between the north-east and the rest of the UK have been appalling. Will we see any improvement in the next 30 years?
Mr. Jamieson: Had my hon. Friend been patient, he would have heard the next part of my remarks, which I hope will give him some comfort.
Track renewal has increased dramatically. Steps are being taken to improve the knowledge of the network's condition and the factors behind the escalating costs. The SRA has developed the capacity utilisation policy to ensure that the most efficient use is made of the existing network. A consultation on the subject ended last year. and we have now published the network utilisation strategy, which looks at getting better use out of the existing lines. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East would agree that that is vital.
The second route to be completed under the national framework is the east coast main line, which my hon. Friend discussed today. I understand that the baseline work on the east coast main line route strategy started in April. A set of options was drawn up in June and evaluation work began on those options this summer,
234WH
with stakeholder involvement in the form of regional reference groups, including representatives of the regional development agencies, the regional passenger councils and the passenger transport executives. This will help to develop the preliminary options to be included in the draft strategy document, which the SRA aims to produce in December.
The route strategy will provide the basis for a major review of timetables for implementation in 2005 and for implementing the SRA's new franchise replacement policy on the east coast main line. It will also produce a strategy for rolling stock replacement and a modest affordable model programme of investment based on requirements for the next 10 years. The SRA aims to have the route strategy in place in the summer.
The east coast main line is a huge route and I understand that Edinburgh was chosen as the cut-off point to make the route strategy manageable. My hon. Friend will be aware that services north of Edinburgh, and in Scotland as a whole, are the responsibility of the Scottish Executive.
The SRA has confirmed its commitment to producing a strategy for the development of the east coast network by the end of 2003. This will determine which further enhancements of the infrastructure will be required. It will also focus on making the best use of current infrastructure on one of the country's principal rail routes.
The SRA therefore intends to upgrade the east coast main line in a phased programme, and individual project elements will be subject to case-by-case approval and careful integration with Network Rail's renewal programme. It is too early to say what that will include, as further investment will depend on the completion of wider studies, especially the route utilisation strategy, but the preferred schemes will be those that produce capacity and performance benefits.
My hon. Friend also talked about the electrification of the east coast main line. I understand that that there are no plans for electrification north of Edinburgh. This issue is often raised in my area by people who say that there is no electrification on the south coast west of London. Previous assessments indicated that electrification of the line would be very expensive. There are also doubts about whether there is sufficient demand to justify the investment required.
Advances in train technology are such that the traditional distinction between electrification and non-electrification is becoming blurred. Diesel engine technology now produces fewer emissions, better acceleration times and higher top speeds, and is a serious competitor with electric trains.
My hon. Friend raised another issue about the line from Edinburgh to Aberdeen and the need for improvement. Straightening the line, not electrification, may be the main issue here. It may be more important for the through-put of passengers, but is not one of the SRA's main priorities. It would, however, be a more attractive proposition than electrification if funding could be secured. The Scottish Executive may consider funding for works that benefit internal Scottish services. They do, however, have their own list of priorities.
My hon. Friend also talked about Waverley station. At £33.5 million, this is the largest investment project being undertaken in Scotland and is due for completion

235WH
in April 2004. It includes the renewal of equipment in the main signal centre at Waverley, which controls the east coast main line.
I have not had time to cover many of the points that my hon. Friend raised. To give a proper answer to some of the other question I am prepared to enter into correspondence with him if he will find that helpful, rather than trying to deal with them now.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We thank the Minister for his reply. He got in a great deal in a short time. Before we move to the next debate, I have to advise hon. Members that I anticipate a Division in the House. We shall, of course, be granted injury time.

Road Speeds (Somerset)
4 pm
Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: If the Minister would like, I shall finish slightly early so that he can continue with east coast electrification and upgrading, but I am sure that he does not really want to do that. I sympathise with him for having to respond to two consecutive debates. That is remarkable, and probably above and beyond the call of duty.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Nicholas Winterton): Order. My worst fears are confirmed. We shall break for 10 minutes.
4 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
4.11 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate can continue.
Mr. Liddell-Grainger: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that [do not have to say that again this afternoon. I shall certainly not return to the subject of east coast railways.
I should like to begin with a quotation from "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland". Alice may never have encountered any of Somerset county council's crazy new speed restrictions, but there is no doubt that Somerset county council currently occupies a kind of administrative wonderland.
"'You are old, Father William', the young man said, 'And your hair has become very white; And yet you incessantly stand on your head—Do you think, at your age, it is right?' 'In my youth,' Father William replied to his son, 1 feared it might injure the brain; But now that I'm perfectly sure I have none, Why, I do it again and again.'"
Those words were penned by Lewis Carroll, but they might as well apply to Councillor Tim Carroll, the chairman of Somerset county council's environment and transport policy committee.
Last year, the county council came up with a new road safety policy that involved standing common sense on its head. Presumably Councillor Carroll turned cheerfully upside down. There was no danger of injuring his brain, because the brain power behind the policy can be identified only with a very powerful microscope. Somerset county council decided arbitrarily to introduce new speed limits on A and B roads. Its motives were, no doubt, unimpeachable: it wanted to make Somerset's roads safer. We would all agree with that aim. However, in doing so with no proper consultation, it created a complete speed muddle that contributes nothing to safety and has already cost the council tax payers of Somerset a small fortune in public money. Indeed, what it has done might have created a danger to road users.
For example, the council has rightly set strict new limits outside all schools. No faster than 20 mph, says Somerset, but that applies all day and all night, long after the children have gone to bed and the gates of the school are firmly locked. Everyone agrees that speed

237WH
limits outside schools make sense. Most intelligent councils—I suspect that that includes Plymouth—fix advisory limits and do not operate them 24 hours a day, but Somerset county council could not be bothered with the administrative and legal paperwork. So, outside every school there is a 20 mph limit, even in the middle of the night.
If this were not a short debate, I could list every town and village where the county council contractors have arrived at dawn with drills to erect new metal posts bearing new metal signs and new speed limits.
Mr. Adrian Flook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate. He will be well aware of events not many weeks ago on the A358, which joins our constituencies—my hon. Friend lives at one end and I at the other, in Taunton. I am told that there are more than 50 new speed signs, with varying speed limits, along a 12-mile stretch. Is he aware that those were put in not on the basis of what parish councils want but on the basis of safety figures that show that there have been 108 accidents? That sounds laudable, 'but those figures date from 1994 to 1999. It has taken the county council four years to implement them. If nothing else, it is guilty of lethargy.
Mr. Liddell-Grainger: I certainly know the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook) on the matter. The Taunton Times and the Somerset County Gazette resound to the noise made by my hon. Friend and long may that continue. He is absolutely right. The figures are out of date, ill conceived and ill thought through.
We have not heard the worst yet. Next come the county council road painters, emphasising the message with stripes on the tarmac. All that would be acceptable if the county council had sought the real views of real people in real villages before implementing the new policy, but it did not ask the district councils, nor did it consult all the parish councils. Somerset county council did what it always seems to do nowadays, which is to assume the role of the nanny, and nanny, as we all know, thinks that she knows best. The proverbial buck is meant to stop at the top. Perhaps Councillor Cathy Bakewell, leader of Somerset county council, deserves the title "Nanny-in-chief".
If the speed management policy had been properly baked, there would not be a single complaint, but it was not baked well, or even half baked; it did not even get into the oven. The result is a heavyweight harvest of completely unnecessary metalwork. Poles are sunk into verges and signs by the hundred have been bolted on, as my hon. Friend said, but it is what those signs say that makes the policy such a sick joke, because they contradict each other. If one drives on the A39 through the village of Holford, one is greeted by no fewer than seven new signs in each direction. That is 14 signs in all, to save the mathematics between us, not including the extra ones that have been painted on the road surface. In case you have not been there, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or the Minister, Holford is the size of a postage stamp. It is a very nice place with very nice people, who are just as concerned about road safety as the rest of us, but they did not ask for those signs outside the village. The
238WH
council did not send round a consultation form or even a man with a clipboard. It simply turned up, banged in the poles and screwed in the new speed signs. That is how it works.
One is entitled to approach the village at a perfectly legal 50 mph, then one brakes to obey the new 40 mph sign, brakes even harder to keep to 30, reduces suddenly to 20, goes back up to 30, then 40 and finally to 50 again, all within a few hundred yards. That is assuming that one goes any faster than 20 mph anyway. The A39 is a busy, winding and narrow road. It carries a huge number of tourists in the holiday season and slow-moving lorries at all times. It services Butlins at the rate of about 9,000 people a week. In my experience, if one averages 30 mph on the A39, one is doing very well. It may need upgrading—that is another story for the Minister—but what it does not need is a set of silly speed limits.
I invite the Minister to take a look at some of the signs. I went out with a camera to photograph some examples and I have pictures of some of them here. They made not only myself but the pictures quite red. I have pictures of some of the signs warning of cameras from one village in Holford. That is not some cheapskate exercise by Somerset county council. It has spent a small fortune planning it. Many of those new expensive signs bear the symbol dreaded by all motorists, the picture of a fixed camera—liable to flash in one's rear-view mirror and guarantee an automatic fine and several penalty points on one's licence.
We all agree that in the right place speed cameras are an excellent idea. I have talked to Avon and Somerset constabulary about the matter and it.knows what it is talking about. It uses mobile speed cameras to great effect where there is room to deploy them, but it would not contemplate fixed speed cameras on winding stretches of the A39. One officer told me:
"That would be the act of a lunatic."
The police have to enforce the speed limits. Councillor nanny Bakewell and her pals simply dream up the loony schemes. The scores of new signs warning of speed cameras ahead are, unfortunately, not a dream. Nobody in their right mind would plant a speed camera where Somerset county council declares that a speed camera should be planted. Some motorists are stupid but not that stupid. When a county council makes believe on an issue as important as road safety, it is liable to bring the whole legal process into disrepute.
Since the new signs were put up, hundreds have been deliberately defaced. I do not condone such vandalism—nobody does—but I understand why people have taken the law into their own hands. They were furious at the high-handed attitude of a local authority that did not listen, did not ask and did not take a blind bit of notice when people complained through elected Members, such as myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton.
There have been as many complaints as there are new road signs. My postbag has been groaning with letters of complaint ever since that madness started. The latest stupidity is in the village of Fiddington in my constituency. The villagers have been pleading with the county council for speed limits and nanny Bakewell has done absolutely nothing about it. Under the enlightened

239WH
leadership of Somerset county council, one gets no new speed limits where they are actually needed, and a rash of them where nobody wants them.
As constituency MPs, it is my job and that of my hon. Friend to get things sorted. I went to the county council and had a private chat with officials and they said, "Don't worry, Ian,"—no use of "Hon. Members" there—"we hear that the whole policy is under review." There were signs of relief all round as I told everybody that we were going to have a review. That usually means a rethink—an official recognition that they have got it wrong. "Whoops, silly me!" Nanny Bakewell and her Somerset county council cohorts are not as straightforward as that. They do not believe in saying sorry publicly, but they are prepared to admit their errors to one another.
A dramatic and revealing document has just come into my possession. It is an e-mail that was sent to all county council staff by the new chief executive, Mr. Alan Jones. In it, he confesses that the implementation of the new road policy has been "inconsistent and insensitive." Thank you, Mr. Jones. I could not have described the mad hatter antics of nanny Bakewell better. However, there is worse to come.
People who live in Somerset will receive a 21-question survey from Somerset county council. It will seek people's views on what sort of speed limits there should be and where they should be placed. The county council is now adding insult to injury by inviting people to give their views after the work has been carried out. I have been unable to obtain an estimate of the cost of that absurd exercise in pyramid-selling democracy, but I am absolutely sure that it does not come cheap because nothing ever does from Somerset county council and it comes on top of the high price of introducing speed limits that people did not want in the first place.
Road safety is crucial and the Government rightly leave it to local authorities to settle matters of speed, but I was disturbed to read a disquieting article in the Western Morning News on Saturday 13 September under the headline, "Hopeless rural roads are not our concern!" It included a fetching photograph of the Minister with a copy of the Western Morning News in his hands. The state of rural roads is certainly not our fault, but should be of great concern. When a local authority behaves in the way that Somerset county council has behaved, my question to the Minister is, "Please, can you not do something to stop them?"
4.27 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) on securing this debate on this important issue. There is obviously a spat between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in Somerset, but I shall not enter that debate. I do not know Councillor Bakewell, but I am sure that, although she is a Liberal Democrat, she is motivated by the best intentions. I shall also not go into the lengthy metaphors that the hon. Gentleman used.
I was also surprised to see the headline in the Western Morning News. The old story is, "Don't believe everything you read in the newspapers." People should certainly not believe everything that they read in the Western Morning News. It was certainly not what I said.
240WH
I said that I was pleased that the Western Morning News had joined the Government's campaign for better roads in the west country and I said that they were very much our concern. I said that it was the concern of the Government to get better roads, but the responsibility of local authorities to carry that out. I also said that a lot of extra money had been provided for those roads and a former Tory council leader admitted that he had underspent on roads and spent the money on other things, but he said it was all our fault anyway.
Speed and safety are at the heart of the Government's policies. About one third of the accidents in which people, many of whom are children or elderly people, are killed or injured on our roads each year are caused by people travelling at inappropriate speeds, so we should not treat the matter lightly. I was glad that the hon. Gentleman distanced himself from those who take the law into their own hands with safety cameras and signage. That is manifestly not the way in which we do things in this country and we have democratic means of dealing with such matters. Some of the thugs who go around doing that are putting people's lives at risk and I am glad that he distanced himself from those people, as I have.
I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said about Somerset's current programme of introducing speed limits on such a comprehensive scale throughout the county. However, I understand that the county council is only part of the way through implementing the initiative and that some rethinking is taking place. Slower speeds are one of many measures available to local authorities to reduce accidents and to improve the environment, particularly in rural areas. The key is that it is up to local authorities to find the right balance between the quality of life in their communities, achieving the important objective of reducing accidents and maintaining the appearance of attractive villages in rural areas. The policies have been devolved because locally elected councillors are best placed to deal with such matters.
I applaud Somerset and many other local authorities for taking the problem of traffic speeds in their communities very seriously and striving to achieve the right balance in such a difficult policy area. I receive many representations from across the country, including Somerset, from parents whose children are trying to cross roads outside schools. There is a considerable problem in both rural and urban areas of people going too fast. I am not surprised that local authorities are being pulled two ways in implementing the policy, and I cannot help but wonder whether the same people who urged the introduction of measures to slow speeds in their villages are now finding it inconvenient to slow down in others.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the Government's real commitment to address the serious issue of road safety. In 2000, we published, "Tomorrow's Roads—Safer for Everyone," in which we adopted challenging targets to reduce the number of those killed or seriously injured in road accidents by 40 per cent. by 2010, and to reduce by 50 per cent. the number of children killed or seriously injured over the same period. I am pleased to say that we are on course to meet those targets.

241WH
The hon. Gentleman will know that the Prime Minister is committed to the road safety strategy. We published a review of speed policy, in which we recognised the value of 30 mph being the norm for villages. Experience shows that lower speed limits without other measures to encourage drivers to slow down have generally only a small effect on traffic speeds, and local authorities are advised to consider what other measures are necessary to achieve the lower speeds required. It is also for local authorities to target their resources where the problems are the greatest. The resources are best targeted where speeding causes casualties and discomfort to residents.
In October 2002, the Government responded to the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee report on road traffic speed. Some evidence from that report is pertinent to the issues raised in this debate. If the measures recommended in the report were to achieve a one-third reduction in road traffic accidents, the savings to society could be as great as £100 million per week.
Speed is clearly a major factor in causing accidents. It is highly significant that, when we introduce speed management measures or improve speed enforcement on roads with a high level of casualties, casualties are substantially reduced, in some cases by 50 per cent. or more. That is why it is important to identify where speed is a problem and deal with it effectively with targeted engineering and enforcement, and driver education and training.
I am pleased to see that local authorities, the police and motorists have responded positively to those road safety targets, and there can be no doubt that there have been real improvements in safety on roads in this country, not least in the west country. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the implementation of that policy is, of course, a matter for the local transport authority. We have put in place a system of local transport plans, under which local authorities can bid for new capital funding for local transport measures. I must say that Somerset has done very well out of those measures. Cash-starved a few years ago, it is now doing very well.
We have, of course, provided a real increase in resources to local authorities to implement and to improve their local transport plans and, in particular, to pursue better road safety. In Somerset, funding for integrated transport measures, which includes measures to promote road safety, has increased from just over £0.3 million in 1998–99 to more than £5 million in 2002–03.
Local authorities are best placed to decide how to use resources in their areas, and they are also best placed to understand their local problems and how they can be solved. Local authorities can, of course, pursue a range of measures to achieve those road safety targets. The policies implemented in Somerset have, in general, reduced accidents in line with targets. To give the figures again, they reduced the number of people killed or seriously injured from an average of 376 to 332 last year, although that figure has risen to 351 this year. I also note
242WH
that the number of children killed or seriously injured has fallen from 34 to 25 over the same period. They are most likely the hon. Gentleman's constituents.
Mr. Liddell-Grainger: Much of that is to do with the M5, which goes all the way through the county. There have been an enormous number of deaths on the M5, as the Minister is fully aware, so the problem is not just to do with the county.
Mr. Jamieson: I am aware that some of those incidents happened on the M5, but the motorways tend to be among the safest roads in terms of the amount of through-put of traffic. One of the big problems is on rural roads, where local people tend to get killed and injured.
The changes that I mentioned are a real tribute not only to the safety improvements that we have made to vehicles. but to local highways authorities and the police in promoting better solutions to create safer roads.
I understand that there is another reason for Somerset's policy of introducing the new speed limits throughout the county. Put simply, I am told that that is what residents have asked authorities for. Somerset has undertaken an extensive consultation with the communities in rural areas, asking them how they would like to see the resources that are made available through the local transport plans used. I am told that the answer that was given was clear: speed of traffic through rural villages, sometimes at the national speed limit of 60 mph, was a key concern. However, to return to the point that I made originally, perhaps the problem is to do with reducing speed in the village where one lives, but finding it inconvenient when the limit has been reduced in other villages.
Mr. Liddell-Grainger: I apologise for intervening on the Minister again. The speed limits in villages are not in doubt, and we are not here to debate them. However, nobody asked for the speed limits outside villages, and the consultation has only just started.
Mr. Jamieson: Somerset's approach was clearly spelt out in its local transport plan, which was published in July 2000 and which stated:
"We will introduce a policy to apply a consistent approach to speed limits across the county, particularly in built up areas".
That commitment was based on requests from more than 250 parish councils for environmental traffic calming. Somerset has implemented that commitment with a comprehensive programme of promoting 20 mph speed limits at 280 school sites and 30 mph speed limits in about 230 villages, which is an impressive programme.
The aim of the approach, as I understand it, is to achieve a consistent speed limit throughout the county, so that road users know that, whenever they enter a built-up area, they should slow down. No doubt the number of traffic signs that the initiative has required may be a surprise to those who were unaware of what Somerset was proposing to do. Somerset will have consulted local parish councils, as is required, in promoting individual schemes, so parish councils must have expressed a view on the proposals as they were going ahead—there was a statutory duty on them to do

243WH
so. The consultation will have included details of the signs proposed to be put in place, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
The hon. Gentleman asks what the Government's policy is on such a programme. Put simply, the local transport plan system gives local authorities the powers to implement such a programme, if they so decide, in the light of their local policies and objectives. However, our advice on the production of local transport plans states:
"Traffic management in rural areas should aim to produce better and safer local road conditions for those who live, work and visit there and help protect the character of the countryside and its communities."
Plans must balance the needs of both rural communities and road users.
It is a sad fact that some drivers drive at inappropriate speeds. However, one of the biggest influences on drivers' choice of speed is not the speed limit itself but the nature and appearance of the road in question. It is therefore imperative that speed limits are set that are appropriate and enforceable.
We are always looking at the most effective ways to improve safety on rural roads and working to deliver our road safety strategy commitments on that, including
244WH
updating our guidance to local authorities on setting local speed limits and how to reduce traffic speeds in rural villages. Local authorities have the powers to introduce 20 mph speed limits, but their success relies solely on drivers reducing their speed without the constraining influence of any physical measures. We therefore feel that if there is a criticism of what Somerset is doing, it is that some the limits have been set without some of the other measures that are perhaps important in reducing the speed of vehicles.
The hon. Gentleman has raised an important matter. I hope that there can be a calm and sensible debate about it in Somerset. Road safety is important, and children are particularly vulnerable. I hope that good sense prevails. He might revisit in today's Hansard some of his comments about certain Liberal Democrat council leaders and how they have dealt with this matter. They may be able to come to some mutually agreed resolution.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Five o'clock.

HEALTH

  Acrylamide
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent guidance the Chief Medical Officer has issued to the public regarding the incidence of acrylamide in baked and fried food. [129962]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Following the discovery of acrylamide in a range of foods, the Food Standards Agency advises that people should continue to eat a balanced diet including moderating their consumption of fried and fatty foods. The Agency continues to review this advice as further information on acrylamide becomes available.

  Prostate Cancer
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his Department's strategy is for tackling prostate cancer. [129964]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Good progress has been made since we published the Prostate Cancer Programme in September 2000. £4.2 million will be spent on research in 2003–04, the Prostate Cancer Risk Management Programme has been launched, and the Prostate Cancer Advisory Group has been established to take forward policy on prostate cancer.

  Nurses
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on retention of nurses. [129965]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Government are implementing a range of measures to retain more nurses. These include increasing the health care workforce, improving pay and conditions, encouraging the NHS to become a better. more flexible and diverse employer, investing in child care and continuing professional development, tackling violence and creating safe and healthy working environments.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the recruitment and retention of nurses. [129966]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Government are implementing a range of measures to recruit more health care professionals. These include improving pay and conditions, encouraging the NHS to become a better, more flexible and diverse employer, increasing training investing in child care and continuing professional development, attracting back returners and running national and international recruitment campaigns.

  Acute Hospitals
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the overall capacity of the acute hospital sector in Worcestershire. [129967]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Significant investment has been made available nationally to accommodate the required increase in national health service capacity. Primary Care Trust revenue allocations for the three Worcestershire PCTs will rise to £426 million in 2003–04 and will reach £510 million by 2005–06, an overall total increase of 30.4 per cent., for the three years up to 2005–06.

  Prior to the completion of the Worcestershire Royal hospital there were 1,035 acute beds in Worcestershire. Since the opening of the new hospital there are 1,044 acute beds available in the county.

  Patient Environment Action Team Programme
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the patient environment action team programme. [129968]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have recently worked with a larger number of NHS colleagues to refine the PEAT process in the light of experience to date. This review confirmed that the system has been a major factor in ensuring that all hospitals meet acceptable standards or better in terms of the patient environment. The NHS is to be congratulated for the progress it has made. The PEAT programme has been extended to include Mental Health and Accident and Emergency units, demonstrating the importance we continue to attach to this, and the need for the NHS to continue to focus on high standards.

  Infection Prevention
  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department is taking to prevent patients from catching infections in health care settings. [129969]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  We already have standards to ensure there is a managed environment which minimises the risk of infection to patients, staff and visitors Hospitals' performance against these has improved over the last three years. For the first time this year these standards and an MRSA improvement score contributed to the star ratings. The Chief Medical Officer is leading a new initiative to produce a longer-term strategy to reduce health care associated infections

  Locum Consultants
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent on locum consultants in the NHS in the last year for which figures are available. [129970]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is no collected centrally.

  Hospital Building Programme
  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the hospital building programme. [129971]
  631W
  Mr. Hutton
  Since 2000, 39 hospitals have been opened, and a further 18 are being built. There are 54 hospitals in procurement through the private finance initiative process. This is the biggest hospital building programme in the history of the NHS, replacing old and outmoded buildings with facilities fit for the 21st Century.

  Atkinson Morley Hospital
  Roger Casale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the disposal of the Atkinson Morley hospital site in Wimbledon. [129972]

  Mr. Hutton
  I have received no representations. However, I am aware that St. George's Healthcare NHS Trust has recently submitted a planning application for redevelopment of the Atkinson Morley hospital site, the Firs Nursing Home and a large area of open space, following the reprovision of services at St. George's hospital, Tooting.

  The proposed development comprises 149 residential units accessed from Copse Hill and associated car parking.

  People with Communication Difficulties
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice the Department has given to(a) Government Departments and (b) others who consult with people who have communication difficulties about how that consultation should be carried out. [123393]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department of Health has not issued formal guidance.

  NHS Dentistry
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are in place to control the levels of charging for(a) repairing teeth from mottling and (b) other cosmetic dental work by NHS dentists. [129963]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  All dental treatment necessary to secure and maintain oral health is available under the national health service, including the facing of upper front teeth with porcelain veneers to correct teeth mottling. Patients liable to pay NHS dental charges will pay 80 per cent. of the NHS fee paid to the dentists for the service.

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will discuss trends in the incidence of tuberculosis with the World Health Organisation. [129961]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Colleagues in the Department and at the Health Protection Agency are regularly invited to speak at and attend World Health Organisation conferences on tuberculosis.

  We provide on a regular basis, trends of TB in this country as well as receiving information from the WHO on trends from other countries.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps he will take to increase the provision of accommodation available to women victims of domestic violence. [130038]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Government are committed to increasing the full range of accommodation options for victims of domestic violence including more refuges and better help to support victims to stay in their own homes if appropriate. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is investing £8.9 million this financial year in refuge provision and an additional £9.9 million has been allocated by the Housing Corporation. The money is being used by Registered Social Landlords, in partnership with local refuge providers and local authorities to provide 273 units of accommodation in all regions in England. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has also committed £7 million in each of the next two financial years towards similar projects which will also be administered through the Housing Corporation.

  In addition, the Supporting People programme enables local authorities to provide housing related support services for victims of domestic violence. This year £34 million has been allocated to domestic violence schemes including accommodation and non-accommodation based services.

  Domestic violence can be a significant cause of homelessness. Under the homelessness legislation, people who are vulnerable as a result of fleeing their home because of violence (including domestic violence) have a priority need for accommodation. Moreover, all local housing authorities in England are now required to have a strategy for preventing homelessness in the district and ensuring that accommodation and any necessary support are available for people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. All authorities were required to have a homelessness strategy in place by 30 July 2003. The Homelessness Directorate is providing £260 million between 2003–04 and 2005–06 in support of local housing authorities' efforts to tackle homelessness. A number of authorities are using funding to improve the support available to victims of domestic violence in order to prevent homelessness among this client group.

  Home Loss Payments
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much was previously allocated in 2002–03 to home loss payments in compulsory purchase; how much this has been increased as a result of the Government announcement in July; and whether similar changes have been made to farm loss payments. [130199]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not have a central fund allocated for these purposes. Acquiring authorities are liable for the costs incurred arising from compulsory purchase and would be expected to fund this through their respective budgets.

  Housing
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he(a) records and (b) acts upon housing affordability data. [129155]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister records a wide variety of data on housing, including affordability issues, which provide an essential underpinning to policy development. Through the Housing Corporation the Government finances housing for those who are unable to purchase their own home. More generally, as part of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's drive to create sustainable communities, we are working to improve the supply of housing in those regions where high demand is causing prices to rise beyond the reach of those on modest incomes. Regional Housing Strategies, produced for the first time this year, which will be considered, are important in highlighting problems of affordability at regional and sub-regional level. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will be taking account of these, in my decisions on the allocation of housing resources, later this year.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to permit local authorities to limit annual increases in council tax for pensioners to the rate of inflation; and if he will make a statement. [130646]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Subject to parliamentary approval, the Local Government Bill will allow local billing authorities to introduce locally defined council tax discounts from 2004–05. This power could be used by local billing authorities to create a discount which would have the effect of limiting council tax increases for pensioners.

  Playing Fields
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what the latest estimate is of the total gross receipts for each year since 1997, from land sold under general consent orders; and what percentage of those receipts relate to the sale of playing fields; [130362]

  (2) if he will list each of the playing fields, broken down by local authority, which have been disposed of under general consent orders.[130363]

  Keith Hill
  The Information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Local authorities are given powers under the Local Government Act 1972 to dispose of land in any manner they wish. The disposal must be for the best consideration reasonably obtainable, unless the Secretary of State consents to the disposal. General consents have been issued so that local authorities can, in certain circumstances, dispose of land for less than the market value without having to apply to the Secretary of State for specific consent. However, the Local Government Act 1972 requires local authorities proposing to dispose of open space that is used for public recreation to advertise their intentions in a local newspaper and consider any objections received.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what his official engagements were for Sunday 9 March. [130010]

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his oral Answer of 10 September 2003,Official Report, column 322, on Iraq, on which occasions the Chief of the Defence staff before the outbreak of war expressed concerns about the legality of what the armed forces were being asked to do; and if he will make a statement. [130704]

  The Prime Minister
  It is part of the Chief of the Defence Staff's duty of care over members of Her Majesty's armed forces that he satisfies himself with the legality of any operation to which they may be committed. As I said to my hon. Friend at Prime Minister's Questions on 10 September 2003,Official Report, column 322, the Chiefs of Staff on no occasion expressed to me any unease. Lord Boyce was entirely content with the legal basis for the recent conflict in Iraq. This was set out by my right hon. and noble Friend the Attorney-General on 17 March 2003, Official Report, House of Lords, columns 2–3WA.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Departmental Computer Security
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much has been(a) budgeted and (b) spent by her Department since April 2002 on (i) combating computer fraud, (ii) preventing theft of computers and (iii) safeguarding the security of information held on computer; and if she will make a statement. [128784]

  Alun Michael
  The Department manages the security of its information, including information held on its computers systems, in accordance with the guidance given in the Manual of Protective Security, a comprehensive body of policy and interdepartmentally agreed security standards issued by the Cabinet Office. From this guidance, we employ a range of measures to protect physical, computer and information assets. These measures are reviewed according to specific project requirements and as circumstances and technology changes require. All aspects of security (physical, personnel, procedural, information and IT) are inextricably linked and it is therefore not possible to provide a budget breakdown for IT related aspects only.

  LANTRA
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the role of LANTRA, with specific reference to how it is encouraging employment opportunities for(a) environmental organisations and (b) the land-based sector. [130589]
  635W
  Alun Michael
  LANTRA's role as the Sector Skills Council for environmental and land-based industries is to support employers and employees in the sector to identify, acquire and use the skills needed to raise productivity and to deliver sustainable development. Sector Skills Councils have a key role in delivering the Government's Skills Strategy set out in the White Paper "21st Century Skills: Realising our Potential" (Cm 5810). LANTRA'S strategic and business plans set out in detail how the organisation will deliver these objectives for the environmental and land-based sector.

  Rural Development Fund
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the application procedures for rural development funds. [129637]

  Alun Michael
  Rural development funds are made available through grant schemes under the England Rural Development Programme, which was launched in October 2000. Application procedures have been kept under continual review, and changes made to benefit applicants and improve administrative efficiency.

  Significant further improvements are also in development. In the short term, a fast-track appraisal process was piloted recently for applications seeking less than £15,000 under the Rural Enterprise Scheme. The indications are that such an approach can substantially reduce the time taken to confirm the decision over an award of grant and we hope to introduce new arrangements generally, over the coming months. For the longer term, we are engaged in a major programme to improve ERDP delivery radically, and support the delivery of new agri-environment schemes. These benefits, facilitated in part by a completely new IT system, will begin to come on stream in early 2005.

  Rural Payments Agency
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment she has made of the performance of the Rural Payments Agency; and if she will make a statement. [129790]

  Alun Michael
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agreed to the creation of the Rural Payments Agency on 16 October 2001.

  The Rural Payments Agency's second Annual Report and Accounts, which records performance against the Agency's key performance targets, as set by the Secretary of State, will be laid before Parliament shortly.

  An Ownership Board chaired by the Permanent Secretary of the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs meets quarterly to monitor the performance of the Agency, on behalf of the Secretary of State. In addition, I receive weekly progress reports, as the Rural Payments Agency is part of my ministerial portfolio. I also monitor the response to issues raised by MPs and discuss relevant issues with the Agency.

  Vocational Training
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions 636W
  she has had with representatives of further and higher education on the potential for delivering vocational training in rural areas. [130542]

  Alun Michael
  I frequently meet people engaged in providing all forms of learning in rural areas in the course of visits and meetings around the country. The Department's Learning Skills and Knowledge Review is looking specifically at the need for vocational training in rural areas and how that need can be met. Representatives of further and higher education are on the steering group for the review.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what powers water companies have to stop(a) companies and (b) residential properties discharging pollutants into waterways. [129822]

  Mr. Morley
  Water companies do not have any powers to stop companies or residential properties discharging pollutants into waterways. Their responsibility, under the Water Industry Act 1991, is to regulate trade effluent discharges made to public sewers.

  Responsibility for controlling discharges to waterways belongs to the Environment Agency (the Agency). Under section 85 of the Water Resources Act 1991 (as amended by the Environment Act 1991) it is an offence to cause or knowingly permit polluting matter to enter "controlled waters", that is rivers, estuaries, coastal or groundwaters without permission. This is obtained as a discharge consent granted by the Agency. The Agency sets consent conditions which control volumes and concentrations of particular substances or imposes broader controls on the nature of the effluent. Each consent is based on an objective set by the Agency for the quality of the stretch of water to which the discharge is made as well as taking into account any relevant statutory requirements.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

  Microsoft (Licensing Fees)
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Leader of the House how much was paid to Microsoft in licensing fees by the Office of the Leader of the House in each of the last three years; and how much has been budgeted for(a) 2003–04 and (b) 2004–05. [130674]

  Mr. Hain
  In the last three years the Office of the Leader of the House paid no licensing fees directly to Microsoft and has made no separate provision for 2003–4 or 2004–5.

  The IT service for my Office is provided by the Cabinet Office and charged on a per PC basis. Any costs for licence fees are included in the overall IT charges.

  Sitting Hours
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Leader of the House what representations he has received in favour of reverting to the sitting hours of the House of Commons of 2002. [130374]
  637W
  Mr. Hain
  A number of Members have raised with me their view on the sitting hours—both for and against the change—by raising it in the Chamber, at Business Questions and Oral Questions to the Leader of the House, by letter and in private discussion. I have had no representations from outside Parliament in favour of the House reverting to its former hours. The House has agreed the change for the remainder of this Parliament and will then need to review the matter.

  Written Questions
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Leader of the House what plans he has to propose measures to allow hon. Members to challenge a refusal by a Minister to provide information requested by means of a written parliamentary question. [129257]

  Mr. Hain
  Ministers answer questions in accordance with the requirements set out in the Ministerial Code, the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information and guidance on disproportionate cost. As the Ministerial Code makes clear, it is for individual Ministers to account for their decisions and actions. If a Member of Parliament is unhappy with the answer received to a parliamentary question, he or she should raise the matter with the relevant Minister. There are no plans to propose changes to current practice.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Parliamentary Works
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission what the expected cost is of clearing construction equipment and materials from the precincts of the House prior to the two-week sitting in September and reinstating it at the start of the Conference Adjournment. [130289]

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  Officials are collating the costs associated with clearing and reinstating construction equipment and materials before and after the September sitting and I will arrange for the hon. Member to receive the figures when they become available.

SCOTLAND

  Prohibition Orders
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he plans to amend the powers of the Secretary of State for Scotland to issue prohibition orders in relation to reserved matters; and who will have jurisdiction in determining matters of vires in connection with reserved matters. [126746]

  Mrs. McGuire
  There are no plans to amend the powers of the Secretary of State under section 35 of the Scotland Act. This gives the Secretary of State the power to make an order prohibiting the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament from submitting a Bill for Royal Assent in certain circumstances.
  638W
  In terms of section 33 of the Scotland Act the Advocate General, the Lord Advocate or the Attorney General may refer the question of whether a Bill or any provision of a Bill would be within the legislative competence of the Parliament to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for adjudication. The Government published a consultation paper in July, Constitutional Reform: A Supreme Court for the United Kingdom, which seeks views on the proposition that the new Supreme Court should have jurisdiction over devolution cases presently heard by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

  Aircraft Carriers
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what role his Department has played in facilitating contact between BAe systems and the Scottish Executive to discuss training requirements for the carrier project. [127848]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Scottish Executive has well established contact with BAe Systems and other shipbuilding interests in Scotland in relation to the Future Aircraft Carriers (CVF) programme.

  The Clyde Shipyards Task Force recognised the need to ensure that Scottish shipyards have the necessary skills and infrastructure in place to secure a major role in the CVF programme. Further work to address the training requirements of the shipbuilding industry in Scotland is being taken forward by Scottish Enterprise.

  Edinburgh Waverley Station
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he plans to meet(a) Network Rail and (b) the Strategic Rail Authority to discuss the proposed investment at Edinburgh Waverley station. [127868]

  Mr. Darling
  I meet senior representatives of Network Rail and the Strategic Rail Authority on a regular basis to discuss a wide range of railway matters, and will continue to do so.

  Air Tranpsort
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what his policy is on Scotland increasing its international hub status for air transport. [128024]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Government will publish an air transport White Paper later this year which will cover a range of key issues, including the development of air traffic at Scottish airports.

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many are employed in the manufacturing industry in Scotland; how many were employed in 1997; and if he will make a statement on the proposals for the manufacturing industry in Scotland. [128016]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The manufacturing sector continues to be very important to the economy of Scotland. Figures from the Office for National Statistics indicate that employment in the manufacturing industry in Scotland was 387,000 at the end of the Spring Quarter of 1997, and 301,000 at the end of the Spring Quarter of 2003.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Apprenticeships and Training
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Education and Skills regarding the level of apprenticeships and work-related training offered to school leavers. [128205]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry works closely with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, meeting regularly to discuss areas of joint interest.

  The recent publication of the Government's national Skills Strategy demonstrates the joint commitment to reforming qualifications and training programmes to meet the needs of employers and to provide clear routes to employability for the learner.

  The joint remit being taken forward by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority with other partners will ensure that learning programmes will enable all young people to develop the skills that employers seek, with programmes of vocational education and training from age 14, and Modern Apprenticeships as the primary vocational option for young people. The Government's target is that by 2004, 28 per cent. of young people will start a Modern Apprenticeship by age 22. The expansion of Foundation Degrees will enable the progression into higher education from vocational programmes. Young people not yet ready to enter a Modern Apprenticeship will be able to join Entry to Employment, to benefit from help in developing basic skills as a means of entering a Modern Apprenticeship or employment.

  Asbestos
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many UKAS asbestos surveyors are registered in the UK. [129934]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Department for Work and Pensions is responsible for the Health and Safety Executive, which holds the data.

  British Energy
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she intends to take in the event that British Energy is unable to reach agreement with its creditors by 30 September.[129939]

  Mr. Timms
  British Energy continues to work on implementing its restructuring plan and the announcement on 11 September of its sale of Amergen was a further step in that process. But, British Energy 640W
  still needs to work hard to implement the plan in full, and, as we have made clear since last year, the Government is prepared for administration should it fail.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what changes in the time deadlines originally set for British Energy to sell off its North American assets in the restructuring plan have been made since the plan was announced; and what the reasons are for those changes. [130306]

  Mr. Timms
  With regard to British Energy's 50 per cent. interest in its US joint venture, Amergen, I refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, on 3 June 2003,Official Report, column 3WS British Energy announced on 11 September that it had agreed the sale of its interest in Amergen.

  British energy completed the sale of its interest in Brace Power within the deadline set out in its restructuring plan.

  BSkyB
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will instruct the Office of Fair Trading to reopen its investigation into BSkyB's pricing structure for licensed premises; and if she will make a statement. [129036]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  For the Office of Fair Trading to launch an investigation into this matter they must have reasonable grounds to suspect that there has been an infringement of the Competition Act 1998. This is entirely a matter for the Office of Fair Trading to determine.

  Building Standards
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures are in place to assist people who are victims of poor standards of work by builders; if she will take steps to set up a national list of reputable builders and plumbers; and if she will make a statement. [129152]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The best protection against cowboy builders is not to give work to casual workers that house holders meet in pubs, but rather to use someone reputable and qualified to carry out the work. The Quality Mark scheme has been established in England to achieve quality, and in Scotland the Construction Licensing executive has developed a new registration scheme.

  Company Records
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will allow Companies House to amend publicly available company records if a company is subject to a police investigation. [130243]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Companies Act and not the Secretary of State governs the maintenance of the register of companies. The Companies Act does not allow the registrar to amend publicly available company records if a company is subject to a police investigation.
  641W
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will require Companies House to amend its website and correspondence material with a disclaimer stating that the reliability of company records cannot be guaranteed. [130244]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Companies House has had a disclaimer on its website for a number of years. However, I can confirm that the website has recently been amended to state that information is accepted by Companies House in good faith, and that the fact that it has been placed on the public record should not be taken to indicate that Companies House has validated it in any way. Companies House issues such a wide range and high volume of correspondence material, that it would not be appropriate to annotate it in this way.

  Competition Act
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the occasions when she has used her powers under Chapter 1 of the Competition Act 1998 to amend Schedule 3 to that Act; what her reasons for doing so were in each case; and if she will make a statement. [130654]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The powers under Chapter 1 of the Competition Act 1998 to amend Schedule 3 to that Act have not been exercised.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the occasions when she has provided an exemption to Chapter 1 of the Competition Act 1998; what her reasons for doing so were in each case; and if she will make a statement. [130655]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry provided for an exemption to Chapter I of the Competition Act 1998 for public transport ticketing schemes, under the Competition Act (Public Transport Ticketing Schemes Block Exemption) Order 2001, SI 2001/319, which came into force on 1 March 2001.

  The Order was made on the recommendation of the Director General of Fair Trading, that the category of agreements concerned were likely to meet the criteria for exemption under section 9 of the Competition Act 1998.

  Competition Commission/Competition Appeal Tribunal
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when each of the present members of(a) the Competition Commission and (b) the Competition Appeal Tribunal were appointed; and what procedure was used. [130651]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The information requested is as follows.
  642W

  (a) Competition Commission

  Name

  Date of first appointment

  Morris, Sir D

  1 October 1991

  Freeman, Mr P

  6 May 2003

  Geroski, Prof PA

  2 March 1998

  Kingsmill, Mrs. D

  14 April 1997

  Trelford, Prof D.G.

  11 February 1999

  Ahmed, Mr. S

  4 March 1999

  Gibson, Mr. W

  4 March 1999

  Holbrook, Mr. G.L.

  4 March 1999

  Christmas, Ms L.I.

  11 February 1999

  Hopkirk, Mrs. M.J.

  4 March 1999

  Pollard, Ms E.

  4 March 1999

  Wilson, Mr. C.M.

  11 February 1999

  Klemperer, Prof P.

  10 September 2001

  Hamlin, Prof A.

  10 September 2001

  Moizer, Prof P.

  10 September 2001

  Elks. Mr. L.

  10 September 2001

  Haskel, Prof J.

  10 September 2001

  Wilks. Prof S.

  10 September 2001

  Goodall, Mr. C.

  10 September 2001

  Stoddart, Mr. P.

  10 September 2001

  Walzer, Mr. S.

  10 September 2001

  Holroyd, Mr. R.

  10 September 2001

  Clarke, Mr. C.

  10 September 2001

  Collings, Dr. J.

  10 September 2001

  Gregory, Prof A.

  10 September 2001

  Prof John Baillie

  9 January 2002

  Peter Hazell

  9 January 2002

  Turgoose, Mr. R.

  1 February 2002

  Lyons, Prof B.

  1 July 2002

  Rawlinson, Mr. R.A.

  5 January 1998

  Henderson, Mr. C.E.

  5 January 1998

  Darke, Mr. C.

  2 February 1998

  Garthwaite, Mr. N1

  27 March 2000

  Hadley, Mr. G.H.1

  27 March 2000

  Parker, Prof D.1

  27 March 2000

  Webster, Mr. M.1

  27 March 2000

  Seddon, Mr. E.J.1

  27 March 2000

  Young, Mr. A.M.1

  27 March 2000

  Graham, Prof C.1

  27 March 2000

  Smallwood, Mr. C.

  10 September 2001

  Brown, Mrs. S.E.

  1 February 1998

  Monck, Dr. E.1

  27 March 2000

  Mills, Dame B.

  10 September 2001

  Coyle, Ms D.

  10 September 2001

  Waddams, Prof C.

  1 November 2001

  Guy, Ms D.

  1 December 2001

  Rickford, Mr. J.

  9 December 1997

  Stark, Mr. J.D.

  2 March 1998

  Shovelton, Mrs. H.

  11 December 1997

  Garthwaite, Mr. N.

  1 June 1998

  Hadley, Mr. G.H.

  1 June 1998

  Macdonald, Mr. N.

  1 June 1998

  Parker, Prof D.

  1 June 1998

  Young, Mr. A.M.

  1 July 1998

  Hadfield, Mr. A.

  1 July 1998

  Seddon, Mr. E.J.

  1 July 1998

  Graham, Prof C.

  31 March 1999

  Monck, Dr. E.

  31 March 1999

  Foster, Mr. T.

  1 September 2003

  1 Specialist panel members also appointed to the reporting panel following a limited competition in 2000.

  (b) Competition Appeal Tribunal

  Name

  Date of first appointment

  Bellamy, Sir C.

  16 December 1999

  Prosser, Mr. R.

  1 March 2000

  Colgate, Mr. B.

  1 March 2000

  Summers, Mr. D.L.

  1 March 2000

  Pryor, Dr. A.J.

  1 March 2000

  Clayton, Mr. P.

  1 September 2000

  Bain, Prof A.

  1 September 2000

  643W

  (b) Competition Appeal Tribunal

  Name

  Date of first appointment

  Picketing, Prof J.

  1 September 2000

  Stoneman, Prof P.

  1 September 2000

  Blair, Mr. M.

  1 September 2000

  Lewis, Mr. A.

  1 September 2000

  Zellick, Prof G.

  1 September 2000

  Hewitt, Mrs. S.F.

  1 March 2000

  Kelly, Ms A.M.

  1 March 2000

  Smith-Hillman, Mrs.

  1 September 2000

  Quigley, Ms P.

  1 September 2000

  Davey, Mr. M.

  1 September 2000

  Grant-Hutchison, Mr. P.

  1 March 2000

  Scott, Mr. A.

  1 March 2000

  Mather, Mr. G.

  1 September 2000

  Grinyer, Prof P.

  1 September 2000

  Rubin, Ms J.

  15 September 2003

  These appointments were made, under the Competition Act 1998, to the Competition Commission Appeal Tribunals, the forerunner of the Competition Appeal Tribunal created by the Enterprise Act 2000. The members were transferred to the new body on 1 April 2003.

  Except as indicated, all appointments to the Competition Commission and the Competition Appeal Tribunal were made by open advertised competition following and, since 1996, in accordance with the guidelines of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the duties and responsibilities of(a) the Competition Commission and (b) the Competition Appeal Tribunal are; and if she will make a statement. [130652]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The information requested is as follows.

  (a) Competition Commission

  The Competition Commission is responsible for conducting investigations, after referral by the Office of Fair Trading, the Secretary of State or various regulators into markets, mergers licence modifications and other matters involving competition issues under the following legislation:

  Enterprise Act 2002

  Fair Trading Act 1973

  Water Industry Act 1991

  Broadcasting Act 1990

  Telecommunications Act 1984

  Gas Act 1986

  Gas (N. Ireland) Order 1996

  Electricity Act 1989

  Electricity (N. Ireland) Order 1992

  Airports Act 1986

  Airports (N. Ireland) Order 1994

  Railways Act 1993

  Postal Services Act 2000

  Transport Act 2000

  Financial Services and Markets Act 2000

  644W
  (b) Competition Appeal Tribunal

  The responsibilities of the CAT are:
  to hear appeals in respect of decisions made under the Competition Act 1998 by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) and the regulators in the telecommunications, electricity, gas, water, railways and air traffic services sectors;
  to hear actions for damages and other monetary claims under the Competition Act 1998;
  to review decisions made by the Secretary of State, OFT and the Competition Commission in respect of merger and market references or possible reference under the Enterprise Act 2002;
  to hear appeals in respect of decisions made by the Office of Fair Trading under the EC Competition Law (Articles 84 and 85) Enforcement Regulations 2001 (as amended) in respect of air transport services and international maritime tramp vessel services.

  Consumer Credit
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if she will take steps to simplify the formula for calculating APRs on credit cards once the industry adopts an honesty box or summary table of its fees and charges on promotional material; [129871]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the benefits of reforming APRs on credit cards so that additional charges are not included in the APR formula. [129872]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  I intend to publish a White Paper in the autumn, which will set out the Government's intentions for the reform of the consumer credit regime.

  This will be followed by a detailed consultation on a unified method for calculating APRs on credit cards and the information that industry will have to include in promotional material and credit agreements.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions her Department has had with the European Union on section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. [129881]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Department is working hard in the negotiations, within the European Union, on a revised Consumer Credit Directive to ensure that we maintain the joint and several liability protections that currently govern credit card use in the UK. I am not prepared to see this important and valuable piece of consumer protection removed.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 17 July,Official Report, column 507W, on the Consumer Credit Act, when she expects to publish the results of the consultations. [128751]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Government will publish a white paper on consumer credit during the autumn. This will include our proposals on the reform of the licensing regime. Shortly after the publication of the white paper we will also publish a summary of the responses to the recent consultation.

  Electricity Generation
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much electricity in the UK has been generated through(a) coal, (b) gas, (c) nuclear power, (d) renewable and (e) other sources in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [129942]

  Mr. Timms
  The available data are shown in the following table.

  TWh

  Coal

  Gas

  Nuclear power

  Renewable1

  other sources2

  Total

  1998

  123.0

  117.8

  99.5

  9.2

  13.2

  362.7

  1999

  106.2

  142.9

  95.1

  10.2

  13.8

  368.2

  2000

  120.0

  148.1

  85.1

  10.4

  13.6

  377.1

  2001

  131.5

  142.0

  89.9

  10.1

  11.3

  384.7

  2002

  124.4

  152.1

  88.0

  11.3

  11.2

  387.1

  1 Includes electricity generated from biofuels, hydro-natural flow, wind, wave and solar photovoltaics.

  2 Includes oil, coke oven gas, blast furnace gas, waste products from chemical processes and hydro-pumped storage.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much(a) coal and (b) gas has been used for the generation of electricity in the UK in each of the last five years for which figures are available; how much of these totals has been imported; and if she will make a statement. [129943]

  Mr. Timms
  The available information is shown in the following table:

  Selected fuels used for electricity generation in the UK

  Coal (million tonnes)

  Gas TWh

  Imported coal1 (million tonnes)

  1998

  48.6

  267.8

  9.7

  1999

  41.2

  315.5

  8.1

  2000

  46.2

  324.6

  14.1

  2001

  50.9

  309.8

  23.2

  2002

  47.7

  326.3

  19.4

  1 These figures show the level of coal imports by electricity generators.

  Sources:

  Digest of UK Energy Statistics and major power producers.

  Although the Department collects information on gas supplied to power stations from dedicated pipelines from indigenous production there is no central record for distinguishing how much of the gas that they take from the National Transmission System has been imported as the origin of gas cannot be distinguished once it has entered the NTS.

  Export Credit Guarantees Department
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 25 June 2003,Official Report, column 798W, on the Export Credit Guarantees Department, if she will list, for each country, the amounts (a) which relate to military and defence products, contracts or services and (b) which do not. [125930]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The amounts are detailed by country and split between defence and non-defence in the table, which has been placed in the Library, by reference to ECGD's exposure as at 30 June 2003. Given the way ECGD's records are held it is not possible to 646W
  split claims outstanding for recovery in respect of Account 1 (pre-1992 business) between defence and non-defence nor amounts in respect of moratorium interest accrued on claims paid.

  Fossil Fuel Reserves
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the remaining reserves of domestic supplies of(a) gas, (b) oil and (c) coal. [129944]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department of Trade and Industry publishes annually estimates of oil and gas reserves on the UK Continental Shelf. The latest estimates are that, as at the end of 2002, remaining proven and probable discovered recoverable reserves amounted to 920 million tonnes of oil and 1,000 billion cubic metres of gas. A further 425 million tonnes of oil and 330 billion cubic metres of gas are classified as possible reserves in discovered fields. There are a further 90 to 490 million tonnes of oil and 70 to 265 billion cubic metres of gas in potential additional reserves in smaller undeveloped fields. Furthermore, it is also estimated that additional reserves of between 270 and 1,770 million tonnes of oil and between 235 and 1,390 billion cubic metres of gas could exist in fields that had not been yet discovered.

  A study carried out by IMC Group Consulting Ltd. for DTI which was published in December 2002 assessed UK coal reserves in the 15 deep mines operating at that time at around 150 million tonnes, with further known mineral potential of around 260 million tonnes, mainly in 7 mine licence areas. The UK opencast reserve is estimated to be around 230 million tonnes.

  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals the United Kingdom is putting to the 47th General Conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency, 15–19 September; how the United Kingdom will be represented at the General Conference; and if she will place in the Library copies of documentation presented to the conference that is relevant to the United Kingdom. [130370]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The UK will, as usual, be represented at the Agency's General Conference by a team of officials from different Government Departments, led by the UK's Governor to the IAEA. Throughout the week the UK will be negotiating and working with other member states on a wide range of issues relevant to the Agency's activities: these include nuclear safety and security, nuclear verification safeguards, promotion of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and technology. Copies of the UK's statement to the Plenary and resolutions which have been agreed at the Conference will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Large Combustion Plants Directive
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the expected impact on the UK coal industry of the Large Combustion Plants Directive. [129945]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government are currently consulting on options before taking the decision on how to implement the Large Combustion Plants Directive
  647W
  for plants first licensed before July 1987. Officials have discussed the potential impact of the alternative implementation routes with representatives of the UK coal industry, who are also expected to respond formally to the consultation paper. Consultation closes on 29 September. The Government will take a decision on the most appropriate implementation approach only after considering all of the responses received by this data.

  Mineworkers' Compensation
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on discussions with the surface mineworker claimants solicitors group with regard to the incorporation of surface mineworkers within the framework of the Claims Handling Agreement for respiratory compensation. [129196]

  Mr. Timms
  I met with members of the co-ordinating group of solicitors at the Coal Health Ministerial Monitoring Group on Wednesday 10 September, I agreed to give them access to British Coal's dust record archives to assist them in identifying specific cases. This exercise will help the parties to determine how best to resolve outstanding cases.

  National Federation of Retail Newsagents
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask t he Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions she has had with the National Federation of Retail Newsagents. [129506]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has not had any recent discussions with the National Federation of Retail Newsagents.

  The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) is currently reviewing Code of Practice on newspaper distribution. OFT published a statement of provisional recommendations on 12 December 2002, for public consultation. OFT is now analysing the responses to its public consultation and will make its final report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry shortly.

  Store Cards
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what discussions she has had with the Office of Fair Trading regarding high rates of interest levied on store cards; [128144]

  what action she is taking to protect consumers from high rates of interest levied on store card; [128145]

  £

  Date

  Destination

  Event

  Transport

  Price

  3 April 2003

  Bristol

  British Empire and Commonwealth Museum and speech at The Building Legible Cities Conference

  Train

  101.4

  4 June 2003

  Liverpool

  Liverpool city council for Capital of Culture

  Train

  256

  9 June 2003

  Aldeburgh

  Aldeburgh Festival

  Train

  67

  24 June 2003

  Eastbourne

  Speech to The Royal College of Physicians

  Train

  51.4

  25 June 2003

  Newcastle

  IPPR Seminar

  Train

  238

  1 July 2003

  Birmingham

  Visit to Lichfield Garrick

  Train

  160

  648W
  (3) what action she is taking to ensure that retail customers are aware of the terms and conditions before signing up for a store card. [128146]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Department has had no specific discussions regarding the interest rates levied on, or the terms and conditions associated with, store cards.

  My hon. Friend is no doubt aware however, that the DTI is reaching the conclusion of its review of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Government proposals in this area will be set out in a White Paper planned for publication in the autumn. This will address issues such as the transparency of credit products including how they are sold to consumers, advertising and the form and content of credit agreements.

  Through discussions and focus groups, we have been particularly careful to involve key stakeholders from consumer groups, business and enforcement agencies at all stages of the review.

  In terms of consumer protection, the objective is to increase transparency and understanding throughout the UK credit market, empowering consumers to make informed financial decisions.

  My hon. Friend may also be aware that the Department of Trade and Industry recently appeared to give evidence at a Treasury Committee inquiry into the transparency of credit charges.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Ministerial Visits
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list(a) foreign and (b) UK visits she has made since 1 April; what the cost was to public funds of each trip; who she met; and what gifts were received. [126884]

  Tessa Jowell
  The Government publish 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 right hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 14 March, Official Report, column 482W.

  I have taken the following UK trips since 1 April 2003.

  Royal Parks
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) how much peat the Royal Parks purchased in the last two years; and where it was used; [129239]

  (2) how many animals and birds were culled in the Royal Parks, broken down by (a) species and (b) culling methods used in the most recent year for which figures are available; [129263]

  (3) what (a) pesticides and (b) herbicides the Royal Parks purchased in the last two years. broken down by (i) type and (ii) quantity. [129264]

  Mr. Caborn
  Responsibility for the subject of this question has been delegated to the Royal Parks Agency and I have asked its Chief Executive, William Weston, to reply.

  Letter from William Weston to Norman Baker, dated 16 September 2003:

  I have been asked by the Secretary of State to reply to your Parliamentary Questions about the pesticides we purchase, the number of animals we cull and our use of peat, because these are operational matters which have been delegated to me.

  We do not use peat in our horticultural and grounds maintenance work, but most bedding plants we purchase are supplied to us in peat. We have been looking into alternatives to peat for bedding plants and will be running a trial next year in which all the plants purchased in one park will be grown in an alternative medium. We will assess the result in terms of quality and cost of the plants involved.

  The only cull we carried out last year was the annual deer cull, when 179 deer were shot.

  We do not purchase herbicides or pesticides. The horticultural and grounds maintenance functions in the parks are carried out by contractors. Park managers specify what tasks require doing and how they are to be done. Where pesticides and herbicides are required, park managers approve which ones should be used and the information is not, therefore, held centrally. We could only find out which types have been used by asking contractors to obtain the information from each job order they have had from park managers for the past two years. Even that would say what type had been approved but not what quantities had been used.

  Royal Parks Constabulary
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress has been made in the implementation of the recommendations of the Speed review of the Royal Parks Police; and if she will make a statement. [129784]

  Mr. Caborn
  All 23 main recommendations of the Speed inspection of the Royal Parks Constabulary (RPC) have been implemented, apart from those relating to the merger with the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

  Agreement in principle on the merger was reached in July with the MPS and the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) to merge the RPC with the MPS to create a separate Royal Parks Operational Command Unit (OCU) within the MPS.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many officers were employed in the Royal Parks Constabulary in each of the last five years. [129785]

  Mr. Caborn
  The information is as follows.
  650W

  As at 31 March

  Officers

  1999

  158

  2000

  154

  2001

  155

  2002

  148

  2003

  146

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent assessment she has made of the morale of the Royal Parks Constabulary. [129786]

  Mr. Caborn
  A change of this magnitude is bound to cause concern among staff. This is an unusual situation and it takes time to find out exactly what is involved and how it can be achieved. During this period there is not much concrete information we can tell staff and I understand how the lack of information can lead to uncertainty which is bound to affect morale. I can only assure RPC officers that Ministers from this Department and the Home Office are working to resolve outstanding issues so that the details can be made available to them and this unfortunate period of uncertainty brought to an end.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what her policy is on security of tenure of their homes for Officers of the Royal Parks Constabulary, in the event of a merger with the Metropolitan Police. [129787]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Royal Parks will do what it can to ensure that Royal Parks Constabulary (RPC) officers currently living in Royal Parks accommodation will not be disadvantaged by the merger with the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she expects the merger of the Metropolitan Police with the Royal Parks Constabulary to take place. [129788]

  Mr. Caborn
  The aim is that the Royal Parks Occupational Command Unit should start on 1 April 2004 but this is conditional on resolving funding issues and obtaining the necessary enabling legislation.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Bonded Labour
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what further action will be taken at(a) the EU Council of Ministers and (b) G7 meetings to ensure an end to the use of bonded labour in developing countries; and if he will make a statement. [128600]

  Hilary Benn
  We are not aware of any specific proposals to discuss this issue in the EU Council of Ministers or in G7 or G8 meetings in the near future.

  The Government are committed to helping to eliminate all abusive labour practices. These include bonded labour, forced labour and child labour. These abusive practices persist where poverty denies people their rights and a decent livelihood. All the programmes of the Department for International Development

  651W
  (DFID) are intended to contribute to improving the livelihoods of poor people and helping them realise their rights. We also support projects targeted at particular abusive practices. Examples have included a programme in India to eliminate child labour, including bonded child labour; collaboration with the Asian Development Bank in Pakistan on rural development strategies that include tackling bonded labour and support for Action Aid's Poverty Reduction Project which has been working with bonded labourers in the Kailali district of Nepal to help them achieve secure livelihoods.

  The United Kingdom has played a leading role in, ensuring that the international framework to promote workers' rights and to tackle abuses of those rights, including bonded labour, is in place, particularly through its work with the International Labour Organisation (ILO), the UN specialised agency responsible for labour rights. The UK fully supports the ILO work to help end forced and bonded labour, which we see as both a cause and result of poverty.

  Through DFID's Partnership Framework arrangement with the ILO, the UK provides support for technical assistance designed to eliminate forced labour. DFID is also supporting ILO programmes in West Africa and South East Asia to tackle forced labour and trafficking.

  The Government strongly support the ILO's core labour standards and are actively seeking to raise awareness of voluntary codes of conduct based on these for the working of business in developing countries. In particular we helped to set up and fund the Ethical Trading Initiative, which is an alliance of UK retail companies, non-governmental organisations and trade unions that works to improve labour conditions in the supply chain of its corporate members. The employment standards adopted by ETI members come from the Core Conventions of the ILO. The combined annual turnover of the corporate members amounts to over £100 billion and is expected to rise significantly.

  We are also supporting Anti-Slavery International to raise awareness of the issue and stimulate action by trade unions, business and other civil society organisations and governments.

  Caucasus (Oil Pipelines)
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development if he will place reports which his Department has(a) carried out and (b) commissioned on the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Oil Pipeline Project in the Library. [130026]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID is currently assessing whether the Environmental and Social Assessement for the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline project complies with the policies and procedures of European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and the International Finance Corporation of the World Bank Group. I will place that assessment in the Library in due course.

  Developing Countries (Property Ownership)
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what 652W
  assessment his Department has made of the effects on development of the lack of effective systems to establish property ownership in developing countries. [130192]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID recognises that secure rights to land and property are fundamental to poor people's ability to act as citizens and pursue their livelihoods within a democratic society and open economy. The absence of systems to establish property ownership holds back development. In many cases it excludes the poor from accessing basic services and participating in formal markets for land and property, limiting social mobility and economic opportunity. The rights of large numbers of people living in informal settlements (which make up between 30–70 per cent. of populations of urban centres in developing countries) and those of rural people dependent on natural resources are frequently not recognised by the authorities. As a result they are vulnerable to eviction and loss of physical and natural assets. Many developing countries are seeking to address these problems by remodelling their systems of land and property administration, but lack the financial resources and technical capacity to do so effectively.

  Iraq
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development if he will make a statement on(a) the humanitarian situation in Iraq and (b) the impact of security on the humanitarian situation. [130351]

  Hilary Benn
  While significant challenges face the reconstruction effort in Iraq, particularly in the electricity, water supply and oil sectors which have suffered from looting, sabotage and the breakdown of obsolete infrastructure, progress has been made in improving humanitarian conditions for most Iraqis. The public distribution system for food is up and running, most hospitals are in operation, medical supplies are coming into the country, children are being vaccinated and most schools were open by June. Continuing security problems are making the work of humanitarian organisations difficult and often dangerous. The Coalition Provisional Authority is making strenuous efforts to put in place an effective new Iraqi police and justice system, at the same time as coalition forces are being strengthened to help maintain law and order.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development if he will publish the plans the Government have to release money for humanitarian needs in Iraq before the donors conference in October. [130352]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID spending commitments for Iraq are published regularly in our weekly "Iraq Updates". We have to date committed £198 million of the £210 million currently available to DFID for the Iraq crisis. Additional commitments may be made from this £210 million between now and the Donors' Conference in Madrid in October. Any further significant allocations for assistance to Iraq will be considered by the Government in view of the needs assessments being undertaken by the World Bank, the IMF and the United Nations, which will be presented to the October Donors' Conference.
  653W
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what recent discussions the Department has had with non-governmental organisations on their continued presence in Iraq. [130353]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID has regular discussions with NGOs on a range of issues concerning their work in Iraq, including over security and their continued operations in the country. We have told those NGOs whose work we are currently supporting in Iraq that we would be prepared to consider requests for additional financial resources to cover the costs of increased security provisions that they may need to put in place.

CABINET OFFICE

  E-Envoy
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office in which month he expects the Annual Report of the e-envoy for 2003 to be published. [129126]

  Mr. Alexander
  We are committed to publishing an Annual Report each year on the UK online strategy. We intend to publish the 2003 report by the end of the year.

TREASURY

  Government Contracts
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what advice is issued to government departments about placing contracts for goods and services with organisations which have been indicted for fraud or are being investigated for fraud [130650]

  Mr. Boateng
  The EC procurement rules allow contracting authorities to exclude firms from a procurement where they have been convicted of a criminal offence, or have committed an act of grave misconduct related to the conduct of their business or profession. This can include cases involving fraud and corruption.

  Air Passenger Duty
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the revenue yield from increasing the level of air passenger duty from £5 to £10 on economy flights within the European Economic Area; and if he will make a statement. [130125]

  John Healey
  Increasing the reduced rate of air passenger duty from £5 to £10 on flights within the European Economic Area would have raised an estimated £595 million in 2002–03 from this category of passenger.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the revenue yield from raising the level of air passenger duty for club class and first class flights(a) from £10 to £20 for destinations within the European Economic Area and (b) from £40 to £50 for non-EEA destinations. [130126]

  John Healey
  Increasing the standard rate of air passenger duty (APD) from £10 to £20 on flights within the European Economic Area (EEA) would have raised an estimated £65 million in 2002–03 from this category 654W
  of passenger. Increasing the standard rate of APD from £40 to £50 on flights outside the EEA would have raised an estimated £135 million in the same financial year from this category of passenger.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the relationship between the level of air passenger duty and petrol duty in terms of the environmental objectives of Government taxation policies; and if he will make a statement. [130554]

  John Healey
  Levels of all taxes, including air passenger duty and petrol duty, are reviewed on a Budget-by-Budget basis, taking account of a range of social, economic and environmental considerations.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what his latest estimate is of the revenue cost of the changes to capital gains tax introduced in the March 2000 Budget for each year from 2000–01 to 2005–06; what assessment has been made of the economic benefits of the reform; and if he will make a statement; [130129]

  (2) what his latest estimate is of the cost of changing the capital gains tax business assets taper relief in the November 2001 Pre-Budget Report; and if he will make a statement; [130132]

  (3) what his estimate is of the revenue yield from abolishing capital gains tax taper relief for each year from 2000–01 to 2005–06; and if he will make a statement. [130139]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The estimated yield, on an accrual basis, from abolishing Capital Gains Tax Taper Relief, as currently operating, for 2000–01 and 2001–02 are published in Table A3.1 in the Budget Report 2003. The figures take into account some of the likely effects on yield from changes in taxpayers' behaviour. Figures for later years are not available.

  The estimated cost, on an accrual basis, of changes to the Capital Gains Tax Taper Relief announced in Budget 2000 for each year from 2000–01 to 2002–03 are published in Table A. 13 in the Budget Report 2000.

  The estimated cost, on an accrual basis, of changes to the Capital Gains Tax Taper Relief outlined in Pre-Budget Report 2001 for each year from 2002–03 to 2004–05 are published in Table A.2 in Budget 2002 report.

  The estimates of cost of Budget 2000 and Pre-Budget Report 2001 changes take into account most of the likely effects on yield from changes in taxpayers' behaviour. Figures for later years are not available.

  We intend to evaluate taper relief once the system has had time for its effects to become measurable.

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 8 September 2003,Official Report, column 98W, what new technology and extra operational activity at (a) Newhaven, (b) Poole, (c) Isle of Wight, (d) Portsmouth and (e) Southampton, is intended to replace the full-time manning at present; and if he will make a statement. [129846]
  655W
  John Healey
  The Technology will improve existing capacity to detect the illicit importation of radiological material into the UK. It will not replace any existing Customs capability. As to Custom's operational activity, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him to his earlier question on 8 September 2003,Official Report, column 99W.

  Deprivation
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which electoral wards are among the 10 per cent. most deprived in England and Wales. [128899]

  Yvette Cooper
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are 841 wards in England and 865 wards in Wales that are among the 10 per cent. most deprived wards in the two countries. The full list of these most deprived wards is available in the Libraries of the House.

  There are separate deprivation measures for England and Wales and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is only responsible for deprivation-related policy in England. Deprivation policy in Wales is the responsibility of the Welsh Assembly.

  Film Industry
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the total annual(a) revenue cost and (b) economic benefit of the film industry tax reliefs introduced in and since the July 1997 Budget for each year from 1997–98 to 2005–06; and if he will make a statement. [130013]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Section 48 of the Finance (No.2) Act 1997 introduced a tax relief for expenditure on the production or acquisition of the master version of a British qualifying film with total production expenditure not exceeding £15 million. This relief is estimated to have cost £440 million for the period 1997–98 to 2001–02 and costs for the further years are estimated as follows:

  £ million

  2002–03

  300

  2003–04

  140

  2004–05

  70

  2005–06

  50

  We are continuing to assess the overall effectiveness of this relief as part of the Budget process.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the yield to the Exchequer from abolishing the film industry tax reliefs; and if he will make a statement. [130014]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There are three main measures providing enhanced tax relief for expenditure on the production or acquisition of the master version of a film. None of these reliefs has been abolished. However, the relief contained in section 48 of the Finance (No.2) Act 1997 for British qualifying films with total production expenditure not exceeding £15 million applies only to expenditure incurred on or before 2 July 2005. I also refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer which I am today giving to his companion question 130013.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many questions directed to him remain unanswered. [130762]

  John Healey
  2,483 of the 3,341 (74.3 per cent.) written questions tabled to the Treasury Ministers in the present parliamentary session to date received substantive replies on or before the dates on which answers were due. Answers have not yet been given to 147 questions, but in 131 cases the answers are not overdue.

  Pensions
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the cost of restricting income tax relief on pensions to the basic rate of income tax; and if he will make a statement. [130565]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The estimated yield from restricting income tax relief on employee and self-employed pension contributions to the basic rate is £1.9 billion in 2002–03. The yield from restricting employer contributions is £2.8 billion, this estimate assumes that the proportion of total employer contributions relating to higher rate taxpayers is that same as that for employees. The estimates take no account of any behavioural effects which are likely to result from such changes.

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will publish(a) the results of the consultation on the reform of stamp duty land tax affecting commercial leases and (b) revisions to the Government's proposals. [130009]

  Dawn Primarolo
  We expect to publish shortly.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to align the residential and non-residential property upper thresholds for the zero rate stamp duty band. [130556]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Chancellor's decision to increase the zero rate stamp duty threshold to £150,000 for non-residential property has been welcomed by business representatives as a boost for small businesses investing in commercial property and will come into effect from 1 December 2003. The level of the thresholds is kept under regular review.

  As part of the Government's plans to regenerate the most deprived parts of the UK, in 1,997 Enterprise Areas the purchase of residential property costing up to £150,000 is already exempt from stamp duty.

  Tax
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the impact on the tax yield of increasing the top rate of tax to 50 pence in the pound. [129254]

  Dawn Primarolo
  This estimate can be derived from the Inland Revenue Statistics table T1.6 "Direct effects of illustrative tax change" which is available on the Inland Revenue website. It excludes any behavioural response to the tax change.
  657W
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to change the rules relating to non-domicile status for tax purposes. [129255]

  Dawn Primarolo
  At Budget 2002, the Chancellor announced a review of the residence and domicile rules as they affect the tax liabilities of individuals. That work is continuing. The background paper published on Budget Day 2003 provides a framework for further analysis and discussion.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his latest estimate is of the annual cost for each year from 2002–03 to 2005–06 of the tax changes made in the March 2002 Budget to(a) research and development tax credit for large companies, (b) exemption for gains on large shareholdings, (c) community investment tax credit, (d) Vaccines Tax Credit, (e) tax relief for community amateur sports clubs, (f) beer duty relief for small brewers, (g) expansion of the scope of the lower rate of air passenger duty and (h) reform of the tax relief on intellectual property; what assessments have been made in each case of the economic benefits of the tax changes made; and if he will make a statement. [130237]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The available information is shown in Table Al of the Budget 2002 Financial Statement and Budget Report (pp153–154).

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Alcohol Reduction Strategy
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the reasons for the delay in the publication of the National Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy; and when he expects the strategy to be published. [127147]

  Ms Blears
  The Government are on course to meet the target in the NHS Plan to implement the National Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy by 2004. A large scale consultation has been conducted jointly by the Department of Health and the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit. This yielded a large number of responses which have been extremely valuable in informing the development of the strategy. The Strategy Unit is due to publish its interim analysis shortly.

  The Strategy Unit's final report, which will set out the cross-governmental alcohol harm reduction strategy, is due for publication during the autumn. There will then be further Government consultation on the details of implementation and the strategy will be implemented according to timetable by 2004.

  Antisocial Behaviour
  Mrs Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to tackle antisocial behaviour associated with drinking alcohol. [129081]

  Ms Blears
  The Government have already brought forward a range of legislative measures designed to help tackle anti-social behaviour associated with drinking alcohol. The Licensing (Young Persons) Act 2000 makes it an offence for any person to sell alcohol to a person aged under 18 on licensed premises, or knowingly to 658W
  allow another person to do so. It also created the offence of buying, or attempting to buy, alcohol on licensed premises on behalf of a person aged under 18.

  The Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 provides the police and local authorities with increased powers to tackle under-age drinking. The Act contains measures to make it easier for local authorities to designate areas where restrictions on anti-social drinking will apply. It also created a positive duty on licensees and their staff not to sell alcohol to persons aged under 18s.

  Section 155 of the Licensing Act 2003, which came into force on 10 September 2003, extends existing police powers relating to the confiscation of alcohol from people who are drinking and causing a nuisance in public places, so as to allow for the confiscation of sealed containers, in addition to opened containers, in defined circumstances.

  In addition, anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) have been used to prohibit individuals from consuming alcohol or being under the influence of alcohol in public. Such orders can also be used to prohibit individuals from entering licensed premises or off-licences and buying alcohol. ASBO prohibitions can cover any geographical area up to and including the whole of England and Wales.

  For the future, the Home Office is working with the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit on their project to develop a national alcohol harm reduction strategy. The project is looking at the wide range of alcohol harms including alcohol-related crime, anti-social behaviour and community safety. A report setting out the cross-governmental alcohol harm reduction strategy for England is due for publication during autumn 2003.

  Sexual Offences
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been cautioned for gross indecency in lavatories at Baker Street tube station since 1995. [128636]

  Ms Blears
  The information on cautions collected centrally in England and Wales does not enable areas below police force level to be identified.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the use of CCTV cameras in public lavatories to combat the problem of sexual activities. [128639]

  Ms Blears
  No assessment has been made of the use of CCTV cameras in public lavatories to combat the problem of sexual activities.

  Accidents (Emergency Service Vehicles)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) fatal and (b) non-fatal accidents involving (i) police, (ii) ambulance, (iii) fire service and (iv) other emergency service vehicles there were in each year since 1993, in each London borough; and if he will make a statement. [128760]

  Ms Blears
  The tables attached give the number of accidents in the Metropolitan and City of London police areas involving police vehicles engaged inimmediate/emergency response or pursuit at the time of the
  659W
  accident. The figures are broken down by the severity of injuries sustained by police officers and civilians. Information is not available broken down by London Borough. The Home Office does not collect data on accidents involving ambulance, fire service, or other emergency vehicles.

  The Government welcomes the recognition by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) that they must work to reduce the number of collisions involving police vehicles.

  ACPO are working closely with the Police Complaints Authority (PCA) to identify why they occur and how they might be avoided. Useful information can be expected from the increasing use by forces of Automatic Data Recorders (ADR) and Vehicle Accident Data Recorders (VADR). These operate in a similar way to aircraft black boxes, providing data on such issues as speed, gear changes, braking, and the use of blue lights.

  Table A: The number of accidents in the Metropolitan (Met) and City of London (CofL) police areas involving police vehicles engaged in immediate/emergency response or pursuit at the time of the accident, broken down by severity of injuries sustained to police officers.

  Fatal

  Serious Injury

  Slight Injury

  Year

  Met

  CofL

  Met

  CofL

  Met

  CofL

  1993

  2

  0

  51

  0

  N/a

  N/a

  1994–95

  2

  0

  22

  0

  421

  2

  1995–96

  0

  0

  23

  0

  297

  4

  1996–97

  0

  0

  43

  1

  352

  7

  1997–98

  0

  0

  47

  3

  419

  0

  1998–99

  0

  0

  45

  0

  280

  6

  1999–2000

  0

  0

  11

  0

  235

  0

  2000–01

  0

  0

  11

  0

  235

  0

  2001–02

  0

  0

  15

  0

  218

  5

  Table B: The number of accidents in the Metropolitan (Met) and City of London (CofL) police areas involving police vehicles engaged in immediate/emergency, response or pursuit at the time of the accident, broken down by severity of injuries sustained to civilians.

  Fatal

  Serious Injury

  Slight Injury

  Year

  Met

  CofL

  Met

  CofL

  Met

  CofL

  1993

  10

  0

  45

  1

  N/a

  N/a

  1994–95

  11

  0

  22

  1

  353

  6

  1995–96

  4

  0

  25

  0

  335

  2

  1996–97

  1

  0

  27

  0

  189

  4

  1997–98

  1

  0

  28

  0

  246

  3

  1998–99

  1

  0

  25

  1

  310

  3

  1999–2000

  1

  0

  24

  0

  220

  0

  2000–01

  6

  0

  29

  0

  393

  2

  2001–02

  2

  0

  36

  1

  389

  1

  Notes:

  1. The information is provided by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, to which forces submit statistical returns

  2. All figures are for financial years, except for 1993 (calendar year)

  3. Figures for 2002–03 are not yet available

  4. Information on fatalities and injuries is only available for accidents involving police vehicles which were engaged in immediate/emergency response or pursuit at the time of the accident.

  Airwave Radio
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Home Office expects the airwave radio to be in service in the Thames Valley 660W
  police area; what the original estimate was for when airwave radios would be introduced into the Thames Valley police area; what changes have been made in the payment of government grant in respect of the airwave radio system in (a) 2002–03 and (b) 2003–04; and if he will make a statement. [129423]

  Ms Blears
  The Airwave network became available for operational use in the Thames Valley police area on 23 July 2003. The force is expected to be fully operational on the Airwave service by August 2004. The original estimate for the introduction of the Airwave service in Thames Valley was 24 June 2002.

  The payment of government grant in respect of Airwave is adjusted in each police force depending on progress of the rollout. In the case of Thames Valley, the force received payment in 2002–03 to assist with setting-up costs, but no payment was made for the service itself. Payment in 2003–04 will cover the core Airwave service and part of the extra features required by the Thames Valley Police Constabulary to ensure its specific operational needs are met.

  Alcohol Restricted Zones
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what Act of Parliament anti-social drinking orders are made; and how such orders will be enforced. [128652]

  Ms Blears
  I believe my hon. Friend is interested in alcohol restricted zones.

  Section 13 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 allows local authorities to introduce designation orders to restrict anti-social public drinking in areas that have experienced alcohol-related disorder or nuisance. The arrangements introduced by the Act replaced a previous Home Office public drinking bylaw.

  The police have responsibility for enforcing such designation orders through their discretionary powers to confiscate alcohol if they reasonably believe that a person is, or has been, consuming alcohol in a designated public place. The discretionary powers are set out in section 12 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001.

  Anti-terrorism Legislation
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the use of anti-terrorism legislation against the protesters at the Excel Exhibition Centre in East London on 9 September. [129947]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I have called for an immediate report. to be with me by 18 September, into the use of Section 44 stop and search powers during the policing of the DSEi exhibition at the Excel Exhibition Centre in London.

  It would be inappropriate to comment further until I have had an opportunity to consider the report.

  Child Abuse
  Mrs Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many England and Wales police forces have been involved in investigations into
  661W
  allegations of child abuse in children's homes and other institutions in the past five years; and how many of these allegations relate to historical abuse. [128348]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not available centrally. The Home Office does not collect information on police investigations into allegations of child abuse in children's homes or similar institutions.

  In its report on "The Conduct of Investigations Into Past Cases of Abuse in Children's Homes" in October 2002, the Home Affairs Committee noted that 34 police forces had conducted investigations, and that there had been a total of 226 charges relating to historical abuse. It did not record the number of allegations made.

  Mrs Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action has been taken to revise the internal police handbook for senior investigating officers to set out the terms of an initial approach to potential witnesses in a child abuse case. [128350]

  Ms Blears
  I understand from the Association of Chief Police Officers that the team responsible for writing this handbook has been considering the recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee in its report on "The Conduct of Investigations into Past Cases of Abuse in Children's Homes", and the Government's response, and is expected to reach its conclusions before the end of the year.

  Mrs Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will issue a code of practice for the audio and visual recording of police interviews with complainants and other significant witnesses in cases of historical child abuse; [128351]

  (2) if the Government will issue guidelines to enforce recording of police interviews of complainant and other significant witnesses in home care abuse cases. [128392]

  Ms Blears
  There is no current code of practice which directs the police to record (either by audio or video) interviews with complainants or other significant witnesses, and we do not propose to introduce one.

  Guidance entitled 'Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings' was issued to the police and other agencies involved in criminal proceedings in 2002, superseding the 'Memorandum of Good Practice on Video Recorded Interviews with Child Witnesses for Criminal Proceedings (1992)'. The guidance describes best practice procedures when interviewing vulnerable or intimidated witnesses, whether adults or children, to ensure that they are able to give their best evidence.

  There may be clear advantages to both complainant and defendant if greater transparency were built into the process of obtaining evidence in historical abuse cases, and the Government will consider with the Association of Chief Police Officers how to take this forward.

  Copies of 'Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings' have been placed in the Library.

  Child Protection
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what improvements to child protection measures have been instituted by police forces since the publication of the Laming Report. [129332]
  662W
  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 11 September 2003]: The Government response to the Victoria Climbié Inquiry Report was published on 8 September as an annex to the Green Paper, "Every Child Matters". The response directly addresses the recommendations made by Lord Laming to the police and the Home Office.

  One key improvement we have made is to issue revised guidance to the police on the appropriate use of police protection powers. The Home Office Circular for this purpose was published on 8 September and has been issued to all Chief Constables.

  In the National Policing Plan 2003–06, we asked all police forces to address their child protection service as part of local policing plan priorities, and this was reflected in all plans received by the Home Office in March 2003.

  In addition, we understand that the Association of Chief Police Officers has prepared draft standards for child protection policing. These will be produced by the National Centre of Policing Excellence by the end of 2003 as part of a manual of guidance.

  Child Rescue Alert
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the findings of the pilot scheme into Child Rescue Alert carried out by Sussex Police. [127570]

  Ms Blears
  The findings of the pilot will not be published. However, they have informed the setting up of a national text messaging service by Police Information Technology Organisation (PITO), which can be used to quickly alert the public in the event of child abductions.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is on individual police forces entering into commercial contracts with private companies providing text messaging services for child abduction warning schemes as envisaged in the Child Rescue Alert Scheme in Sussex. [127571]

  Ms Blears
  The Vice Chair of the Information Management Communications Group of the Association of Chief Police Officers has written to all Chief Constables and Commissioners of Police advising them to first discuss any intention to enter into such commercial contracts with the E-policing Management Group and Police Information Technology Organisation.

  I support the advice given in that letter.

  Crime (Merseyside)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the level of recorded crime in Crosby in the last 12 months. [129471]

  Ms Blears
  Six categories of recorded crime at Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP) and police Basic Command Unit (BCU) level have been collected and published for the period from 1 April 1999. These categories are listed in the table, with the number of crimes for the latest available year in the Sefton CDRP and BCU within which Crosby falls.
  663W
  This data has been published on the Home Office Website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb703sup1.xls.

  Recorded Crimes in Sefton CDRP/BCU area in year ending March 2003.

  Offence category

  Number of recorded crimes

  Violence against the person

  3,016

  Sexual Offences

  185

  Robbery

  334

  Burglary in a dwelling

  2,533

  Theft of vehicle

  1,542

  Theft from vehicle

  1,629

  Merseyside adopted the National Crime Recording Standard in April 2002, and so this will have affected the 2002/03 figures given above.

  Police (Havering)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent measures have been taken to cut crime rates in Romford by the Metropolitan police. [128376]

  Ms Blears
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that the Borough Commander for Havering and his senior management team continue to police Havering borough using intelligence-led policing, focusing on crime hot spots within the borough. An example of one of these initiatives, which began on 5 September 2003, is an operation which targets street robbery, disorder and assault and involves the co-operation of Havering borough council and the British Transport Police. A further initiative has been introduced whereby one sergeant and seven constables patrol outside nightclubs in Romford on both Friday and Saturday nights to reduce disorder. The Metropolitan police believe that this has helped to reduce disorder and provide reassurance in the town centre.

  Since 1 April this year, figures provided by the Metropolitan police indicate that total notifiable offences in Havering borough have been reduced by 4.3 per cent. and burglary has been reduced by 25.4 per cent.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he had with the Metropolitan police in the London borough of Havering in July. [128380]

  Ms Blears
  While I had no discussions with the Metropolitan police of the London borough of Havering in July, I did meet the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service on 16 July. This meeting was one of a series held throughout the year which focus on the whole of the Metropolitan police area.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the Metropolitan Police in the London Borough of Havering during the past 12 months. [128403]
  664W
  Ms Blears
  I have had no meetings with the Metropolitan Police in the London Borough of Havering during the past 12 months. I have regular bilateral meetings with the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service.

  Criminal Trials
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was paid to witnesses in criminal proceedings in each of the last 10 years. [127659]

  The Solicitor-General
  I have been asked to reply.

  The following table shows the amounts paid to prosecution witnesses in each of the last six years. It is not possible to provide figures for the last 10 years as records have only been kept consistently since 1996 following the introduction of a new accounting system. The figures are broken down between expert witness fees, foreign witness expenses and ordinary and professional witness allowances.

  Allowances paid to expert witnesses are discretionary. Guidance is provided to staff when paying expert witness fees. Rates of payment for ordinary witness allowances which include loss of earnings, travel and subsistence and, where appropriate, overnight, overnight allowances, are prescribed by the Crown Prosecution Service (Witnesses' allowances) Regulations 1988 which set out maximum rates payable.

  All rates are reviewed annually and any increases in the rates set out in the Regulation are approved by HM Treasury.

  £

  Expert witness fees

  Foreign witness expenses

  Ordinary/ professional witness allowances

  Total

  1997–98

  3,482,667

  463,670

  7,124,681

  11,071,018

  1998–99

  3,790,877

  458,976

  6,744,345

  10,994,198

  1999–2000

  4,039,521

  479,969

  6,306,982

  10,826,472

  2000–01

  4,331,570

  449,355

  6,491,143

  11,272,068

  2001–02

  4,664,002

  375,687

  6,573,290

  11,612,979

  2002–03

  5,067,840

  436,840

  6,644,757

  12,149,437

  Disruptive Youngsters
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to ensure that children under 16 are not on the streets very late at night; and what measures are in place to allow the police to remove disruptive young children from the streets at night. [128096]

  Ms Blears
  The Anti-social Behaviour Bill currently before Parliament gives the police a power to return young people under 16 who are unsupervised in public places after 9pm to their homes. The power will only be available in areas designated in advance by a senior officer as an area where anti-social behaviour is a significant and persistent problem and where members of the public have been intimidated, harassed, alarmed or distressed by groups.
  665W
  The local child curfew scheme introduced in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 allows a local authority or police force (after confirmation by the Secretary of State) to set up a scheme banning children and young people under 16 from being in a public place during specified hours. The police have a power to take home a child found in contravention of a curfew under this scheme.

  DNA Profiles
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many UK citizens have their DNA profiles stored in his Department's database; and what the number of additions was in each of the last four months for which figures are available. [129478]

  Ms Blears
  There were 2,052,018 DNA records relating to individuals at 31 August 2003. Information is not available about the nationality of individuals whose profiles are held.

  The number of profiles added each month for the last four months has been as follows: May 36,839; June 34,503; July 42,138; August 35,459.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to monitor the performance of police forces in giving support to victims of domestic violence. [127279]

  Ms Blears
  The Government are determined that effective action should be taken to deal with domestic violence.

  Police performance is currently monitored via the collection of data relating to the percentage of arrests made where an arrestable offence has been committed. For the future, police performance on domestic violence will be monitored through the inclusion of domestic violence as an indicator within the Police Performance Assessment Framework.

  In addition HMIC/CPSi are currently undertaking a thematic review of domestic violence which will provide a detailed insight into current police performance on domestic violence. We will consider the recommendations of that review very carefully.

  Ellie Baker
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the progress of the investigation into Detective Chief Superintendent Ellie Baker since 15 July; [129655]

  (2) how many complaints were made against Detective Chief Superintendent Ellie Baker by other police officers prior to 1 October 2002; [129656]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the support services available to Detective Chief Superintendent Ellie Baker since the commencement of investigations into allegations against her; [129664]

  (4) if he will list the allegations made against Detective Chief Superintendent Ellie Baker. [129665]
  666W
  Ms Blears:
  [holding answer 15 September 2003]: My officials have requested this information from the West Midlands Police. Once it has been received I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Extradition Treaties
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether(a) membership of the International Court of Justice and (b) compliance with the Human Rights Act are criteria applied in determining with which countries the UK agrees extradition treaties are based; and if he will make a statement. [128036]

  Caroline Flint
  Membership of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is not, in itself, a factor that determines if the UK can agree an extradition treaty with another state. The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) was incorporated into the Human Rights Act 1998 and underpins all UK extradition legislation.

  Any decision to order a fugitive's surrender is taken with full regard to the UK's international obligations.

  Forensic Science Laboratory
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which police forces in England and Wales contract work to the Forensic Science Laboratory in Chepstow; how many staff are employed at the Forensic Science Laboratory in Chepstow; and what representations he has received in response to his statement of 17 July regarding the future of the Forensic Science Service from(a) trade unions, (b) police forces and (c) other bodies. [129337]

  Ms Blears
  Chepstow Forensic Science Laboratory provides services to the police forces in its region, which are Avon and Somerset; Devon and Cornwall; Dorset; Dyfed Powys; Gloucestershire; Gwent; Hampshire; South Wales; Thames Valley and Wiltshire.

  These services are based on Service Level Agreements and not legally binding contracts. Some forces in the area (Dorset for example) use services supplied by other forensic providers; these may be managed through legally binding contracts.

  There are currently 226 individuals employed at Chepstow Forensic Science Laboratory.

  Representations in response to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's statement of 17 July about the future of the Forensic Science Service have been received from two trade unions Prospect and PCS, and from Brendan Barber, General Secretary of the TUC.

  Illegal Camping
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent progress has been made in controlling illegal camping. [129066]

  Ms Blears
  The Anti-Social Behaviour Bill currently before Parliament includes a new eviction power to deal with unauthorised encampments. This new power will allow the police to take firm action against unauthorised
  667W
  encampments, without having to satisfy the preconditions found in the current legislation, where there are places available on local authority sites.

  Immigration Control
  Mrs Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost is to his Department per person per day of detaining a person subject to immigration control in(a) a prison and (b) a removal centre. [128517]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Prison Service categorises establishments by their main role only and it is not possible to say what the cost is of detaining a person subject to mmigration control in a prison.

  The average cost per place per day of detention in removal centres contracted out to the private sector is £97. The average cost of detention in Dover and Haslar, the two establishments operated by the Prison Service wholly as removal centres is £66.56.

  Intelligent Pedestrian Pilot
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the Minister of State's letter (ref M 3759/3) of 20 August, when he expects to receive the outcome of Intelligent Pedestrian Surveillance Pilot schemes; and if he will make a statement. [128270]

  Ms Blears
  The Intelligent Pedestrian Surveillance pilot is a collaboration between Kingston University, University College London, London Underground and Sollatek. It is not sponsored by the Home Office. However, I await the outcome of the pilot with interest.

  Mobile Phones
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crime numbers were issued by the police for(a) lost and (b) stolen mobile phones in the last 24 months for which figures are available. [127826]

  Ms Blears
  The Home Office collects statistics on the basis of recorded crime figures, not crime numbers issued by the police.

  The Home Office does not centrally collect or collate national statistics on the numbers of mobile phone thefts as mobile phone theft is not a separate crime category. Mobile phone theft crime figures are included within the crime categories of robbery, snatch theft and theft from person.

  The Home Office collects four-weekly figures from the 10 street crime police force areas on the numbers of robberies, snatch thefts and thefts from person involving a mobile phone and for nine of the 10 areas these are broken down into those involving a mobile phone only. The data are for internal management and monitoring purposes and are unpublished.

  Home Office Research (Mobile Phone Theft, HORS 235) published in January 2002 looked at the scale of the mobile phone theft problem. Its best estimate of the number of mobile phones stolen in the UK in 2000–01, including unreported offences, was 710,000. This
  668W
  estimate was based on findings from police recording, British Crime Survey, MORI schools survey and the On Track schools survey.

  Police Complaints Authority
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints under investigation by the Police Complaints Authority are(a) less than one year old, (b) one to three years old, (c) three to five years old and (d) over five years old; and if he will make a statement. [128762]

  Ms Blears
  Information is not available in the form requested. The Police Complaints Authority (PCA) has provided the following table in response.

  Total outstanding cases for the PCA at 8 September 2003

  Year received1

  Misconduct Cases only2

  Misconduct cases that were supervised3

  Supervised investigations4

  Total

  1999

  1

  4

  2

  7

  2000

  1

  11

  5

  17

  2001

  4

  19

  32

  55

  2002

  30

  41

  97

  168

  2003

  727

  5

  225

  957

  Total

  763

  80

  361

  1,204

  Note:

  It is important to note the following:

  The PCA does not "investigate" any cases itself; the police forces undertake all investigations;

  Of the above cases, the PCA undertakes a supervisory role for the second and third columns of the table only;

  There are some cases that have been supervised and where the Section 75 is to be issued that are not included in these figures.

  1 Year received for the column "Misconduct Cases Only" relates to the year the case arrived at the PCA after the investigation had been completed by a police force. The PCA has no control over the time a complaint was made (though legislation dictates it should be within 12 months of the date of incident) or the length of the police investigation.

  2 These are cases received by the PCA after the investigation has been completed by a police force where a review of the file is required. This includes "Dispensation" cases (those where the complaint is not followed through for any reason).

  3 These are cases where the PCA has previously supervised an investigation and where a review of the file is now taking place.

  4 These are cases where the PCA is supervising the investigation.

  Police Conduct
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what steps he takes to assess whether appropriate disciplinary action is taken against police officers whose conduct while not on duty is found to be improper; [127286]

  (2) what action he is taking to ensure that complaints by the public relating to a police officer's conduct while not on duty are investigated; [127287]

  (3) what action he is taking to ensure that the Police Complaints Authority has access to all necessary evidence while conducting investigations into improper conduct by police officers when not on duty; [127288]

  (4) what steps he takes to assess the extent to which police forces release information regarding the outcome of a complaint to those that make the complaint, when release of such information is not prohibited by data protection legislation. [127291]
  669W
  Ms Blears
  The Police (Conduct) Regulations 1999 set out at Schedule 1 a Code of Conduct, the principles of which guide police officers' behaviour. The Code applies to the conduct of police officers in all ranks while on duty, or while off duty, if the conduct is serious enough to indicate that an officer is not fit to be a police officer.

  Any breach of the principles in the Code may result in an officer facing misconduct proceedings under the Police (Conduct) Regulations 1999. Chief officers are responsible for applying the Regulations to their own forces.

  The investigation of complaints by the public relating to the conduct of a police officer falls under Chapter I, Part IV, of the Police Act 1996 (the Act). Under those provisions the police authority is the appropriate authority for handling complaints against senior officers (those above the rank of chief superintendent) and the chief officer of the force is the appropriate authority for recording and investigating complaints in respect of all other ranks.

  The Secretary of State for the Home Department does not have the power to intervene in either the recording or investigation of individual complaints, whether they concern on or off duty conduct, or in any disciplinary proceedings.

  Under Section 72 of the Act, the Police Complaints Authority (PCA) will supervise the investigation of certain types of complaints and it is within that process of supervision that it will have access to all the necessary evidence, primarily by way of the Investigating Officer's report. In such cases, the PCA may also impose such additional reasonable requirements as to the conduct of the investigation as appear to them necessary.

  There is currently no statutory requirement for a force to disclose information to a complainant. The Secretary of State for the Home Department does not assess the extent to which police forces release information to a complainant regarding the outcome of a complaint.

  A new police complaints system will be introduced from April 2004 under provisions in the Police Reform Act 2002. This new system will operate under the guardianship of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).

  The new system will not change the Secretary of State for the Home Department's role in regard to the handling of complaints or disciplinary proceedings taken against police officers. Similarly, although it does not change the handling with regard to supervised complaints, it does provide for a managed investigation by the IPCC and for an independent investigation by the IPCC. As these two new types of investigation will put the IPCC in full control of the investigation, they will have unrestricted access to all the necessary evidence. Finally, with regards to the disclosure of information, the new complaints system places a clear duty on the police to keep the complainant properly informed during, and at the end of, an investigation, subject to a sensitivity test.

  Police Notebooks
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Metropolitan police officers have been subject to an internal disciplinary process for tearing a page or pages from their police notebook in the last five years; and if he will list the sanctions imposed. [127068]

  Ms Blears
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that in the last five years one officer has been subject to disciplinary proceedings for removing a page Form a pocket book. The officer received a caution.

  Police Procedures
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent steps the Government has taken to(a) simplify police procedures, (b) reduce procedural and administrative burdens on the police, (c) save police resources and (d) speed up the process of justice. [128621]

  Ms Blears
  The report of the Joint Home Office/Cabinet Office Review of the Police and Criminal Evidence (PACE) Act 1984 set the above criteria as the basis for identifying potential changes to PACE.

  The Government's current legislative programme takes forward the findings of the review in areas such as provision for extending the powers of stop and search; the execution of warrants; street bail; review of police detention; limits on periods of detention without charge; property of detained persons; taking fingerprints before charge; and the process of revising or introducing PACE Codes of Practice. The remaining findings are being taken forward administratively or through future legislative opportunities.

  Public Sector Employees
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what protection is afforded to public sector employees from violence in the workplace; and what plans he has to introduce a specific offence for assaulting public sector workers. [128110]

  Ms Blears
  The Government take a very serious view of violence in the workplace and are pursuing a range of action to combat it.

  In March 2000 the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) embarked on a three-year programme to help employers, including those in the public sector, to tackle assaults on staff, with the aim of reducing the number of incidents of violence at work. So far the programme has resulted in the publication of new guidance specifically aimed at small businesses, the development of new National Occupational Standards on work-related violence, a programme of inspections in the health care sector, and new research to establish good practice for lone workers, including those in the public sector.

  Health and Safety Executive officials are now evaluating this programme and will be submitting written proposals to the HSC on the next stage (2003–06) later this year.
  671W
  Assaulting a public sector worker in the course of his or her duty is an extremely serious matter, as reflected in guidelines issued by the Magistrates' Association in September 2000 (and amended in July 2001). The guidelines already make it clear that, if the assault is against an individual serving the public, this should be considered as an aggravating factor.

  We have no current plans to introduce a specific offence of assaulting a public sector worker.

  Secondments
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many UK police officers are seconded to police(a) forces and (b) agencies overseas; which countries are involved; from which forces the officers have been seconded; and what plans there are to send further offices to overseas countries in addition to Iraq. [128318]

  Ms Blears
  Each police force keeps its own records on overseas secondments and comprehensive figures are not held centrally. Figures are available on the number of United Kingdom police officers participating in international peacekeeping and crisis management operations overseas. Contributions to peacekeeping missions and crisis management operations account for the overwhelming majority of police officers seconded from English and Welsh forces to police forces and agencies overseas. On 5 September 2003, the United Kingdom had 195 serving police officers working in peacekeeping missions in Bosnia, Croatia, Macedonia, Kosovo, East Timor, Sierra Leone, Serbia and Montenegro and Iraq.

  Of these 195 police officers, 92 are from English and Welsh police forces and the National Criminal Intelligence Service. All English and Welsh police forces currently have at least one police officer on secondment to overseas peacekeeping missions with the exception of the City of London Police, Cumbria Constabulary, Gwent Police, Hertfordshire Constabulary, Leicestershire Constabulary, Norfolk Constabulary, Nottinghamshire Police, Staffordshire Police, Thames Valley Police and West Mercia Constabulary. The largest number of secondees from any one force in England and Wales is seven.

  Contributions from the Ministry of Defence Police, the Police Service of Northern Ireland and Scottish police forces make up the remaining numbers of UK police officers serving on international peacekeeping missions.

  Any plans to send police officers from English and Welsh forces to new peacekeeping missions in addition to Iraq will be initiated through a formal request to the Home Office from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I have received no such requests.

  Stolen Art
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are in place to provide a national database of stolen art and artefacts; and if he will make a statement. [129512]
  672W
  Ms Blears
  The Home Office continues to work closely with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on the issue of developing a national cultural property database. We are currently in the process of reassessing various options available to us.

  Street Crime
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what change there has been in the level of street crime in each of the 10 hot spot areas during the year 2002–03 [128863]

  Ms Blears
  The table compares recorded robbery in 2002–03 with 2001–02 in the 10 police force areas involved in the Street Grime Initiative (SCI). The figures are not adjusted for National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS). The NCRS effect in 2002–03 on recorded robbery figures in England and Wales was to inflate those by three per cent.

  Force

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Percentage change

  Metropolitan Police

  53,547

  42,496

  -21

  West Midlands

  13,322

  10,249

  -23

  Greater Manchester

  11,027

  10,745

  -3

  West Yorkshire

  5,674

  4,947

  -13

  Avon & Somerset

  4,889

  3,504

  -28

  Merseyside

  3,155

  2,994

  -5

  Thames Valley

  2,894

  2,406

  -17

  Nottinghamshire

  2,726

  2,799

  3

  South Yorkshire

  1,952

  2,112

  8

  Lancashire

  1,608

  1,409

  -12

  Total for 10 SCI forces

  100,794

  83,661

  -17

  Underage Drinkers
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made of the impact on effective policing of the removal of the power to confiscate sealed containers of alcohol from underage drinkers in public places; [127129]

  (2) in what plans he has to extend the power to confiscate alcohol from young people drinking in public places to sealed containers. [127133]

  Ms Blears
  Police powers to confiscate alcohol and alcohol containers from under-age drinkers are provided by the Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Act 1997. That Act was amended by section 29 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 with the effect that the police were able to confiscate alcohol in opened containers from young people in public places, but not alcohol in sealed containers.

  Following representations from the police and others to strengthen these powers to include sealed containers, we brought section 155 of the Licensing Act 2003 into force on 10 September 2003. This extends police confiscation powers in respect of under-age drinkers in public places to include alcohol in sealed containers where the officer believes that the young person is, has been or intends to drink the alcohol in any public place.

  Video Surveillance
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the use of
  673W
  video surveillance in public areas; what effect this has had on crime in those areas; and what plans there are to expand video surveillance.[127990]

  Ms Blears
  Under the Crime Reduction Programme CCTV Initiative, around £170 million has been spent on 684 CCTV schemes across England and Wales, covering town centres, car parks, residential and rural areas. Of these schemes, 675 are already operational with the remaining schemes due to go live later this year. The Initiative is now closed and there are no plans for a new CCTV-specific funding round in the near future.

  Police operational experience and various other research studies show that CCTV has considerable crime reduction and detection potential, particularly when used as part of a wider strategy.

  To help ensure maximum impact and sustainability of CCTV, a 1.5 million Home Office funded national evaluation programme is being carried out by the Scarman Centre, University of Leicester, on 15 approved CCTV Initiative schemes.

  The final evaluation report will not be published until 2004, but interim reports will be available before then. The first—providing guidance for practitioners on implementation of CCTV schemes—is available on the crime reduction website (www.crimereduction.gov.uk).

  Opportunities for funding of further CCTV schemes in England and Wales currently exist through the Building Safer Communities Fund. Under this fund, £72.3 million has been made available to Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships in 2003–04 for tackling local problems of crime and disorder. In addition, a special £50 million Basic Command Unit (BCU) fund has been distributed to local police commanders to help tackle the problems that matter most in their communities. Police will be able to target the extra resources at local level problems, like antisocial behaviour and drugs, deploying CCTV where appropriate.

  The Scottish Parliament has responsibility for CCTV funding in Scotland.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  International Student Visas
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how long it takes for an international student visa to be issued. [129425]

  Mr. Mullin
  Visa sections at our overseas posts aim to resolve student applications for entry clearance within 24 hours,

  However, if the applicant requires an interview, this can delay the resolution of the application. We normally aim to offer an interview within 10 days. However, applicants may face longer queues in some individual posts where security or other factors mean that we are unable to offer the level of service that we would like.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the changes in quantities of opium produced in Afghanistan since the overthrow of the Taliban. [127172]

  Mr. Rammell
  The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) conducts an annual survey into the level of opium poppy cultivation and production in Afghanistan. These two sets of figures need to be read together to provide full information about trends in poppy production. It has reported levels of cultivation and production over the past 5 years as follows:

  Year

  Hectares

  Tonnes

  1998

  64,000

  2,700

  1999

  91,000

  4,600

  2000

  82,000

  3,300

  2001

  8,000

  185

  2002

  74,000

  3,400

  The UNODC figures for 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 were all recorded under the Taliban regime. The figures in 1999 are the highest UNODC have recorded in Afghanistan. The low level of cultivation and low production figure in 2001 reflect the Taliban ban on opium cultivation; the ban did not however address the underlying causes of poppy cultivation in Afghanistan and was enforced with mix of threat and bribery.

  The UNODC is in the process of preparing the report of the 2003 survey on behalf of the Afghan government. It will be published in the autumn.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have taken place with NATO members in the Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society regarding the monitoring of chemical leaks from chemical weapons stocks dumped in the Baltic after the second world war. [129098]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have been asked to reply.

  Following a Norwegian-led NATO Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society (CCMS) Pilot Study on Cross Border Environmental Problems Emanating from Defence Related Installations and Activities, the Russian Government approached NATO in 1997 regarding possible cooperation in the monitoring and prevention of leakage of chemicals from German chemical weapons stocks sunk in the Baltic and Skagerrak after World War Two. A CCMS expert meeting on chemical weapons dumped in the Baltic Sea and Skagerrak took place in Oslo in 1997. A member of the British embassy in Oslo attended the meeting.

  At that meeting, the Russian delegation gave preliminary information on recent environmental expeditions to the Baltic and Skagerrak. The Russian delegation proposed that a further CCMS expert meeting should be held before the end of 1997 to consider the full findings from the expeditions; and that a joint NATO- Russia expedition should be organised for 1998.
  675W
  It was the Ministry of Defence's understanding that CCMS was continuing to lead on this issue. However, we have now been advised that the Russian proposals were forwarded to the NATO Political Committee in 1997. That Committee rejected the proposals, stating that the results of the Russian expeditions and any plans for future expeditions should be conducted through, or as part of, the Helsinki Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to reduce the barriers to obtaining a visa to visit the UK for residents of the occupied part of Cyprus; and if he will make a statement. [127810]

  Mr. Mullin
  The visa regime on the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" ("TRNC") stems from the fact that the United Kingdom requires holders of non-national travel documents to obtain visas to enter the UK. The "TRNC" travel document is considered to be a non-national travel document as it is issued by an authority which is not recognised by HMG. This will remain the case after the entry of the Republic of Cyprus into the EU in May 2004, unless a comprehensive political settlement is achieved first.

  Democratic Republic of the Congo
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment he has made of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. [129583]

  Mr. Mullin
  The transitional process in Kinshasa is now making encouraging progress. The new Transitional National Government (TNG) should provide a real opportunity for the Democratic Republic of the Congo to put an end to the cycle of conflict and human rights abuses and start on the path to democracy and development. We are looking actively at ways in which we can provide support—bilaterally, with EU and other partners, and through the UN.

  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo regarding human rights abuses in that country; and if he will make a statement. [129827]

  Mr. Mullin
  Before the Transitional National Government (TNG) was installed in Kinshasa at the end of July our ambassador made regular representations to the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo about human rights abuses in the territory they then controlled. During the same period the Government supported international efforts to raise human rights awareness in rebel-held areas and, with the EU, condemned abuses in those territories.

  Since installation of the TNG, we have continued to make our views known, both bilaterally and with our international partners. We will support the work of relevant institutions such as the National Human Rights Observatoire.

  Iraq
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many officials the Coalition Provisional Administration has in the British-controlled sector of Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [128795]

  Mr. Rammell
  The number of Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) officials in the British-controlled sector is approximately 90. These officials are of various nationalities, and include military and civilians (who might be government secondees, consultants, or contractors). This excludes(a) people and organisations that support CPA with services e.g. security, (b) contractors who are implementing projects but not in any strict sense involved in administration and (c) military who are doing related jobs and are part of the coalition forces but not of CPA.

  The 90 currently includes 27 British civilian staff members with the Coalition Provisional Authority South in the British-controlled sector of Iraq. These include three police and 14 from the Department for International Development. In addition, there are 39 uniformed personnel. It is expected that at least 34 more additional posts will be filled in the near future.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on which dates the UNSCOM inspectors visited presidential sites in Iraq before 1999; and what facilities were inspected on each date. [129282]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 15 September 2003]: A special team of inspectors, with 20 senior diplomats acting as observers, was established in March 1998 to carry out inspections at eight presidential sites. The inspection mission, UNSCOM 243, visited the sites on the following dates: Radwaniya on 26 and 27 March; Tikrit on 28 March; Mosul and Jabal Makhul on 29 March; Tharthar and Basrah on 30 March; and the Republican Palace and Sijood sites in Baghdad on 1 and 2 April. The inspectors' report was subsequently published as a United Nations document (S/1 998/326), which can be found on the UN internet website at www.un.org/Depts/unscom/s98–326.htm.

  There were no further visits to any of these sites.

  Liberia
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Liberia. [129826]

  Mr. Mullin
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) on 8 September 2003,Official Report, column 63W.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the members of ECOWAS about(a) UK, (b) EU and (c) UN assistance in Liberia; when these discussions took place; what the outcome of these discussions has been; and if he will make a statement. [129975]
  677W
  Mr. Mullin
  The UK is committed to working closely with the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) to ensure that the present Multi-National Force, and the UN Mission planned for Liberia, are successful in restoring peace and security to Liberia. We have been in close and regular contact with members of ECOWAS, especially Nigeria, over assistance in Liberia.

  We have had discussions within the European Union to ensure adequate funding for Liberia. We have also had discussions within the UN to ensure that the UN Mission is fully equipped to do its job. We have committed £1 million to the ECOWAS Multi-National Force, and have seconded a military adviser to the ECOWAS Secretariat. We have also offered military advisers to the UN planning mission and head quarters.

  Moldova
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government are taking to assist with the control of proliferation of(a) weapons and (b) nuclear materials in Transnistria in Moldova. [130184]

  Mr. MacShane
  We are not aware of any dangerous nuclear materials in the breakaway region of Transnistria. Along with EU partners and allies, we are assisting Russia with the destruction/removal of arms from Transnistria. We are also focusing closely on the political settlement negotiations between Moldova and Transnistria. Resolution of this "frozen conflict" is essential for extending the rule of law throughout the entire territory, an element of which is improved control of arms proliferation. The UK joined with EU partners in imposing targeted sanctions on the Transnistrian leadership in February this year to put pressure on them to negotiate with the Moldovan authorities. I urged the Ukrainian government to take action with the Moldovan authorities to deal with the Transnistria problem in talks in Kiev on 15 September.

  Nepal
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what instructions have been issued to officials at the High Commission in Kathmandu regarding applications from the wives of Gurkhas, serving in this country, for visitor visas in cases where the soldiers have six months or less to serve. [130181]

  Mr. Mullin
  No specific instructions are issued to the British Embassy in Kathmandu in respect of visit visa applications from the dependants of Gurkha soldiers. Applications for all visitor visas are considered on their own merits in accordance with the United Kingdom Immigration Rules, and no special arrangements are in place for the dependants of Gurkha soldiers.

  However, entry clearance staff in Kathmandu are aware that any Gurkha whose family wish to visit him in the United Kingdom has to follow British Army standing regulations.
  678W
  A Gurkha soldier is required to submit to his Commanding Officer a request for members of his family to visit him in the United Kingdom. If the visit is agreed the Army issues a "certificate—Visit by Gurkha Family to Husband's/Father's duty station in the UK"

  An entry clearance application is then made in the normal way. Entry clearance staff in Kathmandu would expect the above-mentioned certificate to be included with other supporting documentation.

  Overseas Students
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received on the level of charges for visas and leave to remain for overseas students; and if he will make a statement. [129981]

  Mr. Mullin
  I have received few representations regarding the level of visa fees for students. Visa fees are set at a level to ensure that the full cost of providing the entry clearance service worldwide is met from fee income and that the UK taxpayer does not have to meet any of the costs. From 1 July 2002, the visa fee for students has been set at £36. Student visas are issued for the duration of their course regardless of its length. Charges for leave to remain are administered by the Home Office and I have therefore not received representations on this matter.

  Uganda
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement concerning the human rights situation in Northern Uganda. [129323]

  Mr. Mullin
  We deplore the actions of the rebel group, the Lord's Resistance Army, in northern Uganda. In their 17 year war against the Government of Uganda they have been responsible for the abduction of over 20,000 children, many of whom become child soldiers, and massacres of thousands of local civilians. We are also concerned about reports that the Ugandan Army has been involved in recruitment of child soldiers, arbitrary arrests and mistreatment of detainees and have failed to protect the local population. The conflict has resulted in over one million displaced persons now living in refugee camps. We have raised these issues with the Ugandan government. The UK has responded to the worsening humanitarian situation by working with the international donor community and the World Food Programme (WFP) to bring relief to the affected region. Total UK support was £2.5 million in 2002–03.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the UN Security Council concerning the situation in Northern Uganda; and if he will make a statement. [129324]

  Mr. Mullin
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has not raised the situation in northern Uganda with the UN Security Council. While we recognise the Government of Uganda's need for a security response to the Lord's Resistance Army insurgency, we are concerned about the deteriorating humanitarian situation in the region caused by the fighting. We have raised our concerns with the Ugandan
  679W
  Government and have encouraged them to consider other solutions to a military one. The UK is also liaising with EU partners and members of the donor community to consider how to help the Government of Uganda resolve the conflict.

  UN Arms Embargoes
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Government has responded to the requests by the United Nations Security Council for information on violations of arms embargoes in Rwanda by UK companies discussed in the United Security Council document Third Report of the International Commission of Inquiry (Rwanda) (S/1997/1010). [129880]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Government takes seriously its responsibilities to ensure UK companies respect arms embargoes. Document S/1997/1010 mentions two requests for information: one to HM Customs and Excise (paragraph 64) and one to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) (paragraph 65). The MOD letter was answered, although the International Commission of Inquiry did not have enough time to follow up on it. The letter to HM Customs and Excise was unanswered at the time of the report, but it is very unlikely that any information about alleged criminal activity or any investigation could be made available. The report did not refer to any unanswered letters addressed to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the impact of traditional tribal demarcations and affinities in developing countries on the effectiveness of UN arms embargoes. [130183]

  Mr. Rammell
  No formal study of the impact of traditional tribal demarcations and affinities in developing countries on the effectiveness of UN arms embargoes has been made by Her Majesty's Government.

  UN Peacekeeping Operations
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the United Nations on the use of reputable transport suppliers for UN peacekeepers. [130193]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Government maintains an ongoing dialogue with the United Nations about all aspects of UN peacekeeping missions, including logistics.

  Western Sahara
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects a UN authorised referendum to be held on the future of Western Sahara; and if he will make a statement. [130022]

  Mr. Rammell
  The United Kingdom supports fully the efforts of the UN Secretary General and his Personal Envoy, James Baker III, to find a just, lasting and mutually acceptable solution to the Western Sahara dispute that provides for self-determination for the people of Western Sahara.
  680W
  In July this year the Security Council called upon the parties to the dispute to work with the United Nations and with each other towards acceptance and implementation of James Baker's Peace Plan which provides for a UN organised referendum after a transitional period. We are encouraging the parties and states of the region to cooperate fully with the Secretary-General and his personal envoy to this end.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Broadband
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of(a) secondary and (b) primary schools in rural areas have a broadband connection. [129359]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information is not yet held in the format requested but feedback from Regional Broadband Consortia currently indicates that a significant number of rural schools are already connected to broadband using a range of technologies including radio and satellite. The Department has requested specific information from Regional Broadband Consortia and local education authorities, which, when compiled by November 2003, will give the percentage of rural schools connected.

  In England, 91 per cent. of secondary schools are connected at a minimum of 2 megabits per second, as are 26 per cent. of primary schools.

  The Department is supporting the Government's Broadband Aggregation Project launched in July 2003, which will see the formation of nine Regional Aggregation Bodies tasked with aggregating demand and procuring broadband across the public sector. The project's two key aims are to ensure best value for the public sector's 1 billion investment in broadband and to help stimulate supply in areas where very little broadband is available. The Regional Aggregation Bodies and the Broadband Aggregation Project should significantly improve access to broadband by rural schools.

  Circulars
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the circular documents that were sent by his Department to(a) primary and (b) secondary schools between 1 July and 31 August; and how many pages each document contained. [129722]

  Mr. Miliband
  We did not send any documents automatically to either primary schools or to secondary schools in the period, 1 July 2003 to 31 August 2003. The last mailing of documents to schools occurred in June 2003.

  Correspondence
  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Walsall, North of 5 August regarding a constituent, ref: 2003 0050920. [129734]
  681W
  Mr. Miliband
  I replied to my hon. Friend's letter of 5 August on 10 September.

  Crosby
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the projects to which

  £ million

  Pupils aged 3–19

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Education Formula Spending—general funding for schools and LEAs

  116.5

  122.2

  128.2

  132.0

  129.6

  143.0

  Standards Fund—is paid to LEAs and schools to support national education priorities, focussing on key strategies for reform and improving standards.

  1.6

  3.2

  6.0

  9.4

  11.6

  13.9

  3yo Nursery Education Grant—to assist LEAs to reach universal (participation) provision of all 3 year olds.

  —

  0.1

  0.8

  1.1

  1.2

  —

  4yo Nursery Education Grant—to assist LEAs to reach universal (participation) provision for all 4 year olds.

  0.4

  0.4

  0.3

  —

  —

  —

  Class Size Reduction—to assist schools to reduce class size in ksl and 2.

  —

  0.4

  1.1

  1.2

  1.0

  —

  Teacher Green Paper Grants—the main grants in this category are Teacher Threshold payments and Performance pay

  —

  —

  1.9

  3.4

  4.0

  N/a

  Schools Standard Grant—to help schools improve standards and is allocated based on the number, size and type school in each authority.

  —

  —

  1.8

  3.8

  3.9

  4.8

  Learning and Skills Council—is responsible for planning and funding education and training of 6th form school provision.

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9.1

  9.8

  School Budget Support—paid to LEAs in a particular year to cope with particular school budgetary pressures.

  —

  —

  0.3

  —

  —

  —

  Education Budget Support—paid to LEAs in a particular year to additional education budget support.

  —

  —

  —

  0.9

  —

  —

  Post 16 Budget Support—paid in order assist the transition of post 16 funding to the LSC.

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.6

  —

  Capital Funding—to improve school buildings.

  0.7

  1.5

  3.3

  7.6

  8.1

  9.1

  Total

  119.2

  127.8

  143.7

  159.3

  169.1

  n/a

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many classroom assistants were employed in Crosby in each year since 1997. [129459]

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

  Maintained nursery, primary, middle and secondary schools and pupil referral

  Units: Full-time equivalent number of teaching assistants

  Crosby Parliamentary Constituency—

  Position at January each year

  FTE teaching assistants1

  1997

  89

  1998

  92

  1999

  103

  2000

  123

  2001

  145

  20022

  131

  2003

  157

  1 Includes teaching assistants, special needs support staff and minority ethnic pupil support staff

  2 Changes in the collection of support staff data in 2002 may have altered the distribution of staff between "teaching assistants" and "other staff" categories, affecting, comparisons with other years.

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many times he has visited Crosby in his official capacity; and what the purpose was of each visit. [129461]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I have not visited Crosby in an official capacity since taking up post as Secretary of State for Education and Skills.
  682W
  his Department has allocated funding in Crosby in each year since 1997. [129458]

  Mr. Miliband
  The table shows the total recurrent and capital funding allocated to Sefton local education authority between 1997–98 and 2003–04. Separate figures for Crosby are not available.

  Departmental Computer Security
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much has been(a) budgeted and (b) spent by his Department since April 2002 on (i) combating computer fraud, (ii) preventing theft of computers and (iii) safeguarding the security of information held on computer; and if he will make a statement. [128772]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  This Department manages the security of its information, including information held on its computer systems, in accordance with the guidance given in the Manual of Protective Security; a comprehensive body of policy and interdepartmentally agreed security standards that is issued by the Cabinet Office.

  The Department has an experienced IT security officer and deputy who advise how IT systems should be designed to minimise risk.

  Portable IT equipment In London, at particular risk, is electronically tagged to prevent unauthorised removal and this has contributed to a reduction in the level of theft. The maintenance cost of the tagging system is £15,000 a year.

  All external links to the Department are protected against unauthorised access by firewalls. Anti-virus software protects the Department's systems against malicious software at an annual cost of £45,000.

  Deprivation
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures are being taken to raise the aspirations of young pupils in deprived areas; and what progress has been made in encouraging them to attain higher standards. [129091]
  683W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We are currently investing over £500 million pounds a year in revenue funding to raise the aspirations and achievements of young pupils in deprived areas through the Excellence in Cities programme. The programme covers 58 authorities as well as Excellence Clusters which tackle smaller pockets of deprivation. It includes some 1,000 secondary schools and over 1,000 primaries. In addition to providing Learning Mentors Learning Support Units enhanced opportunities for Gifted and Talented pupils and EiC Action Zones and City Learning Centres, the funding also provides for the delivery of Behaviour Improvement Plans, Leadership Incentive Grant and Aim Higher which is specifically designed to raise aspirations and widen access to Higher Education.

  OFSTED's recent report on Excellence In Cities found that: schools and teachers had been helped to meet the needs of disaffected and vulnerable pupils more effectively; exclusions are being reduced; attendance is improving at a faster rate in the schools involved in the programme; and the introduction of the programme has been associated with a faster rise in standards in secondary schools in EiC areas than nationally.

  As well as the additional support provided through the Governments targeted initiatives we are aiming to raise the aspirations and educational performance of pupils in deprived areas through mainstream programmes. The mainstream Primary and KS3 National Strategies are built on the principle that all children are capable of attaining high standards.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills in what circumstances children in deprived areas are paid to attend(a) school, (b) sixth form college, (c) further education colleges; and what guidance he has issued on how much is granted on a weekly basis. [129092]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) is currently running as a pilot scheme in 56 Local Education Authority (LEA) areas in England. The pilots have tested eight variants of payment arrangements for EMA, two of which concentrate on the costs of transport. The maximum weekly payments vary from £20 to £40 assessed on income levels up to £30,000. Guidance on the pilot arrangements is made available through the LEAs.

  From September 2004 EMAs will be made available across England, offering a weekly payment of up to £30, paid directly to young people who stay on in further education after they reach statutory leaving age. Young people may also receive bonuses if they remain on their course and make good progress with their learning. A leaflet explaining the national EMA scheme was published in August this year and copies are available in the House of Commons Library.

  For young people with specific needs there is financial support available through the Learner Support Funds, providing help towards transport costs, books and equipment, residential allowances and help with childcare.

  The support arrangements for school leavers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are a matter for the devolved administrations.

  Gifted Pupils
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pupils attended the National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth in 2003; how many places were available; and what proportion of the pupils attended non-specialist, non-selective maintained schools. [129166]

  Mr. Miliband
  522 students took part in the 2003 summer schools provided by the Academy, against a planning assumption of 900 places. 82 per cent. were from non-selective, maintained schools. Data was not collected on numbers from specialist schools.

  The Academy provides a range of services and support to its members in addition to the summer schools, including on-line communities, research material and outreach events. 621 Academy members took part in such outreach events during the pilot year. In the 2003–04 academic year, the Academy is planning over 200 events reaching a potential 6,000 participants. Membership of the Academy currently stands at 2,022 with applications arriving at a rate of 75 each week.

  Gurkhas (Children's Education)
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether the children of Gurkha soldiers, stationed in this country attending British schools are classified as(a) home and (b) overseas students for the purposes of university fees. [130178]

  Alan Johnson
  Universities and higher education colleges decide whether to classify students as "home" or "overseas" for tuition fee purposes using the Education (Fees and Awards) Regulations 1997, as amended. To qualify for home fee status under these regulations, students at higher education institutions normally need to have been resident in the UK for three years before the start of their course, and have "settled status" under the Immigration Act 1971.

  Implementation Review Unit
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what role school governors will play in(a) the new Implementation Review Unit and (b) the Monitoring Group; and if he will make a statement. [125427]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 14 July 2003]: We are proposing to set up termly meetings between the panel of the new Implementation Review Unit (IRU) and governor organisations The IRU is also keen to hear from individual school governors on particular workload burdens they would most like tackled and any constructive time-saving examples from their school that could be used more widely. Governors will be notified of IRU contact details in the September "Governors" newsletter.

  Earlier this year I met with representatives of the National Governors' Council and the National Association of Governors and Managers to discuss how best to ensure that school governing bodies are fully involved in the implementation of the National Agreement and the work of the Workforce Agreement Monitoring Group (WAMG).
  685W
  Following these discussions, my Department has set up a regular forum between governors' representatives and the WAMG. The first took place on 27 June; a further one-day seminar was held on 21 July. One of the outcomes will be the development and distribution of specific materials for school governors to help them contribute to workforce reform.

  Learning and Skills Council
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on redundancies likely to be involved in restructuring of the Learning and Skills Council and its local councils. [129703]

  Alan Johnson
  The Learning and Skills Council is undertaking a reshaping exercise which is designed to build on its existing strengths, to enhance its capacity to work with partners to develop and to implement the strategies necessary to achieve national targets for skills and learning, while streamlining routine administrative arrangements. At the end of its reshaping the LSC will have significantly fewer staff. The LSC intends to manage these reductions through a process of voluntary severance as far as possible.

  John Harwood, the Council's Chief Executive, will write to the hon. Gentleman with more information about the reshaping exercise and place a copy of his reply in the Library.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the budget of the Learning and Skills Council was for each of the last three years; and what the predicted budget is in each of the next three years. [129792]

  Alan Johnson
  The Learning and Skills Council (LSC) assumed many of its responsibilities under the Learning and Skills Act 2000 from 1 April 2001 and for funding of school sixth forms from 1 April 2002. The amounts of its budgets for each financial year from 2001–02, as notified in the relevant Grant Letters to the LSC are as follows:

  £ million

  2001–02

  5,536.000

  2002–03

  7,310.890

  2003–04

  8,095.374

  2004–05

  8,618.254

  2005–06

  9,200.308

  The LSC's budget for 2006–07 is dependent on the outcome of the 2004 Spending Review.

  Level 2 Qualification
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what local discretion he will allow to(a) further education colleges and (b) local learning and skills councils in determining entitlement to free study for a Level 2 qualification. [129696]

  Alan Johnson
  The eligibility criteria for the new entitlement to free learning at Level 2, announced in the Skills Strategy White Paper, will be determined nationally. Our intention is to encourage those not already qualified at full Level 2 to achieve at that level.686W
  However, further education colleges will continue to have the discretion to waive fees for learners studying at Level 2 who are not covered by the national entitlement.

  Modern Apprenticeships
  Rob Marris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the success rates for modern apprenticeships as set out in Statistical First Release ISR/SFR 25 issued on 24 July; what plans he has to improve these rates; and if he will make a statement. [129523]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The success rates for Modern Apprenticeships (MA) published in July were issued for the first time in this form. The rates vary widely between sectors and some will need to improve markedly if we are to achieve our ambition to revitalise and expand apprenticeship programmes. However, the latest figures we have do show that overall MA success rates have increased to 39 per cent. in the year to January 2003. While this improvement is significant and sustained we and the Learning and Skills Council are not complacent. We need to do more.

  We have asked the Modern Apprenticeship Task Force, chaired by Sir Roy Gardner, to focus on this issue. They and the LSC are doing so sector by sector.

  In addition as part of the 'Success for All' programme the LSC has introduced minimum performance levels from 2003/04 for all providers, including those of MAs. These should be achieved by 2005/06. The LSC will rigorously monitor and review progress with each of its providers against these targets. Where performance is not satisfactory the LSC will take decisive action with the provider concerned up to and including the withdrawal of contracts.

  Older Workers
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make it his policy(a) to monitor the participation levels of various age cohorts of adults and (b) to set targets to reduce the drop-off of learning from age 40 onwards. [129040]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Department and partner bodies do already monitor participation levels, and other factors such as attitudes and experiences of learning, through a number of sources including the Labour Force Survey, the Learning and Skills Council's Individualised Learner Record, the National Adult Learning Survey and NIACE surveys. Age of learner is an important factor in all of these sources and the Department regularly undertakes analyses based on age. Many of the publications based on these sources do contain breakdowns by age. Results from the 2002 NIACE survey on adult participation showed that the proportion of 35 to 44-year-olds who were current/recent learners had increased from 43 per cent. in 1996 to 49 per cent. in 2002. Participation among 45 to 54-year-olds increased from 36 per cent. to 44 per cent. over the same period. These increases are greater than for younger age groups.

  The Government recognises the importance of encouraging all people, regardless of age, to participate in learning and increase their skills and is committed to safeguard the provision of a wide range of earning for

  687W
  adults for culture, leisure community and personal fulfilment purposes with a better choice of opportunities to encourage adults back into learning. Through our Success for All reforms we will raise standards, increase participation and improve outcomes for learners and employers. We have introduced targets for learner numbers and learner success rates, including new national floor targets which set out the minimum acceptable levels of performance for colleges and other providers to be met or exceeded by 2006. These are aimed at improving the responsiveness and quality of provision to meet the needs of learners at all ages. The recently published Skills Strategy includes the new guarantee of free tuition for any adult without a good foundation of employability skills to get the training that they need to achieve such a qualification, known as a Level 2 qualification—explicitly noting that a higher than average proportion of older workers do not possess a Level 2 qualification.

  The Government has set itself stretching targets to increase the basic skill levels of 1.5 million adults by 2007 and to reduce by 40 per cent. the number of adults without a qualification at NVQ level 2 or its equivalent by 2010. These targets will only be achieved if those over the age of 40 increase their participation and attainment in learning. Government believes that targets focused on ensuring all individuals achieve minimum levels of skill are the most appropriate for meeting the needs of the economy and society.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the implications of extending modern apprenticeships to all age groups. [129041]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Our Skills Strategy, "21st Century Skills—Realising Our Potential", explained that we are committed to removing the age cap on Modern Apprenticeships in response to industry's concern that it constitutes a barrier to meeting their skill needs. As a first step, we have changed the rules so that, from 1 August 2003, young people who start their Modern Apprenticeship at any point up to their 25th birthday can complete it. Beyond that, we will invite the Sector Skills Councils (SSCs) to put forward their proposals to design and implement a Modern Apprenticeship programme for adults in their sector as part of the new Sector Skills Agreements. It will be for individual SSCs, the Sector Skills Development Agency (SSDA) and key partners including employers to assess the implications of this change for particular sectors. They will do so taking account of the need to maintain high standards; current budget limitations; and forthcoming European age discrimination legislation.

  Pupil Exclusions
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) primary schools, (b) city technology colleges, (c) other secondary schools and (d) special schools have been fined for excluding pupils in each year since 1998; if he will list each school; and what the size was of the fine for each individual school affected. [127897]

  Mr. Miliband
  Schools have never been fined for excluding pupils. Between 1999 and 2003 they received more than £350 million in specific funding for 688W
  preventive work with pupils at risk of exclusion in addition to the normal delegated funding for those pupils. If a pupil was excluded LEAs were able to recover between £2,000 and £6,000 from schools to help pay for alternative provision. LEAs were not required to give the Department details of such recoveries. Funding for preventive work and provision for permanently excluded pupils is now mainstreamed so LEAs and schools determine resourcing arrangements locally.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent correspondence he has had with the teacher unions on the exclusion of pupils from schools; and if he will place that correspondence in the Library. [127898]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had no recent correspondence with the teacher unions on the exclusion of pupils from schools.

  Teachers
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the life expectancy of(a) male and (b) female teachers in post aged (i) 50 to 55 and (ii) 55 to 60; and whether he has compared his estimates with those for other professionals in the same age groups. [129101]

  Mr. Miliband
  Based on the Government Actuary's recent valuation of the Teachers' Pension Scheme, average life expectancy for teachers in each of the age groups is:

  Years

  Males

  Aged 50–55

  33

  Aged 55–60

  28

  Females

  Aged 50–55

  36

  Aged 55–60

  31

  In carrying out the valuation, the Government Actuary did not make any direct comparisons of life expectancy with other professions.

  Training Initiatives
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which publicly funded training initiatives are open to(a) EU nationals of other member states resident in the UK and (b) asylum seekers. [129778]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  European Union (EU) nationals and their dependants resident in the UK or elsewhere in the European Economic Area for the previous three years are eligible for further education (FE). EU nationals are also eligible for work based learning for young people, which consists of the Entry to Employment and Modern Apprenticeship initiatives, and are eligible for local authority organised adult education.

  Asylum seekers and their dependants who are supported by the National Asylum Support Service or similar, are eligible for FE. Unaccompanied asylum seekers aged 16–18 in the care of social services are also eligible for FE. Asylum seekers are not eligible for Modern Apprenticeships but may be accepted on to

  689W
  Entry to Employment courses. Eligibility for access to local authority organised adult education is generally in line with that for FE but local authorities have discretion to set their own criteria and might make provision available to additional categories of asylum seekers.

TRANSPORT

  Air Terrorism (Electronic Countermeasures)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 7 January 2003,Official Report, column 98W, (1) on commercial aircraft terrorism, if he will make a statement about progress made in seeking specialist advice on fitting electronic countermeasures to UK civil aviation fleets over and above Goodrich Video Surveillance apparatus; [130286]

  (2) what recent discussions he has had with UK commercial aircraft operators about fitting electronic counter measures to UK civil aviation fleets. [130287]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department is engaged in continuing work with a number of parties on measures, including on-board electronic systems, for countering the threat from shoulder-launched weapons. Those parties include UK aircraft operators. It would not be appropriate on security grounds to disclose the progress of this work.

  Aircraft Security
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent assessment he has made of the security risks posed by(a) glass bottles and (b) minor household items, with particular reference to nail files, aboard aircraft. [128736]

  Mr. McNulty
  As part of the heightened security measures introduced in September 2001, airports and airlines are required not to allow into an airport's Restricted Zone, or into the cabin of an aircraft, any item which could potentially be used as a weapon. The list of prohibited items, which was provided, is not exhaustive, and includes a requirement to remove from passengers any other article which the airport or airline reasonably consider might be used, or adapted, for causing injury. All of the measures in the National Aviation Security Programme are kept under permanent review.

  Biofuels
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he intends to implement the EU guidelines for biofuel use in road transport of 2 per cent. use by the end of 2005 and 5.75 per cent. use by the end of 2010. [130423]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government intend to consult with key stakeholders on UK implementation of this legislation early next year. This consultation will cover the level of indicative targets for both 2005 and 2010.

  Road Transport Fuels
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what percentage by weight of road transport fuel LPG/CNG has provided over the last 12 months; [129922]
  690W
  (2) what incentives are in place for motorists to use LPG/CNG; and how long these have been in place; [129923]

  (3) what percentage by weight of UK road transport fuel is expected to be biofuels by the end of (a) 2005 and (b) 2010; [129924]

  (4) what incentives are in place for motorists to use biodiesel and bioethanol; and how long these have been in place. [129925]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Figures supplied by HM Customs and Excise indicate that the percentage of all road transport fuel, by volume, of road fuel gases provided between July 2002 and June 2003 was 0.39 per cent.

  The Government support the take-up of LPG and natural gas vehicles through both the fuel duty incentives for road fuel gases, which have been in place since 1995, and the grants, which have been available since, towards the purchase of LPG and natural gas vehicles, which are available through the PowerShift programme. In addition, discounts apply to alternatively fuelled cars under the carbon dioxide emissions based company car tax and graduated Vehicle Excise Duty regimes. As announced in Budget 2003, the Government have been consulting stakeholders on how best to ensure that future support for road fuel gases continues to reflect environmental and other policy objectives, with a view to announcing decisions in the 2003 Pre-Budget Report.

  We recognise that biofuels also have a role to play in reducing the environmental impact of road transport. In recognition of these benefits, the Government have introduced a reduced rate of duty for biodiesel of 20p/1 below that for conventional ULSD. Since introduction of this rate in July 2002, production of biodiesel has increased more than 10 fold to over two million litres a month. A similar incentive 20p/1 in the rate for bioethanol is due to be introduced on 1 January 2005.

  The Government intend to consult with all key stakeholders on UK implementation of the Biofuels Directive, which requires the UK to set indicative targets for the use of biofuels in road transport for both 2005 and 2010. Publication of the consultation paper is due in the first half of next year.

  Highways Authority
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he intends to take to amend or remove Highways Authority Performance Indicators BVPI 100 and BVPI 96. [129749]

  Mr. Jamieson
  BVPI 96 measures the condition of the carriageway on principal roads. BVPI 100 measures the duration of temporary traffic controls on traffic sensitive roads. A road may be defined as traffic sensitive at certain times of day only. Although temporary traffic controls or road closure may be necessary to carry out road repairs, BVPI 100 encourages authorities to plan these measures to take place outside traffic sensitive times, thereby minimising disruption to traffic.

  Low Emission Zones
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will consult hon. Members before he authorises the introduction of traffic low emission zones. [130190]

  Dr. Howells
  My Department is currently undertaking a public consultation exercise on proposals to change the regulations concerning Traffic Regulation Conditions (TRC) that the Traffic Commissioner can apply to registered local bus services in a particular area (outside London). This will cover, among other things, the power to specify minimum emission limits that vehicles affected by a TRC would have to meet.

  The consultation document can be found on my Department's website at: http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_localtrans/documents/page/dft_localtra_023519.hcsp. The consultation period ends on 3 October.

  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what(a) discussions and (b) representations he has had on the introduction of low emission zones; who was involved; and if he will make a statement on what was agreed. [130191]

  Dr. Howells
  We are aware of the consideration of Low Emission Zones (LEZ), as one way of reducing emissions in areas where there are air quality problems. The National Society for Clean Air (NSCA), together with the Association for London Government (ALG) and the Greater London Authority (GLA) are jointly investigating the possibility of introducing a London-wide LEZ. The London Low Emission Zone Feasibility Study—Phase II Final report has been published in July this year (available on website www london-lez.org) and I understand that the findings of the study are being considered for further action. The NSCA consulted on a recommended standard for National Low Emission Zones in May. However I understand that further research will be necessary before an agreed standard may be announced.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the sites of special scientific interest in the ownership of his Department or its agencies. [129345]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Maritime and Coastguard Agency is the owner of one site designated as being SSSI. This site is at Prawle Point in Devon.

  The Highways Agency is the owner/part owner of 43 sites within the operational estate and two sites within the non-operational estate, designated as being SSSIs. The sites are as follows:

  Operational estate:

  Severn Estuary

  Kennet and Lambourn Floodplain

  River Kennet

  River Lambourn

  Aston Rowant

  Devil's Dyke

  Tebay Road Cuttings

  Ashburton Road Cuttings

  Buckland-in-the-Moor

  Slop Bog and Uddens Heath

  692W

  >Epping Forest

  Purfleet Road, Aveley

  River Wye

  River Test

  The New Forest

  Hurcott and Podmore Pools

  River Lugg

  River Wye, Hereford and Worcester

  Wilton Bluff, Ross

  Ashwell Springs

  Northaw Great Wood

  Sherrards Park Wood

  Therfield Heath

  Castlethorpe Tufas

  Humber Flats and Marshes: Upper Humber

  Folkestone Warren

  Ant Broads and Marshes

  Potter and Scarning Fens

  Southfield Farm Marsh

  River Coquet and Coquet Valley Woodlands

  Aston Rowant Cutting

  Sugworth

  River Severn at Montford

  Doxey and Tillington Marshes

  Orwell Estuary

  Thursley, Hankley and Frensham Commons

  Titsey Woods

  Griff Hill Quarry

  River Blythe

  Stockton Railway Cutting and Quarry

  Ufton Fields

  Bingley South Bog

  Hook Moor

  Non-operational estate:
  Plot 1—Bescott Viaduct, Walsall, West Midlands
  Land adjoining M3 and River Itchen, Itchen Abbas, Hampshire

  To the best of our knowledge these are the only SSSI on the DfT estate.

  Station Facilities
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action the Strategic Rail Authority is taking to ensure that train operating companies improve(a) train station facilities and (b) access for disabled people. [129582]

  Mr. McNulty
  Those bidding for new and replacement franchises will be asked to price various options, including improved station facilities, which the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) could consider taking forward at any time during the life of the franchise. On 27 August 2003, the SRA announced a programme of investment of £25 million in Modern Facilities at Stations. This will provide enhanced facilities at 68 stations. The SRA's Code of Practice on Train and Station Services for Disabled Passengers sets out standards on accessibility. Train and station operators have been asked to review their Disabled Peoples Protection Policies to identify and prioritise accessibility improvements.

  US Warship Disposal
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the Health and Safety Executive has granted an exemption from the Asbestos (Prohibitions) Regulations to former US naval ships seeking passage to Teesside for demolition. [130017]

  Mr. Jamieson
  HSE issued an exemption certificate to the Asbestos (Prohibitions) Regulations to Able UK Ltd. on 5 September 2003. This allows the importation of 13 ships from the US Government reserve fleet into Teesside for decommissioning and recycling and disposal of the asbestos subject to conditions.

  A copy of the exemption certificate including those conditions will be placed in the House Libraries and on the HSE asbestos website.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Older Workers
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what plans he has to introduce incentives for people to work beyond the age of 60; and if he will make a statement; [129037]

  (2) what plans he has to abolish normal retirement ages; if he will make it his policy (a) to increase the state pension and (b) to devise incentives for those who continue in work; and if he will make a statement. [129042]

  Mr. Pond
  The Government's Green Paper—"Simplicity, Security and Choice: Working and saving for retirement", (CM5677) issued in December 2002, outlined a number of incentives to help people continue in work up to and over state pension age.

  From 2003, we will introduce a package of intensive back to work help for people aged 50 and over including extending the support available through new deal 50 plus. The working tax credit now includes additional elements for eligible people aged 50 or over who move into work for 16 hours a week or more.

  From 2005, we will be looking at changes to the tax rules to allow people to continue working for the sponsoring employer while drawing their occupational pension and consulting on best practice to ensure that occupational pension rules do not discourage flexible working.

  The Government's Green Paper also recognised that the state pension has a role to play in encouraging flexible retirement. We therefore published proposals to improve the reward for deferring state pension from 2006 by increasing the rate at which weekly increments can be earned, and offering an alternative to increments in the form of a taxable lump sum payment. We will be announcing our plans on this proposal in due course.

  In October 2006, we will implement anti-age discrimination legislation covering employment and vocational training. This will include making compulsory retirement ages unlawful except in those cases where employers can show they are objectively justified.
  694W
  And from 2010, as state pension ages start to equalise, as well as looking at policies to treat men and women aged between 60 and women's new state pension age as active labour market participants, we also propose to raise the earliest age that a pension may be taken from age 50 to age 55, to further promote the benefits of extending working life for both employee and employer.

  Alongside the implementation of these policies, we will continue to work to change employers' attitudes through our Age Positive campaign, and through the development of good practice guidance materials with employer organisations and other external partners. This work will help ensure opportunity for all and remove discriminatory practices, which encourage involuntary withdrawal from the labour market and early retirement.

  The Government are currently consulting on options for outlawing age discrimination in employment and vocational training under the European Employment Directive. The Age Matters consultation document launched on 2 July includes proposals for tackling employers' mandatory retirement ages—that is, the ages employers set for the compulsory retirement of their employees. Under the directive, compulsory retirement ages will be unlawful unless they can be objectively justified. The Government will decide how to tackle this once it has analysed and considered the responses to the consultation. Age Matters also explains that we shall take advantage of the directive's provisions that allow occupational pension schemes to set ages for admission or entitlement to retirement benefits. Such normal pension ages are necessary for the operation of defined benefit schemes.

  Operation Gangmaster
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what representations Operation Gangmaster has(a) sought and (b) received from (i) local authorities, (ii) primary care trusts, (iii) chambers of commerce and (iv) locally based government agencies. [129779]

  Mr. Pond
  Operation Gangmaster has neither sought nor received representations from local authorities, primary care trusts or chambers of commerce. However, we have involved the following organisations on a regional basis as partners in Operation Gangmaster:

  Department for Work and Pensions

  Inland Revenue

  H M Customs and Excise

  Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Health and Safety Executive

  U.K. Immigration Service

  National Asylum Support Service

  Uniform and Plain Clothes Police Officers

  National Criminal Intelligence Service

  Scottish Executive

  Social Services

  Child Support
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment his Department has made of progress in the implementation of the new
  695W
  child support system; when the full transfer of child support cases onto the new system will take place; and if he will make a statement. [129974]

  Mr. Pond
  A report on progress in the implementation of the new child support scheme was placed in the Library on 14 July 2003. We have made it clear that we shall only make a decision on the transfer of old scheme cases once we are sure that the new scheme is working well.

  Employment Statistics
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what assessment he has made of the most recent employment statistics; [129500]

  (2) what the change in the level of unemployment in the Crosby constituency has been since 1997. [129502]

  Mr. Browne
  Latest statistics show that employment is at record levels and that the number of people in work continues to grow. Employment has risen by 63,000 in the last quarter, 224,000 over the last year and by more than 1.5 million since 1997.

  The improvement in the labour market has been spread right across the country. Since 1997, unemployment rates have fallen fastest in the areas with the highest unemployment. In Crosby, claimant unemployment has nearly halved since 1997, while the number of long-term unemployed claimants has fallen by 70 per cent.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many recipients of Incapacity Benefit there are; and how many there were in each of the last 10 years. [130025]

  Maria Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Number of recipients of Incapacity Benefit and its predecessors

  2 April 1994

  1,809,000

  12 April 1995

  1,894,000

  29 February 1996

  1,813,000

  28 February 1997

  1,749,000

  28 February 1998

  1,671,000

  28 February 1999

  1,557,000

  29 February 2000

  1,504,000

  28 February 2001

  1,515,000

  28 February 2002

  1,497,000

  28 February 2003

  1,506,000

  Notes:

  1. Figures rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. Incapacity Benefit replaced Sickness and Invalidity Benefits from 13 April 1995.

  3. Figures for 1994 and 1995 are taken from a 1 per cent. sample of claims to benefit.

  4. From February 1996 onwards figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample of the benefit computer system and will exclude a small number of clerically held cases.

  5. Figures include a small number of people resident overseas.

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre, 1 per cent. and 5 per cent. samples.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the number of pensioners(a) entitled to Minimum Income Guarantee and (b) who were not claiming it in each of the last five years. [129758]

  Mr. Pond
  Estimates of the number of recipients and entitled non-recipients of Minimum Income Guarantee can be found in editions of the annual DWP and DSS statistical report "Income Related Benefits Estimates of Take-Up"—copies of which are available in the Library. Estimates for 2000–01, the latest year for which information is available, incorporate results of research which improved the quality of statistics relating to the Minimum Income Guarantee. Estimates for 2000–01 are, therefore, not on a fully consistent basis with past figures.

  Notes:

  1. Income Related Benefits Estimates of Take-Up published annually by DSS and DWP contains estimates of both the number of MIG (and formerly pensioner Income Support) recipients and the number of pensioners that appeared to be entitled to but not in receipt of the benefit. The vast majority of the count of recipients will be entitled but the estimates will also include a small unquantifiable proportion that are not.

  2. Annual changes in MIG rates and improvements in the approach to estimating take-up can affect estimates of MIG entitled non-recipients. Past estimates of take-up are not reworked to reflect these changes and therefore results are not strictly comparable over time. Estimates for 1997–98, 1998–99 and 1999–2000 employ the same methodology. Results relating to 2000–01 have benefited from research and the latest estimates are therefore on a different basis to previous years.

  New Deal
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent representations he has received from(a) employers and (b) participants on the New Deal; and if he will make a statement. [124551]

  Mr. Browne
  We receive representations on behalf of employers through the National Employer Panel which is an employer-led body providing independent advice to Ministers on the design, delivery and performance of the UK Government's labour market policies and programmes. Its remit encompasses all the New Deals and other welfare to work activities delivered by the Department for Work and Pensions, Jobcentre Plus and partner organisations at the national and local levels. The Panel reports on a regular basis to my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State also receives advice from the 10 employer coalitions throughout the country who work with Jobcentre Plus districts to engage local businesses and open job opportunities for people disadvantaged in the labour market.

  We also receive many representations from participants in the New Deal. These are dealt with on an individual basis with regard to the circumstances of each case.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many calls have been made to the Pension
  697W
  Credit telephone application line; and of that number how many have resulted in (a) successful claims and (b) unsuccessful claims. [128740]

  Mr. Pond
  The Pension Credit application line received a total of approximately 413,000 calls between 7 April 2003, when it became operational, and 31 August. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his written statement on progress on 14 July 2003,Official Report, columns 6–7WS, there are over 1.1 million pensioner households already on our systems ready to be paid Pension Credit from October. We intend from November to publish monthly reports on the progress of Pension Credit take-on, which will include information on the number of applications.

  Pension Reform
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on his plans for pension reform. [129501]

  Mr. Pond
  We have recognised the need to reform the pension system of the UK. Our approach has been, in the first instance, to focus additional spending on the poorest pensioners. This means achieving a balance between providing a solid foundation of support for all while targeting support at those who need it most. Pension Credit will, from October guarantee everyone (who applies and qualifies) aged 60 and over an income of at least £102.10 a week for single pensioners, (£155.80 for couples). These amounts will be more if pensioners have caring responsibilities, are severely disabled or have housing costs.

  For the first time, Pension Credit will reward people aged 65 with modest savings or income. In the past, those who had managed to save a little were left no better off than those who had not saved at all. People who had capital of £12,000 or more could get no help however low their income.

  Pension Credit will change this by giving new money to those 65 and over who have saved. This will be worth up to £14.79 for single pensioners, £19.20 for couples.

  Pension Credit is radically different from the Minimum Income Guarantee in that pound for pound deductions will be scrapped. And the credit will reward those over 65 with total weekly incomes up to £139 for single pensioners, £203 for couples. Around half of all pensioner households will be eligible and stand to gain around £400 a year on average.

  The basic State Pension will remain the foundation of income in retirement on which to build. Between April 2000 and April 2003 the basic State Pension has increased by almost £10 a week for a single pensioner and £16 a week for a couple. This represents an increase of over 7 per cent. in real terms. We will continue to uprate by either 2.5 per cent. or RPI, whichever is higher for the remainder of this Parliament.

  We have recognised the importance of a good second pension by reforming SERPS. From April 2002, 20 million people—2.5 million carers, 2.5 million longterm disabled people and 15 million low to moderate earners—begin to benefit by building up a State Second Pension.
  698W
  The Government also introduced Winter Fuel Payments (WFP) for people aged 60 and over. The WFP is £200 a year for qualifying households and will continue to be paid at this rate throughout this Parliament.

  People aged 80 or over who are entitled to a Winter Fuel Payment will get an extra £100 per household. This is the 80+ annual payment which will be paid as part of the Winter Fuel Payment, to those who are aged 80 or over in the qualifying week (15–21 September this year).

  The Government have also introduced free TV licences for the over 75s and there have been increases above the rate of inflation to the Pensioners' Tax Allowances.

  In 2003–04, the Government will be spending around £8 billion extra a year on pensioners as a result of policies introduced since 1997. This includes £3.75 billion more on the poorest third of pensioners. This is almost six times more than an earnings link to the basic State Pension since 1998 would have provided.

  We have also recognised that there is a need to address reform of private pension provision. Our Green Paper 'Simplicity, security and choice: Working and saving for retirement' set out our proposals to radically simplify the pensions system including reducing eight tax regimes into one, ensure that individuals have access to the right information to make informed pensions savings choices and ensure that older workers can access the employment opportunities they deserve and balance this with flexible retirement choices.

  To build on this, after the largest consultation on pensions ever, we published 'Working and Saving for retirement: Action on occupational pensions' in June which introduced a balanced package of measures to assist employers in providing occupational pension schemes while ensuring protection for pension scheme members. We will set up a Pension Protection Fund, the first ever protection scheme for defined benefit pensions, bring in measures to ensure that where a solvent company chooses to wind up its scheme it will fully buy-out members benefits and establish a pensions regulator that will target badly run and high risk schemes in order to put consumers first.

  There is a need to engage with employers to reinvigorate the pensions partnership and that is why we have set up the Employer Task Force to identify and promote employer lead solutions. We also have accepted that there is a need to consider the voluntarist system in the longer term and to monitor progress independently. Therefore we have set up the Pensions Commission to monitor and keep under review the system of private pensions and long-term savings.

  There is also a need to make individuals aware of their pension provision—both from the State and private saving. That is why we are extending combined state and private pensions forecasts through a concerted and targeted campaign. We will continue to develop a web-based retirement planner and will pilot a scheme for employer-based information. All these measures will seek to enable individuals to make the right pensions choices from a more knowledgeable position.
  699W
  We have recognised the need for pension reform from both a State and private perspective and will continue to press ahead with our proposals of targeting resources and expanding provision.

  Pensioners
  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners in Eltham have benefited from the minimum income guarantee; and what the overall amount paid out through the guarantee to pensioners in Eltham was in the last 12 months. [129409]

  Mr. Pond
  The number of pensioners to have benefited from the minimum income guarantee in Eltham during the last 12 months is 2,200. The average annual payment to each pensioner household was £2,400.

  Notes:

  1. The overall amount is based on the 12 month period ending February, 2003.

  2. Figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample and are therefore subject to a degree of sampling variation.

  3. Caseload figures have been rounded to the nearest 100.

  4. Parliamentary constituencies have been assigned by matching postcodes against the relevant ONS postcode.

  5. £2,400 is rounded to the nearest £50, and figures at a local level are subject to greater margins of error than national figures.

  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average gain of pensioners in Eltham has been from the Minimum Income Guarantee. [129410]

  Mr. Pond
  The average weekly amount of Minimum Income Guarantee received by pension age households in Eltham at February 2003 was £46.30.

  Notes:

  1. The source of the data is the IAD Information Centre.

  2. The figure is based on a 5 per cent. sample and is therefore subject to a degree of sampling variation.

  3. The average weekly amount figure has been rounded to the nearest 1p.

  4. Parliamentary constituencies have been assigned by matching postcodes against the relevant ONS postcode directory.

  5. Pension age is defined as men aged 65 and over and women aged 60 and over.

  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the total paid out since May 1997 to increase pensioner incomes has been; and what has been the average gain per pensioner(a) in the UK and (b) in Eltham. [129411]

  Mr. Pond
  The information requested is not available at constituency level, but the total paid out since May 1997 to increase pensioner incomes for the UK is shown in the table.

  £ billion

  Total DWP

  Expenditure on pensioners

  Discretionary spending on pensioners

  1998–99

  56.5

  0.2

  1999–2000

  58.6

  1.4

  2000–01

  60.5

  2.8

  2001–02

  63.6

  5.1

  2002–03

  65.1

  6.4

  2003–04

  66.8

  8.0

  700W
  Following the introduction of the pension credit the average pensioner household will be £1,250 per year, or £24 per week, better off than in 1997 due to the Government's personal tax and benefit changes.

  Notes:

  (a) The information shown is based upon the Family Resources Survey.

  (b) Discretionary spending refers to additional spending as a result of changes to pension policy since 1997. This is a subset of total spending.

  (c) Figures are in £ billion rounded to the nearest £0.1 billion, in 2003–04 price terms.

  (d) Figures include expenditure on all benefits.

  Post Office Card Accounts
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 15 July 2003,Official Report, column 160W, what the current indication of the final number of Post Office card accounts is, rounded to the nearest 100,000; on what data his statement that the final number would be significantly above 3 million was based; if he will place the data in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [127584]

  Mr. Pond
  It is impossible to predict accurately how many customers will eventually choose to open a Post Office card account as this will be based on customer choice. But based on current take-up, with around a million having said they want to open a Post Office card account, the card account is proving very popular and we now expect the total number of card accounts to exceed our operating assumption of 3 million.

  Winter Fuel Payment
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in(a) Wales, (b) Cardiff and (c) Cardiff, West will be eligible for Winter Fuel Payments in 2003–04. [129522]

  Mr. Pond
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is shown in the table.

  The number of people who received a 2002–03 Winter Fuel Payment was:

  All

  Men

  Women

  Wales

  629,025

  279,860

  349,170

  Cardiff West Constituency

  14,135

  6,135

  8,000

  Cardiff Local Authority

  54,115

  23,555

  30,560

  Notes

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest five.

  2. Figures taken from the Matching Intelligence Data Analysis Service Winter Fuels

  Payment 2002–03 exercise.

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre, 100 per cent. sample.

  We would expect the figures for 2003–04 to be similar.

DEFENCE

  Aircraft Carriers
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress on the CVF
  701W
  programme; and how work will be shared between Thales and BAe Systems. [127121]

  Mr. Ingram
  The CVF Programme is still in the Assessment Phase and we expect to award the Demonstration and Manufacture (D&M) contract in spring 2004, as planned. Discussions on how work will be shared between the companies are progressing well as part of the negotiations on the alliance arrangements. Final arrangements will be confirmed with the award of the D&M contract next year.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions with the defence manufacturers have taken place on reducing the(a) size of the aircraft carriers and (b) number of aircraft carried; and if he will make a statement on how such changes affect power projection. [128075]

  Mr. Ingram
  Regular discussions occur between the future carrier (CVF) project team, BAeSystems and Thales United Kingdom as part of the routine business of the Assessment Phase. This phase is intended to reduce risk in emerging design solutions and balance the key parameters of performance, time and cost in order to best meet our developing capability requirements, both in terms of the ships themselves and in the aircraft they will operate. Power projection is a fundamental part of this capability requirement.

  The CVF programme is currently midway through this assessment phase. The key specifications in capability terms will be determined prior to the award of the Demonstration and Manufacture contract, currently planned for spring 2004.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy that the full sized carriers will be procured for the Royal Navy as originally intended; and what plans he has to ensure that the in-service date is kept. [128076]

  Mr. Ingram
  In the Strategic Defence Review published in 1998, it was envisaged that the two new Future Aircraft Carriers would be in the order of 30,000 to 40,000 tonnes and be capable of carrying up to 50 fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters. The intention, as with any other new equipment project, has always been to refine the design during the Assessment Phase in order to best meet our developing capability requirements. The Carrier programme is currently in this assessment phase. The key specifications in capability terms will be determined prior to the award of the Demonstration and Manufacture (D&M) contract, currently planned for spring 2004.

  Our target in-service dates for the two carriers remain 2012 and 2015 respectively.

  Army Personnel (Self-Harm)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 9 September 2003, ref. 127070, if he will make it his policy to collate data centrally concerning incidents of self harm in army barracks; and if he will make a statement. [130223]

  Mr. Caplin
  I take the issue of self-harm in the armed forces extremely seriously. The collation of data in this area is complex, due to the number of agencies involved and the sensitivity of the information. However, I have 702W
  commissioned work to trial the collection and analysis of the existing information for the Army. This work is due to report back later this year.

  Bosnia and Herzegovina
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in the arrangements for the EU to assume the NATO peacekeeping mandate in Bosnia; and whether(a) NATO and (b) the United States has accepted the EU decision of December 2002. [130030]

  Mr. Hoon
  At its meeting in December 2002 the European Council indicated the European Union's willingness to lead a military operation in Bosnia following the NATO SFOR mission. No decisions have been taken, however, on the end date of the SFOR operation or on the arrangements for any follow-on mission. Discussions continue and no decision will be taken without full consultation between all interested parties.

  Charmaine Maeer
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what investigations his Department carried out into the allegations made by Charmaine Maeer; on what basis she was discharged from the Army; what pension or benefit she received as a result of her discharge; and if he will make a statement. [128809]

  Mr. Caplin
  No investigation has been carried out as no complaint has been received. I am unable to make public any personal details concerning Charmaine Maeer's discharge and pension without her explicit written consent.

  Chatham Dockyard (Radiation Records)
  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many former Chatham Dockyard workers who received estimated radiation dose records were advised that their estimated records were(a) above and (b) below the recommended level of exposure. [130314]

  Mr. Caplin
  There was no statutory or MOD requirement to record numbers of former Chatham Dockyard workers for whom estimated doses were entered in their radiation dose records and therefore it is not possible to supply the numbers requested. However, those individuals who were involved in incidents at the dockyard, such as exceeding a statutory dose limit, would have been involved in the investigation and therefore would have been aware of the outcome.

  Deepcut and Catterick Barracks
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will order a public inquiry into the way that unnatural deaths at(a) Deepcut and (b) Catterick barracks have been investigated; [128810]

  (2) if he will order an inquiry into the way that unnatural deaths at Deepcut Barracks have been investigated. [128811]
  703W
  Mr. Ingram
  The civilian police have primacy in investigating such deaths within the armed forces. Given that investigations are yet to conclude, calls for a public or other inquiry into the way that unnatural deaths have been investigated are premature.

  Defence Fire Service
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Defence Fire Service. [129073]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Defence Fire Service continues to provide excellent support to the Ministry of Defence.

  Over the last year in addition to its normal duties, the Service successfully provided vital assistance during the fire fighters dispute, including training those members of the armed forces deployed on emergency fire fighting duties. Members of the Defence Fire Service were also deployed to the Gulf in February this year and continue to be engaged in support of operations in Iraq.

  Destroyers
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to change the number of type 42 destroyers in service; and if he will make a statement. [127276]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are at present no plans to change the number of Royal Navy type 42 destroyers in service.

  Export Controls
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department made of the impact of the proposed secondary orders for the Export Control Act 2002 on the security of UK military personnel deployed abroad. [130189]

  Mr. Ingram
  Proposals are being considered on measures to ensure that the efficiency of our armed forces is maintained when the Act is implemented.

  Intangible Assets
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what specific assets are contained in the line item Intangible Assets on the MOD balance sheet for 31 March 2002. [129909]

  Mr. Ingram
  The specific assets included in Intangible Assets at 31 March 2002 can be classified into the following main headings:

  (i) Development expenditure incurred in respect of fighting equipment and other tangible fixed assets which are in use

  (ii) Development expenditure incurred in respect of fighting equipment and other tangible fixed assets which are in the course of construction

  (iii) Other intangible non-financial assets comprising mainly intellectual property rights.

  The development costs, which mainly represent costs incurred prior to the commencement of production of the asset, are capitalised in the accounts in accordance with the HM Treasury Resource Accounting Manual. The Department's accounting policy on capitalisation and amortisation of the development expenditure is stated in the Departmental Resource Accounts 2001–02.
  704W
  The detailed analysis of tangible and intangible fixed assets is produced every three years in the form of the National Asset Register, the current publication being in respect of 1999–2000. This publication does not require the break down of the development expenditure in respect of assets in use by individual assets, but the range and type of assets in use by the Department are identified. At 31 March 2002, development expenditure for fixed assets in use amounted to £11.4 billion. Similarly, development expenditure relating to assets in course of construction is not analysed by asset type, but the main projects under construction are identified in the 1999–2000 National Asset Register under Assets In Course of Construction. At 31 March 2002, this development expenditure totalled £8 billion. Other intangible assets amounted to some £80 million as at 31 March 2002.

  Iraq
  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of British unexploded munitions in Iraq have been cleared; and when this work will be completed. [125698]

  Mr. Ingram
  United Kingdom and other coalition armed forces and non-Governmental organisation teams have been engaged in explosive ordnance disposal tasks since before the end of the conflict in Iraq. It is not yet possible to say either what percentage of British unexploded munitions have been cleared or when all the work will be completed. To date, UK and other coalition explosive ordnance disposal teams in the UK area of operation have completed over 1,500 tasks and destroyed over 500,000 individual munitions. Those munitions include not only those dropped or fired by coalition forces, but also many from the Iraq-Iran war as well as mines laid, ordnance fired or dropped, and stores of ammunition and other ordnance left by Iraqi military and paramilitary forces.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how much ordnance was released by British aircraft over Iraq in(a) February and (b) 1 to 20 March; on how many occasions during these periods coalition aircraft were responding in self-defence; and if he will make a statement; [129147]

  (2) how much ordnance has been released in each month by coalition aircraft over Iraq since 21 March; and if he will make a statement.[129148]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 11 September 2003]: During February, five weapons were released by United Kingdom aircraft over Iraq. A further four weapons were released in the period 1–19 March. All of these weapons were released in self-defence. Warfighting commenced on 20 March. In the period 20–31 March, United Kingdom aircraft released 518 weapons over Iraq. A further 396 weapons were released from 1–30 April. UK aircraft dropped no ordnance after 30 April. Weapons released by other coalition partners' aircraft during the warfighting is a matter for them.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the duties of Dr. David Kelly were. [130515]
  705W
  Mr. Hoon
  Dr. Kelly was a special adviser to the Director of Counter Proliferation and Arms Control within the Ministry of Defence. Dr. Kelly's duties have been described in both written and oral evidence to the Hutton Inquiry which has been published on its website at www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 7 May,Official Report, column 724W, what the current usage of British medical assets in Iraq is. [119216]

  Mr. Caplin
  As at 1 September, 23 beds were occupied at MND (SE) field hospital by United Kingdom personnel and two beds were occupied at the UK medical facility in Al Amarah.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role of the Navy, Army and Air Force Institution in Iraq(a) during the recent conflict and (b) post-conflict. [120741]

  Mr. Ingram
  The NAAFI has played an important role both during, and after, the recent conflict in Iraq. The organisation entered Iraq soon after the fighting started, offering a range of products from mobile containers. Now, NAAFI stores are located in more permanent facilities, which will continue to be upgraded over time.

  Joint Strike Fighter
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many joint strike fighter aircraft have been ordered. [128535]

  Mr. Ingram
  None. Our current planning assumption is for 150 of the Short Take Off and Vertical Landing variant of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft to meet our requirement for a Future Joint Combat Aircraft. In order to align with the US acquisition cycle, we do not expect to place orders for JSF aircraft before 2006.

  Land Rovers
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many armoured Land Rovers have been sold off as surplus since May 2003. [128807]

  Mr. Ingram
  No surplus armoured Land Rovers have been sold by the Ministry of Defence since May 2003.

  Manning Control Review
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many soldiers subject to Manning Control review have been(a) discharged and (b) re-engaged in the last 12 months. [130003]

  Mr. Caplin
  No individuals have been discharged under Queens Regulations for the Army paragraph 9.413, 'Not required for a full Army career', in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether soldiers in Army units are being warned that they could be subject to Manning Control review after(a) nine and (b) 12 years. [130004]

  Mr. Caplin
  Each potential soldier, and the parent or guardian of a recruit under the age of 18, is given a copy of the Notice Paper, a statutory document which gives 706W
  details of the soldier's Terms of Service. Within this paper it states that a soldier's future employability will be reviewed after six, nine and 12 years' Colour service and he or she may be discharged if their service is no longer required.

  Additionally, soldiers being considered for discharge by Manning Control points are sent a letter up to 18 months beforehand. They are asked to sign a certificate to agree that they have been warned about this.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are to allow soldiers who were subject to Manning Control and then changed to S/Type contract, to sign back onto the open engagement. [130005]

  Mr. Caplin
  There are no plans to allow soldiers who were subject to Manning Control Point discharge, and subsequently employed on a Short Service Type S Engagement, to be engaged on the Open Engagement.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many soldiers who were subject to Manning Control and were discharged or signed on to the S/Type contract and subsequently discharged since 1994 have been called up for service in UK operational deployments in the last seven years. [130006]

  Mr. Caplin
  Twelve individuals who had been subject to Manning Control since 1994 and then were discharged under Queen's Regulations for the Army 1975 Paragraph 9.413—'Not required for a full Army Career' or were signed on to an 'S'-Type engagement and subsequently discharged, have been called out for, and accepted into, military service in the last seven years.

  MARS Project
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if all vessels for the MARS Project will be classed as warships; and if he will make a statement. [127761]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability (MARS) project is in its initial stages. Decisions have yet to be taken on the scope of the capability sought and on how best to deliver that requirement.

  Offshore Patrol Vessels
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for(a) modernising the Royal Navy fishing protection fleet and (b) ordering further Tyne class offshore patrol vessels; for what reasons plans to transfer Anglesey, Lindisfarne and Guernsey have been delayed; and if he will make a statement. [127255]

  Mr. Ingram
  A programme of modernisation of the Royal Navy fishery protection fleet is currently under way. The capability provided by the five Island Class
  707W
  vessels is being replaced with three modern and more capable River Class Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPVs). The first two, HMS Tyne and HMS Severn, have now entered service. The third, HMS Mersey, is currently scheduled to enter service early next year. Unsolicited proposals have been received from two companies; however, the Ministry of Defence currently has no plans to order additional OPVs.

  The five surplus Island Class vessels have been sold to Bangladesh. Angelsey's transfer has been delayed by about two weeks due to problems with her gearbox. There has been no delay to the planned transfer of Lindisfarne and Guernsey.

  Service Personnel (NHS Treatment)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is on service personnel getting priority NHS treatment; what budget is available for private treatment for service personnel; and whether all service personnel are eligible for prompt medical treatment. [123571]

  Mr. Caplin
  [holding answer 4 July 2003]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) on 1 September 2003, Official Report, columns 897–98W.

  Territorial Army
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes there have been in the strength of the Territorial Army in the last six months. [129072]

  Mr. Caplin
  Available information is shown in the table.

  2003

  Strength

  1 March

  39,210

  1 April

  38,140

  1 May

  38,370

  1 June

  38,040

  1 July

  37,650

  1 August

  37,360

  Note:

  Data have been rounded to the nearest 10.

  Type 23 Frigate
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), of 10 February 2003,Official Report, column 516W, on Type 23 frigates, if he will name the second six Type 23 frigates to be fitted with Sonar 2087; what plans there are for the remaining four frigates; and if he will make a statement. [128557]

  Mr. Ingram
  It is not currently planned to select for another year or so the second six Type 23 Frigates likely to be fitted with Sonar 2087. The remaining four Frigates will continue to contribute to Royal Naval operations until the end of their scheduled service life, around the middle of the next decade, from which point they will be progressively withdrawn.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Ambulance Response Times
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the average ambulance response time was in each year since 1997 in(a) Northern Ireland and (b) North Down; and if he will make a statement. [121926]

  Angela Smith
  The Northern Ireland Ambulance Service does not report average ambulance response times on a Northern Ireland or parliamentary constituency basis. Ambulance performance is assessed against national response time standards. In Northern Ireland these are applied as follows:ambulance at the scene of 50 per cent. of 999 calls in 8 minutes
  ambulance at the scene of 95 per cent. of 999 calls in 18 minutes (eastern area); or 21 minutes (northern, southern and western areas).

  The results for each area are as follows:

  Percentage of calls at scene within 8 minutes

  Northern

  Southern

  Eastern

  Western

  1998–99

  48

  47

  55

  62

  1999–2000

  46

  45

  59

  56

  2000–01

  47

  42

  63

  56

  2001–02

  47

  41

  57

  53

  2002–03

  47

  41

  57

  53

  Percentage of calls at scene within 18–21 minutes

  Northern

  Southern

  Eastern

  Western

  1998–99

  95

  94

  96

  95

  1999–2000

  95

  93

  97

  94

  2000–01

  94

  92

  97

  94

  2001–02

  93

  92

  96

  94

  2002–03

  93

  92

  96

  94

  Bangor Community Hospital
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what funds have been made available to Bangor Community hospital(a) in 2001, (b) in 2002 and (c) since January. [120887]

  Angela Smith
  The information sought is not centrally available. The Bangor Community hospital, as part of the Ulster Community hospitals trust, derives the bulk of its income from the Eastern Health and Social Services Board. The trust accounts do not, however, distinguish between the income received by the Bangor Community hospital and that received by the rest of the trust.

  Belfast City Airport
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with residents' groups regarding the possible introduction of late-night flights at Belfast City airport. [129837]

  Angela Smith
  I have had no discussions with residents' groups regarding the possible introduction of late night flights at Belfast City airport. The Department of the Environment's Planning Service has not received any request from Belfast City airport to
  709W
  alter the terms of the existing planning agreement governing flight times to and from the airport, nor has Belfast City airport indicated that they intend to make such a request.

  Brain Banks
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many brain banks(a) exist and (b) have existed in Northern Ireland; and where. [121606]

  Angela Smith
  One brain bank currently exists in Northern Ireland. This is held within the Neuropathology Department of the Royal Group of Hospitals. No other brain banks have previously existed in Northern Ireland Trusts.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what relationship with mainland(a) hospitals and (b) research facilities brain banks in Northern Ireland have had. [121611]

  Angela Smith
  A brain tissue bank exists in the Neuropathology Department of the Royal group of hospitals. The Royal have been involved in joint research or diagnostic projects, involving the transfer of tissue samples, with the following facilities:-National MS Brain Bank, London;
  Schizophrenia Research, Oxford Medical School, Oxford University;
  National Unit for Research into CJD, Edinburgh;
  National Parkinson's Disease Society, London;
  Netherlands Brain Bank, Holland and
  MS Research Project, Dublin.

  All organs and tissue samples involved have been consented for use in research.

  No other brain banks exist in Northern Ireland Trusts.

  Broadband
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to provide broadband internet access in areas of Northern Ireland where there is no broadband provision; and if he will make a statement. [129847]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI) has developed a range of complementary initiatives designed to progressively develop telecommunications infrastructure in Northern Ireland, stimulate demand for broadband, and develop broadband applications to both support its innovation driven economy and to ensure everyone has the opportunity to use computers to enhance their daily life.

  The Government's aim in Northern Ireland is to have 100 per cent. coverage of broadband services. To progress this aim, DETI published in the European Journal on 7 May 2003, a Prior Information Notice indicating its intention to issue a tender for the provision of broadband services. The tender was issued on 22 July 2003 and a total of 27 organisations and consortia have responded to the call to assist us to advance the Government's telecommunications agenda. I expect to announce the winner of the tender before the end of 2003.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress being made by the inter-departmental working group established to examine the issue of free personal care for people in residential homes. [122355]

  Angela Smith
  The Northern Ireland Executive commissioned work on free personal care and a report was forwarded to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister on 8 August 2002. Following discussion at the Executive on 12 August, Ministers asked for further work to be undertaken. The inter-departmental group has reviewed a number of costed options that will be adjusted to current levels of provision at the time a further report is made to a new devolved Administration.

  It is not possible at this stage to give any indication about the timing or subsequent handling of the report, since this is a matter which should be determined by the Northern Ireland Executive.

  Child Maintenance
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of those paying child maintenance in Northern Ireland have yet to be incorporated into the new system for calculating child maintenance introduced in April 2002; what steps he is taking to reduce this figure; and if he will make a statement. [130402]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Government sought to reform the child support system to provide prompt, accurate maintenance calculations and quick, reliable maintenance payments. The introduction of the new scheme was delayed from April 2002, to allow further testing of the new IT system, and was introduced on 3 March 2003.

  It was always intended that the new scheme would be introduced initially for new cases only. Existing child support cases would transfer at a later date, when Ministers were satisfied that the new scheme, supported by the new IT, was working well. The exception to this is where an existing case is linked to a new application. In such circumstances the existing case is reassessed under the new scheme.

  A decision on the date when the remainder of existing child support cases will transfer to the new scheme has not yet been made.

  Civil Service
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps are being taken to implement the Senior Civil Service Review. [120108]

  Mr. Pearson
  Following Lord Ouseley's report on the Review of Appointment and Promotion Procedures in the Senior Civil Service in Northern Ireland, the devolved Administration issued a consultation paper. This sought views oil two key recommendations—the recommendations on recruitment in the open market and on work-life balance—and on an action plan covering the remainder of the 25 recommendations made, excepting two which were outside the responsibility of t he devolved government. The recommendations have naturally required particularly
  711W
  careful consideration in the light of suspension, but I anticipate that we shall be in a position to make an announcement shortly.

  Community Police Officers
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many community police officers are in full-time service with the Police Service of Northern Ireland; and how many served in(a) 2000, (b) 2001 and (c) 2002. [130420]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Police Service of Northern Ireland currently record officers engaged in community policing duties under the title neighbourhood police. The table sets out the actual number of regular and full-time reserve neighbourhood police in service for the period 2000 to 2002.

  Regular

  Full-time reserve

  4 September 2000

  367

  103

  3 September 2001

  288

  97

  4 September 2002

  415

  147

  4 September 2003

  482

  161

  Congestion Charges
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to introduce congestion charges for cities and towns in Northern Ireland. [114547]

  Angela Smith
  The Chief Executive of the Roads Service has written to the hon. Gentleman. A copy of the letter has been placed in the Library.

  Crime
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures have been taken since 1997 to tackle(a) organised crime, (b) smuggling and (c) drug crime. [121135]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Organised Crime Task Force which I chair was established in September 2000 to set the strategic direction for a multi-agency approach to tackling smuggling, drug crime and indeed organised crime in all its forms.

  While the law enforcement agencies have always worked well together at an operational level, and both PSNI and Customs had undertaken tremendous work to tackle all areas of organised criminality prior to September 2000, the Task Force has co-ordinated and focused their efforts to increased effect.

  Crime (International Co-operation) Bill
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland about the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill. [116369]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have had no specific discussions with the Chief Constable on the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill. However, the PSNI have been involved in the consultation process throughout the various stages of the Bill.

  Cross-border Health Care
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many patients from the Republic of Ireland have been treated in hospitals in Northern Ireland in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement. [129817]

  Angela Smith
  The total number admissions classified as an in-patient, day case or regular day/night admission at hospitals in Northern Ireland where the patient was recorded as a resident in the Republic of Ireland is given in the table. Patients may have been admitted on more than one occasion.

  The number of deaths and discharges1 in NI hospitals recorded as residents of the Republic of Ireland for the years 1998–99 to 2002–032

  In-patient

  Day cases

  Regular day admission

  Regular night admission

  Total

  1998–99

  946

  340

  0

  0

  1,286

  1999–2000

  1,000

  377

  559

  0

  1,936

  2000–01

  1,070

  604

  995

  0

  2,669

  2001–02

  1,037

  554

  850

  1

  2,442

  2002–032

  1,170

  504

  650

  0

  2,324

  1 Deaths and discharges are used as an approximation for admissions.

  2 Provisional.

  Source:

  Hospital Inpatients System

  Figures for the number of patients treated as outpatients or at accident and emergency departments are not available.

  Residents of countries within the European Union are entitled to treatment if they are taken ill while visiting another European Union state. Patients may also be transferred to another country under formal contractual arrangements between individual hospitals or health boards if the treatment required is not available locally. Consequently residents from the Republic of Ireland are sometimes treated in Northern Ireland and vice versa.

  Departmental Under-spending
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures have been introduced in each Northern Ireland department to reduce budget under spend. [128295]

  Mr. Pearson
  Northern Ireland departments have introduced a number of measures to reduce the level of budget under spend. These include enhanced information and monitoring systems, improved arrangements to monitor the progress of expenditure on capital investment projects, providing additional training for budget managers and reviewing, on an ongoing basis, profiled expenditure against actual expenditure.

  At a more strategic level, the revised spending plans for 2003–04 to 2005–06, which I announced on 11 December 2002, included arrangements to set spending plans at a level which exceeded the total spending power available by building in under spend assumptions. Full details are set out in Section 2 of the Budget Document ("Building on Progress: Budget 2003–06").

  Environmental Protection
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when sheep grazing will be permitted in the Inner Mourne mountains. [111537]

  Angela Smith
  The Chief Executive of the Water Service has written to the hon. Lady. A copy of the letter has been placed in the Library.

  EU Regulations
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many regulations originating from the EU have been implemented by his Department over each of the last five years. [120823]

  Mr. Pearson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe on 30 June 2003,Official Report, column 64W.

  Euro Roadshow
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the events he plans to attend as part of the Government's euro roadshow. [121399]

  Mr. Pearson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury on 20 June 2003,Official Report, column 459W.

  First-time Buyers
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he has taken to assist first-time buyers in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [121729]

  Mr. Spellar
  A number of steps have been taken to assist first time buyers in Northern Ireland. The housing executive's house sales scheme has enabled over 100,000 tenants to become home owners and sales of housing executive homes currently account for over one third of all first time buyer transactions in Northern Ireland. The Department for Social Development also provides funding for the Northern Ireland Co-Ownership Housing Association which, through its equity sharing scheme, gives those on low incomes an opportunity to gain a foothold on the home ownership ladder and has, since its inception in 1978, helped over 17,500 participants to become home owners on an equity sharing basis, with over 13,000 of these eventually moving to full home ownership.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to introduce a purchaser's pack for potential first-time house buyers and sellers in Northern Ireland.[121731]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have no plans at present to introduce a purchaser's pack in Northern Ireland.

  The proposal to impose a condition on house vendors to produce a home information pack for prospective purchasers is aimed at addressing specific problems in England and Wales by speeding up the home buying and selling process and making it more transparent and certain. Such problems are not prevalent in Northern
  714W
  Ireland, where many measures aimed at speeding up the process have already been implemented and further proposals continue to be developed. I will, however, continue to monitor developments as regards the home information pack with a view to determining whether there may be merit, at some time in the future, in introducing similar measures in Northern Ireland.

  Growth Hormone Research
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether Northern Ireland has a facility to deal with growth hormone research. [121608]

  Angela Smith
  Growth Hormone Research is carried out at the Growth Centre at the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children and at the Regional Endocrinology and Diabetes Centre at the Royal Victoria Hospital.

  Hare Coursing
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, what estimate he has made of the number of hares(a) coursed and (b) killed by coursing in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years. [129535]

  Angela Smith
  No estimate has been made of the number of hares(a) coursed and (b) killed by coursing, in either organised events or informal coursing.

  Health Staff
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to increase the number of operating department practitioners in Northern Ireland. [121315]

  Angela Smith
  The recruitment of staff, including operating department practitioners, is a matter for individual Health and Social Services Trusts taking into account factors such as service needs and available resources. However, the Department has a role in ensuring that sufficient suitably qualified and trained staff, are available to meet the needs of the health and personal social services. The supply of support staff, such as operating department practitioners, will be addressed through the Department's work force planning mechanisms.

  Health Trusts
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much each health trust has spent on security measures in the last three years. [130254]

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

  Hospital Procedures
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland pursuant to his answer of 9 June 2003,Official Report, column 700W, on hospital procedures, if he will estimate the cost to the national health service of the in-patient admissions of residents of the Republic of Ireland. [121011]

  Angela Smith
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Housing
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many houses were sold through the Northern Ireland Co-Ownership Scheme in each of the last five years. [121728]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information is as follows:

  Financial Year

  Number of new Co-ownership participants

  Number of participants moving to full home ownership

  1998–99

  578

  539

  1999–2000

  587

  666

  2000–01

  510

  585

  2001–02

  645

  567

  2002–03

  801

  621

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the budgetary allocation to the Northern Ireland Co-ownership Scheme was in each of the last five years; what plans he has to improve the scheme's budgetary position; and if he will make a statement. [121732]

  Mr. Spellar
  The funding available to the Northern Ireland Co-ownership Scheme in each of the last five years is as follows:

  £ million

  Financial year

  Housing Association Grants

  Recycled receipts

  Total

  1998–99

  3.60

  7.40

  11.00

  1999–2000

  3.60

  8.60

  12.20

  2000–01

  6.24

  6.43

  12.67

  2001–02

  9.90

  9.51

  19.41

  2002–03

  12.94

  12.98

  25.92

  The scheme operates on the basis of grant aid from the Department for Social Development, in the form of Housing Association Grant, and recycled receipts from surpluses made on the sale of equity tranches to participants.

  Because of other demands on the housing budget it is becoming difficult to sustain funding from the Department for the scheme at the levels which have been seen in recent years. I will however continue to do everything possible to secure an adequate level of funding to allow the scheme to assist as many participants as possible.

  Human Organs
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland with whom responsibility lies for giving permission for(a) the removal of organs from deceased individuals and (b) the disposal of such organs. [123259]

  Angela Smith
  Before a hospital post mortem examination, which is carried out at the request of the doctor or family, the next of kin is asked to make a choice: whether to limit the post mortem or organs taken for further examination; whether to donate some or all of the organs and tissue samples for medical education and ethically approved research; whether to 716W
  allow the hospital to respectfully and lawfully dispose of them; or, whether to have them returned for burial or cremation after investigations are complete.

  A coroner's post mortem examination, which is required by law, does not require the consent of the next of kin, although the family will be informed about it. When the post mortem examination has been ordered by a coroner, the next of kin will be told what organs have been retained. Once the post mortem report has been completed the next of kin will be contacted again by the coroner and asked how they wish these to be disposed of.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many recommendations of the Human Organs Inquiry have been implemented by hospitals in Northern Ireland. [123261]

  Angela Smith
  Work is ongoing to implement all 20 of the recommendations contained in the Report of the Human Organs Inquiry. The primary responsibility for implementing many of the recommendations does not rest with hospitals but with the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. Trusts have been co-operating fully in implementing those aspects of the recommendations that fall directly to them.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the procedure is for the return of organs to the families of the deceased. [123264]

  Angela Smith
  Relatives wishing to make enquiries about reclaiming organs that have been kept following either hospital or coroners' post mortem examinations before 2001, should contact the DHSSPS Human Organs Enquiry Line at telephone number 0808 800 8810. Coroners' cases are dealt with on an individual basis and the decision whether or not organs will be released is a matter for the coroner. The trained enquiry line staff can provide information, discuss relatives' concerns and advise about the support that is available. In line with the recommendations contained in the Human Organs Inquiry Report, this telephone enquiry line and the opportunity to reclaim organs and tissue samples currently in storage will no longer be available after November 2004.

  Further information about the enquiry line is available on the DHSSPS web site, which can be found at http://www. dhsspsni.gov.uk/hss/HOI/index.html. A DHSSPS public information leaflet entitled "Post Mortem Examinations and the Human Organs Inquiry" is being distributed to every home in Northern Ireland over the summer. This leaflet can also be viewed on the above web page and explains how relatives can seek the return of organs and tissue samples.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the publication of the Isaacs Report and its implications for Northern Ireland. [121605]

  Angela Smith
  The Isaacs Report was commissioned from HM Inspector of Anatomy by the Secretary of State for Health and applies to England only. The implications for Northern Ireland of the recommendations of the Isaacs Report; will be considered by the steering group currently working on implementing the recommendations contained in the Report of the Human Organs Inquiry.
  717W
  In Northern Ireland, the Chief Medical Officer has issued an Interim Statement on 9 May 2003 on the use of human organs and tissue pending the introduction of new legislation. Since November 2002 a telephone inquiry line operated by the Parents Advice Centre on behalf of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has provided a central point of information for public inquiries about post mortem examinations and has helped with requests for the retention of organs and tissue kept after post mortem examinations. It has also dealt with a small number of enquiries resulting from the Isaacs Report.

  The Chief Medical Officer has sought assurances from Trust Chief Executives and University Vice Chancellors that no additional or undeclared material has been retained following coroners' post mortems.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will initiate an investigation by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Anatomy into missing organs in Northern Ireland. [121609]

  Angela Smith
  In May 2001 the Chief Medical Officer reported on the result of her investigation into retained organs in Northern Ireland hospitals. This revealed the continued retention of organs from 1,167 cases. Queen's University conducted a further audit in 2002, which revealed additional material held by the University, which was then declared. There is no evidence to suggest that there is a need for further investigation.

  Organs kept from coroners' post mortem examinations can only be disposed of once the investigations are complete or when the material is no longer required for evidential purposes.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland under what circumstances the organs of deceased individuals on the UK organ donor register are prevented from being given to other patients. [120982]

  Angela Smith
  Organ donation may not be carried out if there are medical contra-indications, if the deceased does not die on a life support machine, or if the deceased is not on the organ donor register and relatives are unsure of the individual's wishes.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the locations in Northern Ireland, apart from Queen's University, Belfast, where banks of retained brains and hearts are stored. [128991]

  Angela Smith
  There are no heart banks in Northern Ireland.

  All retained organs were declared in the Chief Medical Officer's report on Organ Retention, May 2001.

  In relation to brain banks, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 25 June 2003. (121606).

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the medical practice of removing and retaining additional organs from individuals who have agreed to donate particular organs on their death. [128992]

  Angela Smith
  During the organ donation procedure no additional organs or tissues have been removed other than those to which the families have stated their 718W
  lack of objection on the UK Transplant form entitled "Statement of Lack of Objection to Organ/Tissue Donation".

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will provide help and support to relatives of deceased people whose organs have been retained improperly. [128994]

  Angela Smith
  The Department funds the Relatives Reference Group, chaired by Mrs. Pip Jaffa, OBE. The Relatives Reference Group provides help and support to relatives and also acts as a contact point between relatives and the DHSSPS, Queen's University, the Northern Ireland Office and the NI court service.

  The DHSSPS Human Organs Inquiry Line, set up by the Department on 20 November 2002, provides a central point of contact for inquiries about post mortem examinations and organs and tissue that may have been kept as a result. It can provide information to relatives, discuss their concerns in confidence and advise them of the support that is available.

  The Parents Advice Centre, of which Mrs. Jaffa is the chief executive, is currently running a support group for people affected by organ retention issues. The Parents Advice Centre can also provide a counselling service for relatives through its project workers. Counselling is also available through the Health and Personal Social Services.

  The DHSSPS is currently engaged in a multimedia public information campaign as recommended by the Human Organs Inquiry report. A public information leaflet entitled "Post Mortem Examinations and The Human Organs Inquiry," which includes information on organ retention and organ reclamation, is being delivered to every home in Northern Ireland. The leaflet contains details of organisations that can provide help and support to relatives.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps are being taken to identify the deceased and their relatives in the cases of unidentified brains in storage at Queen's University, Belfast. [128995]

  Angela Smith
  No brains that are being held in storage by Queen's University can be identified as belonging to an individual or family. The brains that are being held are for purposes of medical education and are either those obtained from bodies donated under the Anatomy Order or those that have been anonymised and cannot now be traced back to any individual or family.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the export of brains from Northern Ireland during the 1990s followed Government guidelines on the risks attributed to CJD. [128996]

  Angela Smith
  During the 1990's the guidelines from the National CJD Unit in Edinburgh were followed when brain tissue was being exported. These national guidelines continue to be followed when brain tissue is being exported.
  719W
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland where Queen's University will source the brains they need each year for medical and scientific research. [128997]

  Angela Smith
  Such material is obtained from individuals who donate bodies or organs for medical research under the Anatomy Order, or from post mortems where consent has been properly obtained. In addition, consented material may be acquired from officially sanctioned brain banks in the UK or elsewhere.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what(a) medical and (b) scientific reasons there are for removing and retaining spinal cords from deceased individuals. [129022]

  Angela Smith
  Spinal cords are retained for diagnostic purposes in relevant cases when it is neurologically or neurosurgically suspected that spinal cord disease may be present. It is also retained in cases of spinal cord injury to determine the type and extent of injury.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many transfers(a) out of and (b) into Northern Ireland of retained brains and brain tissue have taken place in the last 12 months; and whether transfers have taken place outside the United Kingdom. [121610]

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

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether payment is made for the transfer of organs, tissue and other materials between hospitals. [121607]

  Angela Smith
  No payment is made for the transfer of organs, tissue and other materials between hospitals.

  Irish Hares
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, what assessment he has made of whether the Biodiversity Species Action Plan to double the number of Irish Hares by 2010 is likely to be achieved. [129533]

  Angela Smith
  The target to double the population by 2010 is one of three challenging targets contained in the Species Action Plan for the Irish Hare published in 2000.

  The Plan is based primarily on the need to increase the extent, and improve the quality, of habitats favoured by the Irish Hare. While there are specific plans in place for these habitats, demonstrable effects on hare numbers cannot be expected for several years.

  At this stage it is not possible to predict whether the target to double the population by 2010 will be achieved. Estimates of the Irish Hare population were made in 1997 and 2002 and suggested that the population
  720W
  remained stable between those dates. Further estimates will be made as the Plan progresses, but it should be recognised that the margin of uncertainty associated with these estimates is high, and the detection of population trends is therefore difficult.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, whether he has received the report on the status of the Irish Hare for the review of the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985; and if he will make a statement. [129534]

  Angela Smith
  My Department has commissioned a study of changes needed to the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985. The study is being carried out to complement aspects of the Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy and local Species Action Plans. One of its objectives is to examine the case for changes in the legal status of certain species, including the Irish Hare.

  A draft report was received by the Department of the Environment on 30 June. It puts forward a number of legislative options in relation to the status of the Irish Hare. The final report is expected to make specific proposals. Before I consider whether to take these proposals forward, I will seek the advice of the Northern Ireland Biodiversity Group and the Department's statutory advisory committee, the Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside.

  Irish Language
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what changes have been made to the policy on the use of the Irish language in(a) the Department of Health and (b) the Department of Education in Northern Ireland since suspension of the devolved Assembly. [121088]

  Jane Kennedy
  There has been no change in either Department's policy on the use of Irish since the suspension of the Assembly. This is in line with the Secretary of State's decision on 9 December 2002 that Departments should maintain their existing practices with regard to the use of Irish and Ulster Scots. The position was reviewed subsequently and the Secretary of State agreed on 19 March that existing practices should continue for a further period subject to another review in September 2003.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what costs have been incurred by the Department of(a) Health, Social Services and Public Safety and (b) Education as a result of their Irish language policy in each of the last five years. [120977]

  Jane Kennedy
  The costs incurred by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety in the last five years are as follows.
  721W

  £

  1998–99

  nil

  1999–2000

  17,604

  2000–01

  61,261

  2001–02

  119,823

  2002–03

  107,500

  The costs incurred by the Department of Education in the last five years are as follows:

  £

  1998–99

  Nill

  1999–2000

  2,928

  2000–01

  10,461

  2001–02

  18,074

  2002–3

  16,339

  Multiple Sclerosis
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland pursuant to his answer of 11 June 2003,Official Report, column 966W, on multiple sclerosis, how many sufferers of multiple sclerosis have commenced (a) beta interferon and (b) glatiramer treatment in Northern Ireland since 1 January. [122344]

  Angela Smith
  Since 1 January 2003 20 patients have commenced treatment with(a) beta interferon and one patient has commenced treatment with (b) glatiramer.

  Neurosurgery
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on Early Day Motion 1382 (Neurosurgery in Northern Ireland). [121405]

  Bank nurses1 who have been recruited to work in trusts in Northern Ireland in each year since 1997 (headcount figures given only)

  Trust

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  South and East Belfast HSS Trust

  1

  19

  0

  5

  3

  9

  Armagh and Dungannon HSS Trust

  2

  5

  3

  8

  7

  14

  Southern Board HQ

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Homefirst Community HSS Trust

  Unable to provide

  Belfast City Hospital HSS Trust

  1

  20

  16

  7

  37

  41

  Sperrin/Lakeland HSS Trust

  26

  37

  35

  22

  33

  26

  Blood Transfusion Service

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Altnagelvin Group HSS Trust

  26

  31

  35

  45

  23

  21

  Craigavon and Banbridge Community HSS Trust

  11

  11

  7

  9

  8

  8

  Craigavon Area Hospital Group HSS Trust

  6

  8

  17

  34

  17

  38

  Ulster Community and Hospitals Group HSS Trust

  20

  10

  32

  32

  29

  29

  Down Lisburn HSS Trust

  33

  23

  22

  32

  55

  39

  Regional Medical Physics Agency

  Not applicable

  Foyle Community HSS Trust

  27

  53

  45

  24

  14

  27

  Royal Hospitals

  12

  3

  32

  31

  19

  22

  Green Park Healthcare HSS Trust

  14

  12

  21

  9

  14

  9

  North and West Belfast HSS Trust

  4

  13

  3

  7

  15

  18

  Newry and Mourne HSS Trust

  0

  0

  0

  0

  14

  72

  Causeway HSS Trust

  27

  25

  22

  8

  14

  14

  Mater Infirmorum Hospital HSS Trust

  4

  0

  3

  1

  2

  4

  United Hospitals HSS Trust

  15

  9

  15

  32

  15

  14

  Total

  229

  279

  309

  306

  319

  405

  1 Bank nurses are staff who cover for staffing shortfalls and fluctuating workloads in order to maintain service delivery

  722W
  Angela Smith
  Pressures on the neurosurgery service have arisen mainly as a result of a need for more theatre time, and shortages in experienced nursing staff. This is not a problem unique to Northern Irelandߞthere are similar problems with this service throughout the NHS.

  The Royal Group of Hospitals, in liaison with the four boards, has been working hard to improve the situation, both in the short-term, and with regard to the longer-term development of the service.

  A task force was established by the trust to lead the effort in addressing the problems faced by the service;

  Extra theatre lists have been introduced;

  A twin-track approach to enhance the recruitment and retention of nurses has been implemented to restore nursing levels and enable more beds to be opened. This has involved:
  the appointment of a 'clinical educator' to enhance training
  opportunities and to support and increase the number of nurses in training; and
  the recruitment of additional nurses, allowing the phased opening of beds from June 2003, with all beds re-opening by January 2004.

  A clinical careers framework for nurses has also been launched to improve opportunities for personal development and career pathways;

  In addition, treatment has been provided for some suitable patients in units outside Northern Ireland.

  These measures should make a significant contribution to addressing the problems in this service. I have asked my Department, in liaison with the boards and the trust, to keep me apprised of progress.

  Nurse Recruitment
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many nurses have been recruited in Northern Ireland in each year since 1997. [123806]

  Angela Smith
  Figures are provided in the tables.
  723W

  Non-bank nurses1 who have been recruited to work in trusts in Northern Ireland in each year since 1997 (headcount figures given only)

  Trust

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  South and East Belfast HSS Trust

  26

  44

  41

  18

  48

  59

  Armagh and Dungannon HSS Trust

  5

  11

  10

  10

  14

  25

  Southern Board HQ

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1

  Homefirst Community HSS Trust

  144

  114

  195

  225

  141

  312

  Belfast City Hospital HSS Trust

  30

  165

  81

  115

  144

  191

  Sperrin/Lakeland HSS Trust

  47

  75

  54

  58

  34

  77

  Blood Transfusion Service

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Altnagelvin Group HSS Trust

  96

  86

  72

  80

  81

  63

  Craigavon and Banbridge Community HSS Trust

  22

  23

  35

  28

  34

  22

  Craigavon Area Hospital Group HSS Trust

  20

  37

  98

  82

  46

  110

  Ulster Community and Hospitals Group HSS Trust

  81

  71

  150

  189

  248

  333

  Down Lisburn HSS Trust

  39

  62

  59

  57

  105

  102

  Regional Medical Physics Agency

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Foyle Community HSS Trust

  40

  26

  46

  42

  60

  36

  Royal Hospitals

  160

  191

  253

  281

  289

  341

  Green Park Healthcare HSS Trust

  74

  111

  71

  39

  63

  92

  North and West Belfast HSS Trust

  25

  19

  22

  16

  51

  30

  Newry and Mourne HSS Trust

  26

  27

  18

  30

  38

  47

  Causeway HSS Trust

  84

  61

  85

  66

  72

  84

  Mater Infirmorum Hospital HSS Trust

  13

  24

  36

  21

  48

  85

  United Hospitals HSS Trust

  107

  103

  93

  120

  74

  82

  Total

  1,040

  1,250

  1,420

  1,478

  1,591

  2,094

  1 Bank nurses have been excluded from these figures—they cover for staffing shortfalls and fluctuating workloads in order to maintain service delivery

  Organised Crime Taskforce
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much funding has been made available to the Organised Crime Taskforce since its introduction in September 2000. [129816]

  Jane Kennedy
  With the exception of an annual publicity budget of £50,000 to meet the cost of publishing the annual Organised Crime Task Force (OCTF) Threat Assessment and Strategy Documents and to promote the role of the OCTF, no specific funding has been allocated to the Organised Crime Task Force. Costs for administering the OCTF are met from the overall resources allocated to the Security Policy and Operations Division of the Northern Ireland Office. Individual constituent members of the OCTF are responsible for funding their involvement from within their overall organisational budgets.

  Police Recruitment
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the 50:50 recruitment procedure to the Police Service of Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on police recruitment. [129838]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Police Service of Northern Ireland continues to attract a very high number of applicants: over 27,500 have applied over the course of the five competitions held since the 50:50 recruitment procedures began. As a direct result of 50:50 recruitment, the proportion of Catholics in the PSNI has increased from 8 per cent. at the time of the Patten Report to 13.3 per cent. as of 1 September this year.

  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to increase the representation of(a) females, (b) ethnic minorities and (c) those with disabilities on district policing partnerships; and if he will make a statement. [129839]
  724W
  Jane Kennedy
  Schedule 3 to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 sets out how the appointments of political and independent members to District Policing Partnerships (DPPs) are to be made. District councils are responsible for the appointment of political (elected) members. Councils were required to ensure that the political members of the DPP reflected the balance of the parties prevailing among the members of the council, immediately after the last local government election.

  The responsibility for the appointment of independent members lies with the Policing Board. A widespread advertising campaign and public information evenings were used by the Policing Board to encourage applications.

  In addition, approaches were made to several thousand community groups to promote the interest from potentially under-represented sections of the community including females, ethnic minorities and people with disabilities. To facilitate those with disabilities, the application form was produced in Braille, audio and large print.

  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many and what percentage of(a) Roman Catholics and (b) Protestants have been unsuccessful in their applications since the 50:50 recruitment policy started for the Police Service of Northern Ireland. [130419]

  Jane Kennedy
  Details of the number of unsuccessful applicants to the Police Service of Northern Ireland since the introduction of 50:50 recruitment are as follows:

  Number

  Percentage

  Catholic applications

  9,823

  35.6

  Catholic applicants unsuccessful

  9,342

  95.1

  Non Catholic applications

  17,727

  64.4

  Non Catholic applicants unsuccessful

  17,284

  97.5

  725W
  The figures are based on the total number of applications received in the five competitions held so far i.e. they will include more than one application from some individuals. As not all of the competitions have been completed there may be some minor changes to the numbers over time.

  Police Reserve
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many officers are serving in the Police Service of Northern Ireland full time reserve; what their expected future length of service is; and if he will make a statement. [130422]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Unfortunately it has not been possible to collate the information requested in the requested time-scale. I will reply to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.

  Police Service
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will make a statement on the impact of the Force Order issued by the Police Service of Northern Ireland on 25th March on access to police exercise facilities for retired police officers; [120973]

  (2) who has responsibility for day to day security management at police exercise facilities across Northern Ireland; and whether retired police officers will have to be vetted in order to gain access to such facilities; [120974]

  (3) what action the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland has taken with regard to retired police officers having access to police exercise facilities in Northern Ireland; [120975]

  (4) if he will make a statement on why retired police officers in Northern Ireland have no access to police exercise facilities in Northern Ireland; and if he will take action to remedy this. [120976]

  Jane Kennedy
  The General Order referred to seeks to regulate access to exercise facilities in PSNI establishments for both security and health and safety considerations. The Order outlines the separate circumstances and procedures applicable for 'Employee' and 'Guest' access to such facilities. Retired Police Officers fall into the category of 'Guests' and as such will be required to apply for 'Guest Status' as outlined in the General Order.

  The Chief Constable has responsibility for security at Police establishments. Any individuals who fall into the 'Guest' category will require security clearance. No exceptions are made to this vetting process. Retired Police Officers with 'Guest Status' will have access to police exercise facilities at eight major sites listed in the PSNI General Order.

  Primary/Secondary Education
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland pursuant to the answer of 30 June 2003,Official Report, column 100W, what the publicly declared positions are of each member of the working group on a form of selection in the transfer procedure for pupils from primary to secondary education. [123981]
  726W
  Jane Kennedy
  I am not aware of any publicly declared positions of members of the Working Group in favour or against a form of selection in the transfer procedure for pupils from primary to secondary education.

  Prisons
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many self-inflicted(a) injuries and (b) deaths there have been in Northern Ireland prisons in each of the past five years; and what action the Government is taking to reduce these figures. [129829]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Self-inflicted injuries

  Number of self-inflicted injuries

  1998–99

  89

  1999–2000

  70

  2000–01

  90

  2001–02

  98

  2002–03

  146

  2003 to date

  53

  (b) Self-inflicted deaths

  Number of self-inflicted deaths

  1998–99

  1

  1999–2000

  3

  2000–01

  3

  2001–02

  Nil

  2002–03

  1—

  2003 to date

  2—

  1 Two deaths in custody awaiting Coroner's inquest.

  2 One death in custody awaiting Coroner's inquest.

  Action Government taking to reduce these figures

  A review of policy and practices for dealing with prisoners at risk has recently been completed by the Northern Ireland Prison Service. This takes a holistic approach to providing the necessary support and care to prevent the individual harming him or herself. It includes an initial assessment on reception to prison, Samaritan services, listener schemes, an anti-bullying policy and improved structures, systems and procedures. This will include a multi-disciplinary case conference being held, leading to the development of a care plan for those at risk. This policy is due to be implemented by December 2003.

  Recycling
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to introduce a doorstep recycling service in Northern Ireland. [129809]

  Angela Smith
  The Northern Ireland Waste Management Strategy, published by the Department of the Environment in March 2000, provides a framework for developing waste management practices to increase recycling rates and reduce the amount of waste going to landfill. A key element of the Strategy is the preparation of Waste Management Plans by District Councils. Plans covering all of Northern Ireland are currently being implemented and are geared towards achieving a primary target set out in the Strategy of recovering 25 per cent. of household waste by 2005.
  727W
  The Plans were adopted following extensive public consultation throughout each district council area. They set out the full range of activities and facilities to be put in place to provide a recycling service, taking account of the needs and circumstances of individual councils areas. These activities and facilities to be put in place include a mix of kerbside collection for individual households, home composting schemes and the development of new and enhanced civic amenity sites and recycling centres. Under its Waste Management Grant Scheme, the Department provides significant financial assistance to district councils to assist with the cost of implementing the Plans. The Scheme commenced in April 2001 and up to March 2003 some 20 Councils used the assistance for the purchase of bins to enable householders to segregate waste for recycling.

  Remicade
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the availability of Remicade to NHS patients in Northern Ireland. [129810]

  Angela Smith
  The medicine Remicade has been prescribed in Northern Ireland since November 1999 for a number of health service patients with severe rheumatoid arthritis who have failed to respond to existing drug therapies. The use of Remicade for the treatment of an individual patient is a matter for clinical judgment and is the individual responsibility of the prescriber. The decision is taken by a hospital consultant in collaboration with the patient, having discussed with him or her, the risks and benefits of treatment.

  An extra £3.1 million for the provision of specialist drugs, including those for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, was allocated to Health and Social Services Boards in the last financial year. This has now been uplifted for inflation and has been provided on a recurrent basis, All four Health and Social Services Boards have made a commitment to ensure an equitable approach to the management and reduction of waiting lists for expensive specialist medicines for arthritis and other conditions as one of the Priorities for Action 2003–04.

  Road Resurfacing (Killeen, Newry)
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what the final cost was of the recent work to resurface the section of the Newry/Dundalk Road at Killeen, Newry; [116960]

  (2) whether the contract for the resurfacing of the section of the main Newry/Dundalk Road at Killeen, Newry was awarded to the lowest tender; [116961]

  (3) what the lowest tendered price was for the recent resurfacing of the section of the main Newry/Dundalk Road at Killeen, Newry. [116962]

  Angela Smith
  The Chief Executive of the Roads Service has written to the hon. Gentleman. A copy of the letter has been placed in the Library.

  School Exclusions
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many children were excluded from school in 2001–02. [123791]

  Jane Kennedy
  During the 2001–02 school year, 61 pupils were expelled and 5,096 pupils were suspended.

  Sexual Offences
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will take steps to make male against male rape an offence in Northern Ireland. [115046]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Article 18 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 makes it possible for rape victims to be men and boys.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will abolish the penalty for consensual heterosexual anal intercourse in Northern Ireland. [115045]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Article 19 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 provides that anal intercourse is not an offence if it takes place in private and both parties are 17 years or over.

  Sports Funding
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in what circumstances(a) Exchequer and (b) Lottery funding may be granted to prepare competitors in (i) hockey, (ii) athletics, (iii) cycling, (iv) swimming and (v) equestrianism to compete for Ireland against British teams or individuals at Olympic Games or World Championships. [109541]

  Angela Smith
  No Exchequer funding is allocated to help prepare competitors for specific international events. Exchequer funding is solely designed to provide for a range of general sports development needs.

  The only Lottery funding designed to assist Northern Ireland's leading sportspeople to prepare for competition at international level is through the Sports Council's Talented Athlete' programmes.

  All athletes granted Talented Athlete Lottery funding for Hockey, Swimming and Equestrianism, if selected for major international competition, would compete for Ireland. This is because the local provincial clubs are affiliated to All-Ireland Governing Bodies. However, those in receipt of Talented Athlete Funding, who compete in Athletics orCycling, given the make-up of their governing bodies may compete for either Ireland or Great Britain if selected for international competition.

  Telecommunications Masts
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consultation has taken place on new legislation in respect of telecommunication masts. [120155]
  729W
  Angela Smith
  Following the publication of the Stewart Report, the Department of the Environment issued a consultation paper in November 2000 on the subject of planning control for telecommunications development. The consultation paper proposed various options for changing the existing telecommunications planning regime, and put forward a draft Planning Policy Statement for consideration.

  As a result of that consultation process, the then Minister of the Environment brought forward legislation which introduced a requirement for full planning permission for all new telecommunications development, including alterations and extensions. This process also led to the Department's new Planning Policy Statement 10: Telecommunications, which was published in April 2002, and takes full account of the precautionary approach advocated in the Stewart Report.

  Traffic Cones
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what the cost of placing and retrieving traffic

  £

  Trust

  1999–2000

  2000–2001

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Altnagelvin

  7,809

  9,877

  13,137

  23,804

  Armagh and Dungannon

  n/a

  n/a

  1100,000

  1104,000

  Belfast City Hospital

  155,674

  92,632

  146,800

  146,800

  Causeway

  29,506

  42,356

  1124,342

  1124,342

  Craigavon and Banbridge Community

  94,267

  124,599

  116,000

  118,000

  Craigavon Area Hospitals

  132.80

  172.20

  4,846

  5,008

  Down Lisburn

  253,618.07

  313,841.07

  314,049.49

  370,826.97

  Foyle

  141,887

  150,200

  146,800

  146,800

  Green Park

  3,657.58

  7,153.45

  5,675.15

  7,474.95

  Homefirst

  222,596

  240,996

  1265,000

  1265,000

  Mater Hospital

  7,079.88

  10,404.72

  9,992.25

  16,027.61

  Newry and Mourne

  111,609

  116,091

  107,921.75

  134,990.72

  Ambulance Service

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  24,282

  North and West Belfast

  140,814

  166,030

  1176,794

  1233,460

  Royal Group of Hospitals

  14,366.86

  21,681.57

  228

  1,086

  South and East Belfast

  150,358

  181,820

  186,216

  201,368

  Sperrin Lakeland

  91,962

  156,619

  211,923

  217,824

  Ulster Community and Hospitals

  44,005

  55,020

  55,738

  74,599

  United Hospitals

  64,396

  73,129

  84,241

  94,986

  n/a = Not available

  1 Estimated

  2 Renal dialysis patients

  A Regional Transport Manual for the HPSS was produced and issued by the Department in June 1998. In relation to the use of taxis it states clearly that their use should be strictly controlled in order to minimise costs. Trusts have to ensure that when taxis are used to support fleet operation for regular or ad hoc work, that there are proper management protocols and monitoring arrangements in place.

  Trusts must have mechanisms in place to ensure relevant directors are notified of expenditure on taxis. Also taxi services obtained from commercial taxi companies are subject to a process of tender through Regional Supplies Services.

  Unsolved Murders
  Mr. David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress 730W
  cones on Northern Ireland roads and motorways was in each of the last three years; [110578]

  (2) what proposals his Department has to improve the safety of placing and retrieving traffic cones on Northern Ireland roads and motorways; [110562]

  (3) how many people have been (a) injured and (b) killed, placing and retrieving traffic cones on Northern Ireland roads and motorways in each of the last three years. [110577]

  Angela Smith
  The Chief Executive of the Roads Service has written to the hon. Gentleman. A copy of the letter has been placed in the Library.

  Health Service (Taxi Costs)
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much has been paid to private hire taxi companies by each trust board in each of the last four financial years; and what the criteria are for the use of private hire taxis by trust boards. [122376]

  Angela Smith
  The information required for the years 1999–2000 to 2002–03 is as follows:

  with the investigations of unsolved murders of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and army personnel in the County of Londonderry in 1972. [130421]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I understand from the PSNI that a Major Crime Review Group is being established to address the issue of unsolved murders. Inquiries regarding its progress are a matter for the PSNI.

  Water Service
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many Hippo Bags have been issued in Northern Ireland; and how many have been installed in domestic and commercial premises in each of the last 12 months; [111054]
  731W
  (2) what assessment he has made of (a) the savings possible from water leakage and water efficiency measures and (b) the capital spending required by the Department of Regional Development and its Water Service for new water capacity; [111056]

  (3) if he will list, for each of the last 12 months, the progress made by the Department of Regional Development's Water Service in reaching its water efficiency and leakage reduction targets; [111052]

  (4) if he will undertake a review into how the Water Service manages leakages in Northern Ireland; and if he will make an assessment of how far a stronger and more robust programme for energy efficiency in domestic and commercial premises would reduce wastage; [111051]

  (5) what the (a) rainfall in Northern Ireland and (b) the capacity of each of the reservoirs was in each of the last 12 months; what the capital building programme for water was in each month; and if he will make a statement; [111055]
  732W
  (6) what recent measures have been undertaken by the Water Service in Northern Ireland (a) to reduce domestic water leakages and (b) to improve domestic water efficiency. [111053]

  Angela Smith
  The Chief Executive of the Water Service has written to the hon. Gentleman. A copy of the letter has been placed in the Library.

  Welcome Signs
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many signs welcoming people to Northern Ireland there are(a) along the border with the Republic of Ireland and (b) on other main roads; and what estimate he has made of the cost of these signs. [109543]

  Angela Smith
  The Chief Executive of the Roads Service has written to the hon. Lady. A copy of the letter has been placed in the Library.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Advisory Board on Restricted Patients
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins)
  The Home Secretary's Advisory Board on Restricted Patients will cease to function with effect from 16 September 2003.

  Police Complaints Authority
  The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety (Ms Hazel Blears)
  I am pleased to announce that the Annual Report of the Police Complaints Authority (PCA) will be laid before Parliament on 16 September 2003 and published on that day.

  The report, as well as setting out the work completed in 2002–03 with regards to supervision of complaints, misconduct reviews and dispensations, also highlights the outcome of the projects that were carried out in order to pilot key aspects of the new complaints system (Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). The IPCC will be replacing the PCA on 1 April 2004.

  The PCA will be holding a press conference on 16 September to launch the report.

  Copies of the report will be available in the Libraries of both Houses.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Public Guardianship Office's Annual Report and Accounts
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. David Lammy)
  The Public Guardianship Office's Annual Report and Accounts for 2002–03 have been laid before Parliament today. This document gives full details of the agency's performance and expenditure for that year.

  Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  St. Helena: Air Access
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Gareth Thomas)
  An international invitation for private sector participation and potential investment in possible development of access by air for St. Helena was launched on 7 April 2003. The invitation incorporated a provisional offer by the Department for International Development to 44WS
  contribute up to £26.3 million towards any proposal that may prove acceptable. This sum reflected the estimated capital cost of replacing the island's dedicated passenger/supply ship, as the alternative to developing air access.

  Four expressions of interest, incorporating outline proposals, were received by the closing date of 25 July from:

  Basil Read (Pty) Limited (South Africa);

  John Laing International Limited;

  Lagan Holdings Limited; and

  St Helena Leisure Corporation Limited (SHELCO).

  A full assessment of these proposals is now being made, with the help of expert advice, in consultation with the St. Helena Government. This process first will establish whether any or all of the proposals offer a suitable basis for proceeding further. If so, respondents may be invited to develop their proposals and, if appropriate, enter negotiations with the St. Helena and UK Governments. We hope to reach negotiation stage by early next year.

  In addition, and in parallel, we intend to initiate a process of continuing an independent review using the "Gateway" model. This is advocated for large public investment projects by the Office of Government Commerce, which is advising DFID. It will test the business case for proceeding and help ensure that lessons of other public/private investment are taken into account.

  Both the St. Helena Government and DFID have established internal teams to oversee and manage the process. The St Helena Government is now in the course of recruiting a local coordinator. Every effort will continue to be made to ensure that the people of St. Helena, as well as other interested parties, are kept as fully informed as possible of progress and next steps.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Oversight Commissioner's Report
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy)
  I have today laid before this House a copy of the Oversight Commissioner's second statutory report for the year 2003 which is being published today, in accordance with Section 68(4)(a) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000.

DEFENCE

  Future Aircraft Carrier Programme
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram)
  Further to the Statement to the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 30 January 2003,Official Report, columns 1026–42, I am pleased to announce that the Ministry of Defence has agreed contracts with BAE SYSTEMS (BAES) and Thales United Kingdom for the third stage of the Assessment Phase for the Future Aircraft Carrier (CVF) programme. This stage will be used to increase the maturity of the carrier design, and will pave the way for

  45WS
  placing contracts for the demonstration and manufacture (D&M) phase in Spring 2004 The work will be managed by a single, integrated team staffed by BAES and Thales UK.

  Since the end of January, progress has been maintained in developing the design of the warship. In parallel, positive discussions have been conducted with BAE SYSTEMS and Thales UK on how to take forward the alliance approach to the programme set out by the Secretary of State in January. Discussions will continue between all three parties to refine the precise terms of the Alliance and the D&M contract, and will complete early next year. These discussions will be conducted concurrently with the Stage 3 design work, and will place the Department in a strong position to proceed quickly to place the D&M contract expected in Spring 2004.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Housing Corporation
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill)
  Today the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister are announcing the start of an End-to-End Review of the Housing Corporation and its interaction with Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) and other agencies. The review will look at the links between the development of policy and delivery in the area of affordable housing. Part of this process will involve looking at ways of minimising administrative burdens on the Housing Corporation and the organisations with which it works.

  With the new initiatives that are being put in place, particularly for delivering sustainable communities, a review of this sort is timely, and forms part of the Government's wider strategy for the reform of public services.

  The review will be managed by a Project Board, which includes external members as well as representatives from the Housing Corporation and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. It will report in the spring.

  Residual Neighbourhood Renewal Fund
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Yvette Cooper)
  Today we are announcing the distribution of the remaining £175 million of unallocated Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (NRF) resources for 2004–05 and 2005–06.

  The NRF was launched in 2001–02, providing £900 million over three years as a time-limited component of the Government's long-term strategy for tackling deprivation in our poorest neighbourhoods. For over two years NRF has been assisting the 88 recipient local authorities and their fellow Local Strategic Partnership (LSP) members in establishing inclusive and effective partnership structures and strategic approaches to addressing the particular deprivation problems of each local area.
  46WS
  The Spending Review 2002 Settlement provided for further support for the NRF's challenging remit, continuing to give a targeted boost to ongoing increases in mainstream public service investment in deprived areas. SR2002 allocated to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister an additional £975 million of NRF resources—450 million in 2004–05 and £525 million in 2005–06. We announced the allocation of £800 million of these resources in April this year, confirming that the existing 88 eligible areas shall receive a further £400 million in total in each year.

  Over the past few months we have given detailed consideration to the best way in which to distribute the residual £175 million of NRF resources for 2004–05 and 2005–06. After examining a range of options we have concluded that we should focus resources in those areas, which have great need in terms of health, education, crime and other aspects measured by the Government's floor target indicators. These floor targets are designed to ensure that the poorest areas do not get left behind and see significant improvements in outcomes on health, education and other measures. That is why we are announcing today that 26 local authority areas that are currently eligible for NRF are also eligible for a share of the residual £175 million. These 26 areas have been selected because they are ranked in the lowest 10 areas against two or more indicators used to measure progress towards the national Floor targets, ie they have the furthest distance to travel in order to meet these Floor targets. Tabled below is a list of the eligible areas and their allocations in 2004–05 and 2005–06.

  There are several reasons why we are taking this approach. First is the fact that the achievement of the Floor targets is one of our top priorities. Delivering improvements for our most disadvantaged neighbourhoods is fundamental to the objectives we have set ourselves in the Communities Plan.

  We also recognise the importance of NRF in helping local service providers work collectively through Local Strategic Partnerships to address local priorities, and to meet national floor targets at the local level. We are pleased with and greatly encouraged by the good progress already being made by the 88 NRF local authorities and their LSP colleagues. However, some areas have a greater task than others to deliver the improvements needed in areas such as the health of local people, educational achievement and preventing crime.

  The £175 million of residual NRF resources will provide these 26 areas with additional financial support to meet this challenge.

  Allocations of Residual Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (NRF) Resources for 2004–05 and 2005–06

  Current NRF recipients also eligible for residual NRF

  2004–05 Allocation (£)

  2005–06 Allocation (£)

  Bolsover

  417,624

  1,044,060

  Bristol, City of

  1,013,689

  2,534,224

  Camden

  1,199,468

  2,998,670

  Derwentside

  421,456

  1,053,639

  Easington

  1,260,484

  3,151,209

  47WS

  Allocations of Residual Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (NRF) Resources for 2004–05 and 2005–06

  Current NRF recipients also eligible for residual NRF

  2004–05 Allocation (£)

  2005–06 Allocation (£)

  Greenwich

  1,103,589

  2,758,972

  Hackney

  3,345,184

  8,362,959

  Halton

  1,116,940

  2,792,350

  Haringey

  1,516,814

  3,792,035

  Hartlepool

  892,071

  2,230,177

  Islington

  1,782,715

  4,456,788

  Kingston upon Hull, City of

  2,134,495

  5,336,238

  Knowsley

  2,101,419

  5,253,547

  Lambeth

  688,542

  1,721,356

  Liverpool

  5,724,205

  14,310,513

  Manchester

  5,855,669

  14,639,173

  Middlesbrough

  1,492,501

  3,731,252

  Newham

  3,790,592

  9,476,480

  Nottingham

  2,628,822

  6,572,056

  Salford

  1,546,952

  3,867,381

  Sandwell

  2,288,967

  5,722,418

  South Tyneside

  1,530,285

  3,825,713

  Southwark

  2,249,671

  5,624,176

  Tower Hamlets

  3,020,552

  7,551,380

  Wansbeck

  392,176

  980,441

  Wear Valley

  485,117

  1,212,793

  TOTAL

  50,000,000

  125,000,000

HEALTH

  Mental Health
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Ms Rosie Winterton)
  Yesterday I issued the thirteenth report prepared pursuant to Section 11 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 as amended, on development of services for people with a mental illness on England.

  The report sets out the current policy and the developments in mental health services that have taken place since the twelfth report.

  Copies of "Development of Services for People with a Mental Illness in England—Thirteenth Report" have been placed in the Library.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Discretionary Social Fund
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond)
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be making a number of minor changes to the discretionary social fund, with effect from 6 October 2003. The changes to the fund are minor clarifications of guidance and directions, and, in the main, are consequential to legislative changes being made in respect of other social security benefits.

  Details of the changes have been placed in the Library.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich.

Hunting with Dogs
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many hounds they expect to be destroyed if the Hunting Bill becomes law.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Hunting Bill does not require dogs to be destroyed. Evidence to the Burns committee suggests that hunts in England and Wales keep around 20,000 dogs solely for hunting. Several thousand dogs are put down every year. If the Bill becomes law it will be for dog owners to decide what to do with their dogs.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that astonishing reply. Does he not realise that if the Bill becomes law 11,766 foxhounds, 3,600 beagles, 1,200 harriers, 511 mink hounds, 420 fell hounds, 220 deer hounds, 300 basset hounds and 3,000 unentered hounds will be destroyed because there will be nothing for them to hunt? Is not the noble Lord ashamed of that?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that adds up to roughly the 20,000 to which I referred, several thousand of which in practice are destroyed every year because they outlive their usefulness or their ability to join the pack. Therefore, it is not unusual for hunts to destroy hounds. It is difficult to see that all of those hounds would be used for other purposes, but some might.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, further to that point, is it not a fact that in its evidence to the Burns inquiry the Countryside Alliance suggested that some 3,000 hounds each year are destroyed because they are surplus to requirements? Further, it is suggested that many of those hounds have lived only half—in other words, six or seven years—of their natural life.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, my noble friend is correct. I think that that is received wisdom on these matters. That is the kind of culling which necessarily goes on in hunts every year.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, to what other purpose would hunting packs be put when disbanded? They would make awfully inappropriate children's pets.
Lord Whitty: Indeed, my Lords. Perhaps that is one of the matters that those of us who would argue that we
756
wish to continue hunting should bear in mind and recognise. The packs are bred specifically for something which in all other contexts is anti-social. However, there is a difference of opinion as to whether they could be used for different purposes. That would depend on the temperament of the hounds. The animal welfare organisations have offered to the hunts and to others to see whether the hounds could be rehoused in different circumstances, and some undoubtedly could. So, it is unlikely that the number destroyed would match the total figures which have been bandied around.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that if 20,000 foxhounds, beagles and harriers had to be put down, that would far exceed the number of foxes killed by any pack in any one season?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Harrison pointed out, many of these hounds would have been killed within two or three years in any case. So let us not pretend that this is something new.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, once, or if, the Bill is passed, could not drag hunting save the lives of a number of these hounds?
Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords, that is one alternative should the hunts decide that that was the way to go in the new era.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, can the Minister give any other instance of when, quite deliberately, it has been government policy to reduce the number of one species by about 20,000 with no possible thought for its survival?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, regrettably, there are a number of such instances which necessarily arise in terms of pest control and animal disease. Again, I do not believe that the situation is unique.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, if the Hunting Bill becomes law, will the Minister adopt a foxhound as a family pet?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we all have to make our own choices on this matter. I do not pretend that foxhounds would make a suitable family pet in most instances. I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, in that respect. However, in expert circles it is said that some could be used for other purposes: retrained for farm animals, or whatever. I suspect that that is a minority, but nevertheless there is scope for saving some of these hounds.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, can the Minister explain his anti-social remark? In the past would the members of a miners' pack have described themselves as anti-social? Would the members of the clergy who I have known to hunt have described themselves as antisocial? Can he explain himself?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I was referring to the hounds rather than the hunters; the point being that they would

757
not easily—given the way they are trained—fit into any other use that humanity normally has for dogs. It is not a comment on the hunters themselves.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, the noble Lord said that hunting was unsocial. What does he mean by "unsocial" in those terms?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I said the dogs in circumstances other than hunting would behave in an anti-social way, as the record will show. I have views on hunting, as will become apparent in our debate shortly. However, that was not what I said.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, putting aside for a moment the various exchanges, I do not know of any example where 20,000 domestic animals have been made obsolete and therefore potentially are going to be destroyed. Can the noble Lord tell the House what steps his department has taken to obtain advice and look at that problem? Can he tell us what advice he has received and what reports his department has commissioned into what is by any standards—putting hunting aside—a rather serious and unpleasant question?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the whole point and the reason for the problem is that these are not domesticated animals. We have discussed this issue with the animal welfare organisations. Indeed, other bodies are looking at it. The RSPCA and others have offered help in dealing with the problem of whether in the end we have to destroy the animals or whether we can use them for some other purposes. So, the Government, together with the animal welfare experts, are seized of the problem.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, would not the unwelcome invasion of private property by huntsmen constitute anti-social activity?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, while not wishing to stray on to the rather lengthy Second Reading debate with which we are faced later today, it is of course true that there are many in the countryside who would agree with that view.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, can the noble Lord explain why the Government appear to value foxes so much higher than hounds; and why are they so indifferent to the death of the dogs and so enamoured of saving the fox?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in a sense we go to the heart of the debate: those who wish to restrict or ban fox
758
hunting are concerned about the way in which those foxes are destroyed and the unnecessary suffering it causes.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we are at the centre of the debate. The majority of the House of Commons—indeed, the majority of the country—believes that fox hunting presents unnecessary suffering.
Noble Lords: No.
Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords, they do. They do not all necessarily support the particular form of legislation but the majority of the countryside believes that fox hunting involves unnecessary suffering. If we have to put down hounds, it will be done in the most humane way necessary. The problem with hunting is that it is not the most humane way of destroying a fox.

Haemophiliacs with Hepatitis C: Financial Assistance Scheme
2.45 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper; and in doing so declare an interest, not a pecuniary one, as president of the Haemophilia Society.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what further consideration they have given to introducing a financial assistance scheme for people with haemophilia and other National Health Service patients infected with hepatitis C by contaminated National Health Service blood products; and what action they are taking in this regard.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am pleased to be able to report that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health announced on 29th August that the Government have decided to establish a financial assistance scheme in England for people infected with hepatitis C as a result of being given blood or blood products by the NHS.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend who knows how evocative a moment this is for those who have worked for so many years—not least from both sides of this House—to achieve this major and welcome change of policy.
Can we be assured that the payments scheme, on the detail of which the Haemophilia Society looks forward to working with government, will cover dependants of the 212 haemophilia patients who have died of hepatitis C infection, as well as the 2,800 still living with the virus?

759
How many of the 2,800 now have advanced liver disease, including cancer and cirrhosis, due to the virus; and what number still await liver transplants as their only remaining hope of survival?
Finally, will the scheme take full account of what other schemes provide, such as those in Canada and Ireland, and of the £100,000 now available under our own Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House would want me to start by congratulating the noble Lord on his outstanding record of promoting this social justice cause for haemophiliacs infected with blood products. Since the early 1980s he has played an outstanding role. He would probably want me to thank Ministers in this House who over the years have shown great sympathy and support for this cause and who will be very pleased that it has been resolved in this manner.
In relation to his questions, I cannot give an assurance on any of the details at the moment because meetings are urgently taking place to discuss the scope and nature of the scheme, the inclusion of dependants, and so forth. I understand that there is to be a meeting between the Department of Health, the Macfarlane Trust and the Haemophilia Society.
On the number of people who have advanced liver disease, we do not hold those figures centrally, but I believe that about 20 per cent of chronically infected people may develop serious liver disease and that about 4 per cent might get liver cancer as a result. But these issues are being addressed in the Hepatitis C Strategy, which is in place.
In relation to other schemes, this scheme is not comparable. II is a unique scheme. It has been introduced on compassionate grounds. It is a financial assistance scheme. As such, that is exactly what it will deliver.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Morris, in congratulating the Government on their change of mind after many years on this subject and paying compensation towards those infected in this way. I also join the Minister in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Morris, after his campaign, together with the Haemophilia Society, on finally securing this change of mind by the Government.
When the Government consider the details of the scheme, will they take into account the way in which the Macfarlane Trust operates for those haemophiliacs infected with HIV after being given blood products, in so far as they are able to claim for higher compensation if their condition deteriorates?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, we are grateful for the noble Lord's support. I reiterate that this is a scheme of financial assistance, not compensation, because there was no liability. Given the knowledge and techniques
760
available to the National Blood Service at the time, everything was done as it should have been.
On the noble Lord's question about the Haemophilia Society, the Macfarlane Trust and those who receive support from it, that will be on the table and discussed, along with many other issues.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, while welcoming the decision on ex gratia payments, can the Minister confirm that many people are still living who contracted hepatitis C from contaminated blood in the health service? How many of them are waiting for liver transplants, which are essential for their survival?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not have that information for the noble Lord. We do not collect statistics centrally, but I shall certainly return to the department to try to obtain that information—or at least an educated guess—for him.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, in deciding on the scale of compensation, will the Minister have regard to the provisions of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995? In particular, will she bear in mind that millions of pounds—last year it was £232 million—are paid out to victims of crime for whom the Government are in no way vicariously responsible, whereas here we are concerned with persons whom the health service has infected? Is she aware that under that compensation scheme, a figure is paid for the actual injury, and that to that is added loss of earnings or the ability 10 earn, as well as special expenses such as the cost of medical care that cannot be covered by the NHS, costs of adapting a house, and other such items?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I sympathise with what the noble and learned Lord says, but there is no comparison between what the Government are doing to provide ex gratia payments on compassionate grounds for financial assistance and the criminal injuries compensation scheme, which implies liability. As I said, there was no liability when this unfortunate event occurred. There was no test until 1991 for hepatitis C so, like every other country, in the early 1970s we could not know what was happening. The noble and learned Lord is comparing like with unlike, so I cannot give him the satisfaction that he seeks.

Iraq: Post-war Administration
2.53 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What discussions took place with the United States Government about the administration of Iraq in the event of a military victory.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government had a wide range of discussions with United States interlocutors concerning the post-war administration of Iraq. At the Azores Summit on

761
16th March, the Prime Minister and President Bush set out a vision for Iraq committing the coalition to work closely with the UN, among others, to ensure an appropriate post-conflict administration. UN Security Council Resolution 1493, adopted unanimously on 22nd May, endorsed that approach.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, the Minister will know that most of the discussions between the United Kingdom and the United States took place between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the US State Department. Does she now agree that most of the assumptions made by the Pentagon, which turned out to be the main force in the issues of post-war planning, have been proven by facts and events to be largely wrong, that today terrorism and crime are rife in Iraq and that hundreds of innocent civilians are being killed every single month? In the light of that, does she agree that it is now vital that the Government find their voice, call for a much greater role in both the current occupation and the reconstruction of Iraq and recognise that the Pentagon must be persuaded to abandon its continuing loyalty to the concept of a unilateral and overwhelming American influence over the whole of the Iraq imbroglio?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, although we take note of the noble Baroness's great expertise in foreign policy, I must disagree with her that the United Nation's role is in any way marginal in either the preparations for post-war Iraq or the current building, reconstruction and humanitarian efforts there. I agree with the noble Baroness that some mistakes were made about the kind of immediate assistance that a post-war Iraq would need. As she will know from her great study of the matter, that was based on the view that there would be a great deal more solid administration and ministry, as it were, left within the Iraqi government. In fact, there was an administrative vacuum, which had to be quickly dealt with by the coalition. So although I agree that we have lessons to learn, I do not agree that the UN has in any way a marginalised role.
Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, despite what the noble Baroness says, is it not extraordinary that this country, which has at its disposal a wealth of experience about Iraq and the Middle East in general, should have placed our troops, apparently without question, under an American, not a UN, military command which, after a brilliant military victory, seemed to have no idea how the country might then be run? Are the Government surprised that the Governments of India, Pakistan and other potential troop contributors are now clearly resolved not to repeat our experience in that respect?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, a great number of countries have signed up to the economic and administrative reconstruction of Iraq. There are also a number of forces from European Union and applicant countries among the forces now in Iraq. To save time, I shall not go through the numbers, but the noble Lord will know them.
As for the position before the conflict, I think that I made clear the presumptions in front of the coalition partners at the time and how they have been dealt with in post-war Iraq. But good progress has been made. We hear continually about the difficulties. Continually in the media we hear the story of what is going wrong. That is quite right; we have a free media and it is up to them to tell the stories that they want to tell. But in Iraq, an Iraqi Governing Council is being formed, interim Ministers are being appointed and taking responsibility for their ministries, and a constitutional commission is beginning its work.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but will she kindly read the Standing Orders about ministerial Statements at Question Time?
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, have the Government estimated for how long British forces are expected to stay in Iraq? If so, can the Minister give the House that estimate?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, as US Ambassador Bremmer has said of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, we will stay as long as necessary and leave as soon as possible.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, although I rather agree with the noble Baroness that the medium-term prospect in Iraq is not nearly as bad as some pessimists and many newspaper reports insist on depicting, she will recall the Prime Minister saying at the time of the invasion that we needed,
"a humanitarian plan that",
works,
"every bit as…well…as a military plan".—[Official Report, Commons, 3/2/03; col. 36.]
Many of us are simply asking, "Where is that plan?".
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the first part of his question. I remind him that an enormous amount of humanitarian and reconstruction work is going on. The DfID budget provides £198 million of reconstruction and humanitarian aid. We know from Questions answered by my noble friend in the House last week that hospitals are now functioning, schools are opening and, in response to electricity and oil supplies being targeted by terrorists, an estimated 10,000 Iraqis are being trained to guard those installations.

European Security Strategy
3 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Lord Wallace of Saltaire asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress they are making towards fulfilment of their shared commitment, contained in the conclusions of the Thessaloniki European Council, that the draft European security strategy shall be "subject to public debate".
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the draft European security strategy is a public document available on the EU's website. A copy of the draft is in the Library of the House. Public debates will be taken forward by three seminars, to be held in Rome, Paris and Stockholm in September and October. Representatives from the academic community, non-governmental organisations and other international organisations, as well as governments, have been invited to participate in the seminars.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that limited reply. I note that no seminar is planned in London. I note also that the Thessaloniki European Council communiqué committed member governments to promote a public debate. Is she aware that other national parliaments have received copies of the document from their government and have debated it? The Bundestag had a debate the other week. Why have the British Government been so hesitant to circulate the paper to any of those who might be interested? The Foreign Office very kindly sent me a letter about it in July. It said that it had attached a copy of the paper and then did not do so. That must have been an accident.
Given that the paper says a number of things that Her Majesty's Government strongly favour, and that need to be discussed by other governments who will find it rather more difficult, why are they apparently so determined not to have it discussed or to encourage their own Parliament to discuss it?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will take my response in good part. I am genuinely pleased that he has raised the issue, as it is undercooked and under-discussed. The reason that I have said that we agreed wholeheartedly with the Thessaloniki European Council's unanimous endorsement of the document is that we are extremely pleased that it is in the public domain—it is on the website and in the Library. If noble Lords wish to have a discussion in this House or in another place, it will be through the usual channels. We would appreciate any comments on the document. The Government welcome the opportunity to discuss the strategy in Parliament. My noble friend the Minister with responsibility for Europe has shared the strategy with the House of Lords European Union Committee.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, does the Minister agree that two of the most interesting and important aspects of the document are the stress made on the transatlantic
764
partnership and on the importance of multilateral approaches to world problems? The next time that the United States, led by the Pentagon, wishes to embark on unilateral approaches to international problems. will the Government, unlike last time, bear in mind that those are two important parts of Mr Solana's document?
Baroness Crawley: Yes, my Lords, I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, that very indicative to the document is the strengthening relationship with NATO. As he will know from having studied the document, the reason that it was put forward in the first place was to try to make European Union foreign policy more coherent and more co-operative with those of our international partners.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, the noble Baroness said that certain bodies had been invited—I stress the word "invited"—to attend three meetings for public debate. Can bodies or individuals who have not been invited attend? If they cannot, surely it is not a public debate.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I take note of the noble Lord's remark about definitions of public debate. They are perhaps different in EU circles than they are nationally. However, if a member of the public wishes to read the document on the website or in the Library, and wishes to submit comments, they will be forwarded to Dr Solana. I have asked the civil servants about the matter, as I anticipated this question.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, given the recent example of public disaffection in Sweden, and the repeated examples in this country of public sourness towards the European Union and all its works, will the Government please take to heart the fact that the great British public feel cut out of these major debates? I do not wish to impugn the Minister personally, but, frankly, to be told that there are a handful of seminars around Europe and something on a website, speaks to me of the pathetic failure of this and previous governments to engage the British public, who want to be engaged, want to be informed and want to be listened to.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, if we are to break down the alienation that many people feel about Europe, we must try even harder with such public exercises.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, will the Government consider providing an explanatory memorandum on the document to the House of Lords EU Committee to encourage us to respond? Then we might discover what the British Government's response would be.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I will put the noble Lord's request to the Secretary of State.

Diagnostic and Treatment Centres
3.7 p.m.
Earl Howe Earl Howe asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether their plans for diagnostic and treatment centres represent good value for money.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the NHS is bringing on-stream diagnostic and treatment centres throughout the country. Some of those will be run by NHS providers and others by independent sector providers under contract to the NHS. The cost of treatment in the new centres will be based on the standard tariff, which is being introduced progressively. Where we are initially paying slightly more to the independent sector than reference costs, that is to cover the start-up costs so that the new facilities open as quickly as possible to treat more patients and reduce waiting lists.
Earl Howe: My Lords, is not the additional hospital capacity being purchased at an unacceptable price, not just financially, but also in terms of the future stability and effectiveness of the NHS? How can the Government justify the migration of staff from the NHS that looks likely to occur? How can they justify paying an overall price to the independent DTCs that is a good deal higher than the cost incurred in an NHS hospital?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, as I have explained, the price paid will be exactly the same as that paid to all NHS providers. There is no dual or preferential tariff. The noble Earl said that it was an unacceptable price, but it is unacceptable that so many people are waiting so long on waiting lists. This is a radical response to that. We are investing in independent and NHS treatment centres. Out of the independent sector arrangements we will get 135,000 extra operations and 115,000 operations transferred from the NHS to create even more capacity.
On staffing, no contract will be allowed unless it provides for stability and security of staffing across the NHS area to which it applies.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the Minister mentioned a tariff, but the private sector will receive a market forces premium on top of the NHS equivalent tariff. How can that represent value for money? Moreover, the DTCs will be entitled to take 70 per cent of their staff on secondment from the NHS? Again, how can that be good for the NHS or represent value for money?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, as I said, the tariff will be the same whether they are NHS or private providers. The additional costs will be essentially for start up—we have done this already for NHS providers in some cases. It covers the mobilisation of additional staff, extra equipment so that staff can start
766
as soon as possible, and refurbishment of the plant. It is a necessity that we are prepared to provide. I am not clear where the noble Lord's figure of 70 per cent comes from. It would certainly not be typical, although it might be at the extreme end of the spectrum of the number of NHS staff who might be involved. The indications are that many of the providers will bring whole teams with them to provide the extra service.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that the Government are departing from being the monolithic state provider of health? Is it not a good idea to provide healthcare from wherever it is best provided as opposed from only one source—the NHS? That is almost a damascene conversion that we on the free market, liberal part of the political spectrum should welcome and encourage.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I suspect that I am taking my life in my hands to agree in part with the noble Earl. I refer to the NHS plan 2000, which made it clear that we would be using private capacity to meet the real challenges within the NHS and the need to reduce waiting times. We are pleased to be able to do that, because of the extra capacity that we are delivering. However, I reiterate that these are NHS patients within the NHS framework. They will not pay for their treatment. They are provided for because they are in need and there is no compromise to the fundamental NHS principle of treatment that is free at the point of need.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, in accepting that there can be upfront costs for new entrants into the provision of NHS care in the private sector, it could also apply to the voluntary sector? If we are to encourage more voluntary sector organisations to provide services to the NHS in the future, does she agree that we must provide stability and some financial incentive to enable them to set up the infrastructure to enable them to provide such additional services?
Baroness Andrews: Yes, my Lords. The noble Lord has enormous experience in both the statutory and voluntary sectors. He makes a very rational case and I would say "yes" in principle.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, have the Government assessed the long-term effect on doctors' training if they do not have the opportunity to witness and, indeed, to perform eye cataract and hip replacement operations?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, that is a good question. The DTCs, as we call them, are in areas that have extremely long waiting lists and need urgent action. We are examining the impact on doctors' training. However, we envisage that doctors will be able to do some relevant training in the DTCs. There will be no loss of accreditational training facilities within the hospitals, but

767
the doctors will have the opportunity to learn from very new and exciting techniques. There will be no loss and there may be added value to training.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, will the Minister explain again why this additional investment, expenditure, recruitment, training and provision cannot be made within the NHS more efficiently, economically, simply and quickly?
Baroness Andrews: Yes, my Lords. We have gone down this road because, when the strategic health authorities examined the capacity of the NHS to deliver shorter waiting times by the target that we have set ourselves of six months by 2005, many of them realised that that could not be achieved within the NHS. Rather than give up and leave people waiting in pain, the decision was taken to try to expand capacity. That can only he to the benefit of NHS patients and the NHS.
We would all want to see capacity freed up within the NHS. Hospitals may be able to take other elective surgery in place of the high-volume work that they were doing or reform their A&E departments. We have no doubt that there will be additional value for the NHS.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, where are these people to come from? Surely, doctors and nurses are all trained in this country, within the NHS. Does she envisage the DTCs bringing doctors and nurses from countries other than the United Kingdom—in other words, poaching?
Also, does the Minister envisage the closure of the DTCs when the waiting lists have been mopped up?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, some of the teams will indeed come from overseas and will bring whole teams of clinicians with them. Others are from the UK and will bring their own staff. Some will use some NHS staff in strict agreement with the local PCTs and in circumstances that reflect local conditions, circumstances and need.
On the question of closure, we see the proposal not as a short-term fix but as a long-term investment—a new way of working for the NHS to deal with high-volume, complex and very painful conditions, which have condemned people for far too long to waiting lists of a year or more.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, have countries such as South Africa complained about this new proposal? I understand that many expert people are needed there who will now be coming to this country.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am happy to give the noble Baroness, Lady Sharples, an assurance on that. I understand that we have asked the South African teams to ensure that they have the support and clearance of their Government to bring their teams over here. They see this opportunity as an investment, because the staff coming will be largely on short-term contracts. There will be investment in training and
768
experience for staff who will return to their country of origin, so we can make an investment in that way. Also, because the people coming want to make a success of the proposal in the long term, we envisage a permanent relationship that will work harmoniously for the country of origin and the local providers.
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, will the Minister reassure us about the patients treated in these centres? I accept what she said about the speed of dealing with painful conditions, but operations can sometimes go wrong and one needs the back-up facilities of major hospitals, intensive care and the like if such were to happen. What arrangements are being made to deal with that aspect of the matter?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, on the broader question, the independent sector treatment centres will be registered with the National Care Standards Commission and, as from next year, with new CHAI, the regulatory body. They are staffed by highly-trained doctors. These are world-class organisations. All surgeons working in the centres will be registered with the GMC. Many of the centres will be physically based within the NHS and will have a close relationship. Obviously, we want to see the closest possible partnership between the NHS as a whole and the new centres.

Diagnostic and Treatment Centres

  National Lottery (Funding of Endowments) Bill
  3.17 p.m.
  Read a third time.
  Lord Walpole: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. I would like to express my thanks to Members of this House on all Benches who have been most supportive of this Bill.
  Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Walpole.)
  On Question, Bill passed.

Business
Lord Grocott: My Lords, before we start the debate on the Second Reading of the Hunting Bill, perhaps I may offer the usual arithmetic to the House. As we know, there is a long list of speakers. Were the average Back-Bench contribution to be 10 minutes long, which is one possibility, the House would finish at 2 a.m. However, if it were possible for the contributions to be around seven minutes long, the House would then rise at about 11.30 p.m. By way of comparison, the last Second Reading debate was on the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, when a time of eight minutes for contributions was suggested and was, broadly speaking, observed. The list of speakers was shorter, but we did rise at 10.34 p.m., so sometimes the suggestions work.

Hunting Bill
3.19 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
On the face of it, this is a simple, straightforward Bill. It has 17 clauses and three schedules and deals with only one subject. It provides for the prohibition of the hunting of all wild animals with dogs and all hare coursing events.
There are a few limited exceptions to the ban, but they relate only to stalking and flushing out in certain circumstances, terrier work in relation to protection of birds kept for shooting, falconry, ratting and rabbiting, the retrieval of shot hares, recapture or rescue and research. That encapsulates the Bill. It is a simple Bill, but we know that, regrettably, there are surrounding features that make it a bit of a contentious Bill.
Fox hunting is an issue that has raised high emotions on all sides for a considerable time. For as long as I can remember and, certainly, for the past decade, a majority of the people taking part in any reputable poll have wanted some form of restriction on fox hunting: they still do. For over a decade, Parliament has failed to resolve the issue. We still have not done so. Secondly, there has, in the past two elections, been a clear commitment in the Labour Party manifesto that the issue of hunting should be resolved by a free vote in another place. The Bill now before this House is the result of an overwhelming vote of the elected House, conducted on a free vote in all parties and with Members from all parties forming part of the majority.
Thirdly, it is clear that there remains a direct clash between the views of many in this House and those of Members of another place. The last Labour election manifesto referred explicitly and uniquely to the need, in the event of a disagreement between the Houses, to allow Parliament to resolve the matter. The issue of the use of the Parliament Act 1911 has therefore, as I understand it, led to many discussions in the bars and corridors of this House and elsewhere that would have taken place more logically at the end of the process of a Bill through the House, rather than at the beginning. I shall return to that matter.
Some would argue that there is another unique feature to the Bill, namely that the Bill that emerged from the Commons differs significantly from the one originally presented to the Commons by the Government. I understand that analysis, but that is hardly anywhere near being a unique feature. In any case, the Government's position, in line with the manifesto, has been to facilitate the views of the majority in a free vote in the Commons. The Bill must therefore be treated as a government Bill, and any contention to the opposite is not valid. The Bill should be dealt with in the normal way in this House. The Government will welcome constructive engagement on the Bill. We continue to hope for agreement between the Houses, but I must express a word of caution: underlying all of this, it must be obvious that your Lordships must take account of the views expressed very clearly by the elected House.
770
According to some of the whispers in the corridors and even on the "Today" programme, there may be a move by some in this House to revert to the original Bill or some variation of it. The Government continue to believe that that Bill had merit and could have been the best way of resolving the issue, but the House of Commons disagreed with that. Your Lordships should recall that the original Bill and—even more so—the version that emerged from the Commons Committee were vociferously opposed by most hunting organisations and many Members of this House. It would have banned stag hunting and hare-coursing events and imposed tight restrictions on all forms of hunting. It would have severely restricted hunting, and there would therefore still be deep conflict with those who believe that traditional hunting should largely continue. In any case—I say it again—the overwhelming majority of the elected House voted in favour of the alternative approach, which is now before your Lordships.
I also owe it to the House to explain two other matters. The first is the Government's position. We will, as ever, listen to arguments for amendments to the Bill in your Lordships' House, but our attitude to amendments must be that the Government's duty is to facilitate the will expressed in a free vote in the elected House. Radical or wrecking amendments will therefore not be supported from the Government Benches, although, of course, it will be, at all times, a free vote in this part of the House and, I believe, among other parties.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, the noble Lord has been very reasonable, although I have not agreed with a word that he has said. Does what he said mean that the Government now support a Bill with which they have publicly disagreed and are not basing their position on principle? Have they abandoned their principles here, as in many other areas, or are they still in favour of a principled, reasonable and sensible solution to what is. I accept, a difficult problem? Which is it?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thought that I had explained the Government's position clearly. In line with our manifesto, we wish to facilitate the view of the elected House, which, at this stage in the process, is expressed in the Bill before the House and shows every sign of being pretty much the same at the end of the process. There is no dubiety about it: the Bill should be treated as if it were a government Bill. As I said, it is not unusual for an original government Bill to be changed somewhat as it goes through the Commons.
Another ticklish issue is the use of the Parliament Act. It has been argued that the use of the Act would not be appropriate to the Bill. It remains the Government's view that we should seek agreement between the Houses, and we do not want to get ahead of ourselves on the matter. However, the Government's position remains as it was when my right honourable friend Alun Michael said in another place in March last year:
"Should there be no way through, and should the new Bill be frustrated in its passage rather than scrutinised and improved, the Government could not properly stand in the way of application of the Parliament Act, which of course would be a matter for this House".—[Official Report, Commons, 21/3/02; col. 457.]

771
By "this House", he meant the House of Commons. It would therefore be a matter for the House of Commons and the Speaker to determine whether the Parliament Act should be invoked in those circumstances rather than a matter for the Government. It is certainly not a matter for this House. There is no legal or constitutional reason why the Parliament Act should not be used. However, as I said, we should not get ahead of ourselves.
It behoves me to make clear my personal position. The free vote applies to Ministers as much as to anybody else, and I should indicate the way in which I intend to vote. I like to be consistent. I have always favoured a ban, and I have always voted for a ban, when given the opportunity. I will therefore vote to support the Bill. As a Minister, I will, of course, listen to your Lordships' arguments, and we will go through the normal procedure. However, in what I recognise is perhaps a vain attempt to limit the range of the discussions that we will have in the next few hours, it would be helpful if I identified the arguments that may be put forward that are unlikely to sway me or the House of Commons majority.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Minister said that, as a Minister, he would support the Bill and that, as an individual, he would support the Bill. Can he imagine any occasion on which, as a Minister, he would not support a government Bill?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, on this Bill, as on other government Bills, there is a free vote for Ministers as well as for every other Member of this House and of another place. On many occasions on which that has been the case, Ministers have voted in different directions, even on a government Bill or part of a government Bill. I fully expect that to be the case at various points in the passage of this Bill too.
First, I must say that there is one argument with which I fully agree and with which, I think, we all agree: this ought not to be seen as the most important issue facing the countryside or Parliament. It is unfortunate that it should, for the moment, dominate our consideration of countryside issues. I agree entirely with that view. However, Parliament has, hitherto, failed to resolve the issue, and it is a serious political issue. We must therefore deal with it now as expeditiously as we can manage.
Then there are the arguments on which, I must tell your Lordships, I would not be prepared to shift. I doubt that they would impress a majority in another place either. First—and least likely to impress us—are arguments about civil disobedience, especially from people who ought to know better. The threat of disruption and unenforceability is not one to which the Government or Parliament can or should succumb. I hope that that threat does not feature large in our debates.
More contentious are the arguments about cruelty. If anyone tells us that fox hunting cannot be cruel, we will not be at the starting point. There are legitimate arguments about relative cruelty and necessary suffering, and we will. no doubt, cover them in the debate. They
772
were certainly reflected in the original Bill. But let us start from the position that unnecessarily chasing an animal across the countryside with dogs and then—on many occasions, at least—tearing it to pieces is cruel, or, at least, as the noble Lord, Lord Burns, puts it, seriously prejudices the welfare of the fox.
Then there are arguments about enjoyment and employment. The fact that a significant number of people enjoy an activity or that a significant number of people are gainfully occupied as a result of it has never of itself been an argument for retaining it without restriction when the view of society is that the activity is cruel and no longer tolerable.
For more than 100 years, Parliament has legislated on various aspects of animal welfare, most of which has had implications for those employed or enjoying aspects of the activity. Not long ago, in the long history of this House and not far from here, a good number of the inhabitants of what is now the London Borough of Lambeth were engaged in bear-baiting. It is alleged that some of the then Members of your Lordships' House often used to nip across and enjoy the entertainment in Vauxhall Gardens. But we banned it. No doubt, there were those who expressed concern about the future—
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords—
Lord Whitty: Were you around at that time?
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, on the question of the banning of bear-baiting, is it not true that Macaulay said that the ban was more to do with the disapproval of Parliament than cruelty to animals? It had nothing to do with cruelty; it was to do with disagreement with people having any form of amusement.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, yes. But that is exactly the point. The view of Parliament at that time—as would not have been the case 100 years earlier—was that bear-baiting was unnecessarily cruel, despite the fact that it gave enjoyment and employment to people. At that time, no doubt there were arguments that people would lose their jobs and that the dogs which did the bear-baiting would be unlikely to be re-housed. There was possibly some concern about the future job prospects of those engaged in it and even some people who suggested that the bears enjoyed it. But we have moved on; society has moved on; and society's sensibilities have moved on. That is what is now happening with fox hunting.
There are arguments about civil liberties. I know that a number of Members of your Lordships' House feel deeply, otherwise they would not be defending fox hunting. But I find those arguments particularly unconvincing and, at times, distasteful. To argue that the high principles of the European Convention on Human Rights—drawn up in the aftermath of totalitarianism and war—were in any sense designed to protect groups of people inflicting unnecessary suffering on a frightened animal is ludicrous, as well as completely untenable in law.

773
On all these issues it will be difficult to sway me. There may be other arguments on which I have not touched. Undoubtedly, there will be further facts and concerns expressed in the next few hours. But I shall not easily be swayed in favour of changes to this Bill or changes to the Government approach. We shall listen to this Second Reading debate. We shall listen in Committee to amendments and, if carried, they will be duly considered in another place.
Ultimately, the responsibility of the Government, in line with our manifesto commitments, will be to facilitate the free and unwhipped will of the elected House. On that basis, I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Whitty.)
3.33 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I should remind the House of my family interests. Formerly, I was a member of the Quorn Hunt and my husband and I are members of the Countryside Alliance. From these Benches, it is a free vote, as it is from the Minister's Benches.
This Bill is a "buy-off". It is a cold, calculating attempt by the Government to mollify its Back-Benchers, and to give them something they want in the hope that they will, thereafter, accept a few things that they obviously do not want. The adverse effect on the countryside, on the life of rural areas and on personal freedom generally is considered fair exchange for the continued supremacy of New Labour. For some time now, independent pollsters, such as ICM on 23rd July, have been reporting that in the population at large the number of those in favour of a total ban has been steadily declining. In July, it was less than 40 per cent, which does not add up to what the noble Lord said.
Thus, it appears that the Government are not just placating their Back-Benchers; they are doing so in the face of public opinion. The Bill is not only a "buy-off", it is also a "sell-out". As it stands, it will result in greater numbers of foxes being killed. It will allow slaughter all year round. There will be no close season. Vixens may be carrying unborn cubs or may be lactating. The 362 MPs, including 36 Scottish Members, who voted for a complete ban have neither regard for, nor understanding of, the welfare of wildlife.
They surely gave no consideration to wildlife management. One certain outcome of such a ban, were it to be implemented, would be an increase in the level of cruelty involved in the killing of foxes. It is a great pity that government Ministers carry so little weight with their MPs. In a Defra press release on 11th September 2002, Alun Michael reiterated:
"The future of hunting with dogs should NOT be decided on personal taste but on evidence and principles of whether or not it is serving an effective purpose in managing wildlife and whether it is more or less cruel than the alternative methods currently available".
774
He was joined by Margaret Beckett in The Times on 30th June 2003, who wrote:
"This Bill, the one presented to Parliament in December 2002, as it stands is acknowledged by animal welfare organisations to be the strongest ever put forward…No Bill on a simple ban has ever been thought to be workable. If cruelty is the main concern, I plead with colleagues neither to wreck the Bill, nor delay its timing".
The Bill is the Government's attempt to give legal voice to those in another place who threw out all the options presented to them at the end of long, involved, tedious and costly process. There was discussion, consultation and debate, followed by more consultation and yet further debate. The Government wanted to find a compromise that did not result in an outright ban. They presented the options. There was a free vote. The proof of their failure is before us today.
Even then the Government had a choice. They could have dropped the Bill because it no longer reflected their proposals. Surely, that would have been logical and would have allowed them to come forward with well-revised proposals in the next Session. Instead, they chose to betray the countryside.
The Minister said:
"It is a simple Bill".
I think that it is a mean little Bill. It deals with offences, enforcement, general matters, exemptions and consequential amendments. But where is the section on compensation? There may be people who require compensation for the loss of livelihood; or compensation for the loss of value of horses or dogs bred over generations to be the best; or compensation for those for whom a sizeable proportion of their business will disappear—for example, those working in livery stables, private vets, farriers and blacksmiths, to name but a few.
The Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000 was followed in December 2001 by the Fur Farming (Compensation Scheme) (England) Order, which entitled 13 farmers who had been farming mink to compensation for the loss of their businesses. The reasons for banning mink farms were no more logical or scientifically based than those for banning hunting with dogs, yet those farmers were awarded compensation. Where is the parallel provision in this Bill? What will happen to the hunt servants who will be evicted from their homes?
Where is the section on slaughter? As we debated in a question earlier, there will have to be slaughter of dogs, possibly horses, and foxes, which would otherwise fall swift victim to hounds. Who will carry out this slaughter? Will the Government lay guidelines? Will it be the duty of kennel men to dispatch the dogs? Will it be left to private vets? Who will pay the charges?
The horses will still have to be fed. They will have little or no resale value, nothing to do and no purpose in life. It will be very difficult to re-home them all. Many are permanently stabled during the season and turned out to grass only in the summer. If there is no season, grazing will be required all year round. In some areas, suitable land is hard to find. The combination of costs and the difficulties of looking after those horses will result in the premature death of all too many of them.

775
Let us not forget the foxes. During the season, hounds kill around 2,000 per month. Predominantly the young and inexperienced, the old, the injured and the sick are killed. After a total ban, those young who do not die on our roads will survive to add to an exploding fox population. The old will live longer and move closer to easy food sources. The sick and injured will have to endure death from mange, cancer or starvation, whichever takes them. In the future, foxes will be snared, trapped and shot, including many of the fit, who would otherwise show hounds two clean pairs of heels. The old and the ill will probably stay close to their lairs, awaiting a painful and lingering death. Moreover, let us not forget that there will be no close season and thus no controls on the killing of pregnant vixen.
Those who oppose hunting seem to be one-sighted when dealing with this matter. They see the death of foxes, but not of dogs or horses. They see the colourful chase on horseback, but not the careful work that goes into maintaining the ground and hedges. They see the end of the pursuit, but not the development of suitable covers or the management of woodlands and spinneys.
Those who support hunting are frequently unpaid stewards of the countryside. In effect, they pay from their own pockets for the upkeep of the landscape. Will the Government allow instant access to stewardship funds for all those who, deprived of the right to hunt, will no longer need to take care of the natural features of the countryside? Such care will bring them no benefit.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I do not believe that this is a Bill about wildlife protection or about caring for the countryside. It is a political attempt to control human behaviour according to a narrow view of morality. The Bill will make it illegal to hunt a fox, a deer, a hare or a mink, but it specifically exempts the hunting of rats and rabbits. They, too, are warm-blooded, have four legs and damage the countryside.
The Bill would allow stalking or flushing out where wild mammals would cause serious damage to crops, livestock, game birds or other wild birds. Will the Minister tell us whether that will include the pursuit of foxes to protect poultry or lambs? Last year, 340,000 lambs were lost to foxes at a cost of some £13.6 million, which is a large sum. The number of hens, ducks and geese killed each year is unknown, but it is considerable and, in my opinion, will get worse as the popularity for free range fowl grows.
It is suggested that the Bill before noble Lords today may well be in contravention of human rights legislation. I am no legal expert, but my understanding is that if a lawful individual liberty is to be taken away, that decision must be based on decisive evidence that a major gain will be made; in this case, improved animal welfare.
The Burns report was the result of a lengthy, serious and informed study of the subject. I should like to record my thanks for the time and consideration the members of that committee gave to their remit. The report has often been quoted, but I should like to remind noble Lords of one particular conclusion:
776
"None of the legal methods of fox control is without difficulty from an animal welfare perspective. Both snaring and shooting have serious adverse welfare implications".
That view has been backed by over 500 members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, who have stated in support that:
"Hunting with hounds is natural and the most humane way of controlling the populations of the four quarry species: fox, deer, hare and mink".
Burns also commented on the problems of enforcement, a matter touched on by the Minister, by stating:
"Legislation implementing a ban might well pose some enforcement difficulties for the police. These matters should he considered by Parliament when examining the Bill".
Chris Fox, president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, reflected that concern by saying:
"A total ban on hunting with dogs will bring us into conflict with parts of the rural community and shake confidence in the police in these areas. We will be asked to enforce a difficult law that will take resources away from areas such as burglary, street crime and anti-social behaviour".
This Bill is an attempt to legislate for something that is not supported by the majority of people. It is likely to result in an increased level of mortality for all the species covered, as well as for livestock and poultry. It will cause financial hardship for thousands of country dwellers and many more employed in urban businesses. Incidentally, it will worsen the problem of fallen stock. Since farm burial was banned in July this year, the problem has taken on a much greater significance.
I urge your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading. It is in Committee that we should revise the provisions and seek to restore it to its original form, which was supported by government Ministers and the Prime Minister.
I submit that this Bill is a nonsense. It is illiberal and detrimental to animal welfare. It is a wrong priority and a misuse of parliamentary time. Members of the public want action to improve our schools, hospitals, roads and transport systems, and to see a reduction in crime. These are the real issues of concern, not wasting time on a misguided war on the way of life in our countryside.
3.47 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, the moral arguments of this matter were fully explored in this House when we debated a similar Bill in March 2001. I do not believe that the moral climate has changed since that time. Noble Lords certainly covered every aspect then: the morality of hunting, the place of hunting in pest control, the right of minorities to follow their traditional activities, what constitutes cruelty and much else. Certainly many informative and excellent speeches were made, along with one or two repetitious contributions and some truly memorable ones.
In my remarks I shall concentrate on where we are now and how legislation might proceed. I know that this afternoon my noble friends will put forward powerful arguments on the moral issues.
One of the more powerful and memorable speeches of the last occasion was largely responsible for persuading a majority of your Lordships to reject the option of regulation by an independent body in favour

777
of the option where hunting would be self-regulated. I regret that the House chose that option. By doing so, it may have closed the door on compromise and propelled the entire debate further in the direction of polarised argument rather than arriving at a workable solution.
I agree with the Minister that a clash with the other place does seem to be inevitable. If your Lordships' House seeks to amend the Bill now before us, it may be portrayed as a reactionary Chamber with out-of-date values. I believe that that charge would be totally unjust. This House will be continuing in its excellent tradition of removing the extremes that can do damage to legislation. An example of that in a different area would be its removal of the provisions to limit trial by jury.
I do not believe that there is either a perfectly right or a perfectly wrong answer to the hunting debate. Banning hunting has developed into a kind of shorthand for banning cruelty to animals, while defending the right to hunt has been stretched by the pro-hunting lobby to mean the defence of all in the countryside, its traditional values and landscape. Neither of those positions encapsulates the truth.
Since this House last held a full debate on the issue in March 2001, I do not believe that any of the main arguments have changed, but while those arguments have ranged back and forth, and while the Government have brought forward first one Bill and then another, the time and energy taken up by this one, narrow strand of countryside legislation has distracted attention away from real rural problems, of which I would put affordable housing at the top. Wildlife management has also suffered but its problems will not be solved by hunting. The damage caused to young woodland and crops by uncontrolled deer numbers continues, but the hunting of deer does nothing to control numbers nationally because it is concentrated in small localities and it would be inappropriate to extend it to other areas.
Dozens of people are killed every year in road accidents involving deer. The bodies of badgers, foxes and deer litter the verges of our country roads. The growth of the fox population is completely out of control, particularly in the cities. Foxes are riddled with mange. Hunting has done nothing to solve this problem.
The problem of badgers has been ignored. Badger populations suffer from tuberculosis, with all the knock-on effects that that involves for our farmers, particularly our dairy farmers. By contrast, hare populations are in decline, despite the claims of the hunting interests that hunting conserves them.
The years of debates that we have had on hunting have stultified any constructive thinking about wildlife and the conservation of our countryside. We must move on beyond that point. What the Commons have sent to this House is not in the interests of the countryside, animals or civil liberties.
778
One of the issues that we must constructively address in Committee and on which we must bring forward amendments is compensation, which could be limited perhaps to long-serving servants of hunts that stand to be abolished. Secondly, I do not agree with the Minister that enforceability is not an issue. It is one that the House must debate. Thirdly, the question of utility raises particularly important points. The cruelty of the various methods of pest control is an issue that cannot be dodged in the name of an ideology.
The Bill that the Government introduced into the other place in this Session of Parliament almost struck the right balance between which species should or should not be hunted with dogs and under what circumstances regulated hunting might be considered. Have the Government taken notice of the comments made by those with experience of deer herds—for example, the Quantock Deer Forum and the joint advisory committee for that area of outstanding natural beauty? Those bodies have stated that,
"prior to a ban on hunting alternative arrangements for deer management need to be in place".
I am not aware that the Government have put any arrangements in place.
I turn, finally, to the process involved in this legislation. If we amend the Bill back to what I believe could be an improved version of the one introduced by the Government in another place, the other place could of course—it seems most unlikely—choose to accept it and end a process that the public, at least, have realised is long past its sell by date and must be resolved. However, should the other place continue to insist on its version and the Bill falls, the Government will then have a choice. They can introduce the Bill that left the other place during this Session and use the Parliament Act, but they can only use the Parliament Act on the Bill in that form; or they could choose to introduce in the next Session of Parliament a Bill such as the one they introduced in this Session. The Parliament Act would not apply to it because it would be a different Bill.
I am therefore surprised by the statement made by the Minister, Alun Michael, on the "Today" programme this morning when he claimed that it was for the Commons to decide whether or not to use the Parliament Act. It is in fact a government decision because it depends on what kind of Bill they choose to introduce if this one falls. Personally, I hope that they will be brave enough to recognise that the long-term interests of the countryside are best served with the kind of solution that they tried to introduce earlier this year. I hope that your Lordships' House will further pursue that solution.
3.54 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, this is a sad day. It is sad because we are again spending an inordinate amount of time on a matter that should never have come before Parliament; sad because we are considering a Bill which, in its present form, is ignorant, obstinate and destructive; sad because it could have been otherwise. Granted the insistence of some that Parliament should consider this matter, it was a cause for real gratitude that the rural affairs

779
Minister in another place undertook such a thorough and painstaking inquiry, with many visits to different parts of the country, with many, many hours spent in listening and debating informally, with the Portcullis House hearings and, above all, with the wise decision to focus on the concepts of cruelty and utility. The rural affairs Minister met the rural Bishops and we were grateful for that.
Very many people believed that there was room for a sensible solution which would take seriously the Burns report and the expert opinion of the veterinary profession; which would recognise the anger and frustration felt by some people at the arrogance and malpractice of a very few unregulated hunts; which would set out a sensible, manageable, enforceable regime of regulated hunting—the middle way. Hopes were raised in the hearts and minds of hundreds of thousands of country people that jobs would be safeguarded—the jobs of huntsmen, kennelmen, farriers, blacksmiths, innkeepers and many others indirectly dependent on hunting—and that the social life of rural communities, which revolves round the hunt, would be able to continue, adding so much to the vitality and happiness of rural communities which have been battered and threatened in various ways in recent years.
The 260 or so letters that I have received in the past few weeks about hunting—every single one an individual, personal expression of concern; every single one making heart-felt points—whether from young or old, hunting people or non-hunting people, country people or town people, from every walk of life, very many of them farmers—and every single one of them in favour of the continuation of hunting—are some indication of the depth of feeling which exists over this matter.
They reflect the hopes that were raised by the thorough inquiry process and the promised emphasis on cruelty—not proven—and utility, which is very important for a wide range of reasons. They make very
clear the anger, bitterness and frustration at the Government's capitulation in the other place.
The Bill as originally drawn up was far from perfect, but it was amendable. The Bill as we have it before us now is unprincipled, irrational and self-contradictory. It claims to be concerned with animal welfare. Indeed, that is the justification in the explanatory memorandum for the admitted conflict between the provisions of the Bill and the European Convention on Human Rights. Yet it has been shown very clearly indeed by expert scientific and veterinary evidence that hunting with dogs is less cruel than other forms of pest control or even in the way in which most animals in the wild die from illness, malnutrition, wounding by shooting or as a result of injury.
Dr Lewis Thomas of Vets for Hunting has stated:
"Any legislation which bans or seriously restricts hunting of the four quarry species cannot be regarded as having the welfare of wild animals as its primary objective. Indeed, such legislation will cause unnecessary suffering".
780
So these proposals are liable to the very serious charge of infringing human rights and the animal welfare defence is completely unsustainable. Other noble and learned Lords will no doubt pursue the legal arguments.
The important and valuable criterion of utility, which the rural affairs Minister himself acknowledged in April 2002 might well include social and cultural factors, economic and environmental concerns as well as the pest control function, has been allowed to sink without trace. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford. said a good deal about that with which I wholeheartedly agree.
The continuation of hunting is of great usefulness—utility—in terms of all these issues. The Government's contempt for this truth is deeply deplorable and inexcusable, not least because of the Minister's earlier recognition of the importance of this wide range of considerations.
One of the things that have been said about the debate is that the same points will be made again and again by many speakers. Let me now say something that no other noble Lord will say. As I was on my way to the House today, walking demurely along the Embankment in my dog collar, I was accosted by a wild-eyed man, who grabbed me by the lapel and said, "Are you on your way to Parliament?". How could he have known? Does it show that clearly? "Do you know", he said, "why people fight each other? Why do politicians always disagree with one another?" I had no time to gather my thoughts. He said, "It's schizophrenia". Before I had any chance to respond, he gave me the answer to the problem. I think it was something like this: you had to go to Giza and contemplate the Sphinx in order to cure this condition. I suddenly wondered whether there was some generous benefactor who would provide free air tickets to Cairo for those misguided Members of the other place who believe they are pursuing the interests of animal welfare and yet want to ban hunting.
Apart from that admittedly speculative Egyptian strategy, what can we do and what should we do in your Lordships' House? I believe that we must do our best to bring the Bill back to the form in which it originally appeared and then add significantly to the safeguards of hunting in a properly regulated form which are required for a serious recognition of the part it plays in rural life. That would be a right and principled way forward for your Lordships' House, and I urge noble Lords to follow it. The Bill as it stands is totally unacceptable, but I believe that the middle way is still possible.
4.1 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the Bill briefly to us. I must first declare a particular interest in it. I am president of the Countryside Alliance, I hunt regularly, and if the Bill were to reach the statute book in this form, then I, my husband, my children, my neighbours and many of my friends would be made criminals. So would literally thousands of others, including doctors, nurses, vets,

781
farmers, magistrates, children, housewives and policemen. In fact, the people whom the Bill seeks to criminalise are a selection of the most law-abiding, responsible and decent citizens in this country. The Government have let them down.
We were promised a Government Bill based on principle and evidence. Although I argued strongly with some important aspects of Mr Alun Michael's original Bill, it had the potential, in its basic structure, to establish a regulation and licensing system which, with improvement, could have resulted in fair and lasting legislation. That Bill was destroyed in the House of Commons. All the evidence collected by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, all the evidence collected by Alun Michael, has been tossed aside. Prejudice, not principle, and bigotry, not evidence, have been allowed to prevail.
The Bill is a bad one and the Government know it. Writing to the Deputy Prime Minister on 14th May this year, prior to the debate in another place, Mr Michael said this:
"Some MPs want to say they are voting for a complete ban on hunting focusing on foxes. They think this is simple and ask why we should complicate matters. But the apparently complete ban is not as simple as it seems. If they go for such an amendment at Report it would be a wrecking amendment".
Well, they did, and it was. It is hard for me to understand how the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is now required to act as an advocate for that wrecked Bill. Principle and evidence are apparently dispensable, as are promises.
This Bill is a bad one. The police say it is unworkable and unenforceable. It has been criticised by the Justices' Association. No less than 63 per cent of rural vets say it will actually increase animal suffering. All the major farming bodies—those who are most directly affected—give it a massive thumbs down, as do the people of this country as a whole. There is no Labour Party manifesto commitment to a ban. There was none at the last general election. A clear majority of the ordinary people of this country now favour the continuation of hunting under regulation.
To those who genuinely care about trying to reduce animal suffering—which includes, as I accept, people on both sides of this debate—I beg them to look at the independent evidence before they support the Bill in this form. The most recent independent research on shooting foxes published in June of this year, after Alun Michael had completed his hearing of evidence, shows, alarmingly, that for every fox shot dead with a shotgun, at least the same number are wounded and many are never found. If hunting went, snaring and shooting would increase enormously. Prolonged suffering, and for more animals, would be the direct result.
Do not take it from me—please look at the submissions of the Exmoor National Park Authority to Alun Michael in June of last year. Look at the veterinary record for April of this year. This is recent, cutting-edge research, and it is independent. That contains the most recent evidence on red deer shooting, which indicates a wounding rate in excess of
782
14 per cent for red deer shot with a rifle. Look, if you will, at the gloomy forecast of the Exmoor Deer Management Group for the future of those west country herds of red deer, currently the finest in Britain, in the event of a ban. If you can find the time, look at the contrast between the healthy deer of the hunted areas of Exmoor and compare them with the sick deer which are found on the sanctuary—so-called—of the League Against Cruel Sports, near Dulverton.
In the West Country, where I have the privilege to spend part of my time, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, found that hunting, where it takes place, has the support of two thirds of the general population, who are not all hunters by any means. The general population wants it to continue.
The electorate in every area where deer hunting takes place has returned an MP who shares the view that it should continue, and they are not all Conservatives. One MP who took a different view was rejected at the ballot box on this issue, as she accepts. The democratic choice of the people who actually live in areas where deer hunting takes place is overwhelmingly that it should continue. What more can they do than cast their votes as they have?
However well intentioned a ban on hare hunting and coursing may be, in reality a ban would have serious unintended consequences for the hare. Illegal hare coursing, which is a real scourge for farmers in some areas, would inevitably increase. It is virtually unpoliceable, even at present. The only strategy left for a farmer with this serious problem who currently encourages hares and their habitat is to shoot every one which moves, and many of them will.
Look, please, before you vote to support this Bill, at the independent study by the University of Kent, which was published in Nature in May of this year. Any perceived gain to the hare or the fox or the deer would be wiped out by conservation benefits lost following a ban. Alun Michael was absolutely right: this is not simple.
If the intention of Members of Parliament is to reduce animal suffering by banning cruelty to wild animals, the Bill which was introduced in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, would do more than anything proposed in this legislation.
I am sorry to say that, to some, all of this does not matter one jot because they are prepared to sacrifice not just animals but people—their homes, their jobs, their way of life, their communities, especially in places such as Exmoor, which I love—for the sake of some transient peace from a section of the parliamentary Labour Party. If that is allowed to happen, the lasting sense of injustice and resentment in those communities will dog the Government who were responsible, not just for a Parliament or two but for a generation.
The issue raised by the Bill is no longer the relatively minor one of hunting, which directly affects only a fraction of our population. It is now something which matters to us all—namely, the future of liberty and democracy itself. Democracy is the will of the people,

783
not just Members of another place. Less than half the Members of the House of Commons gave this Bill a Third Reading.
We have a Government with a massive Commons majority which they can use in office either for the good of the nation or as an instrument of abuse of a minority. To use that majority to override proper debate, to dismiss the evidence, to impose repressive, criminal legislation without just cause is, I believe, an abuse of democracy. Surely true democracy does not mean that the views of the elected majority must always prevail, right or wrong. True democracy ensures fair and proper treatment of minorities and avoids misuse of a dominant position. Its hallmarks are fairness, tolerance and broadmindedness, which are impossible to find in this vindictive little Bill.
I hope that in the very limited time that we have in this Session to consider a Bill that has spent seven months in the other place, we shall do our best without delay or any attempt at obstruction to do what the Government promise: namely, to produce a Bill based on principle and evidence. I hope that we can return to the Commons a fair and sensible regulation system based on Mr Michael's structure, which complies with the Human Rights Act 1998, as I do not believe this Bill does.
Criminal legislation in the form of the Bill before us today would be a stain on the statute book. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, of the words that appeared in the manifesto. Far from enabling Parliament to reach a conclusion on the issue, bad legislation reflects badly on the Government who allow it to happen. The Bill is unjust, and many of us in this House on all sides, and many thousands more in the country., would not rest until that injustice was corrected. I hope that we do not have to do that.
4.11 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I do not propose to try to cover the whole field. I should like to focus on the fact, which has already been referred to, that the Bill is in a form that has been opposed by current Ministers in the strongest terms.
The Government introduced a Bill on the regulation of hunting, following months of consultations and formal hearings with Britain's best wildlife experts. At no point during those consultations or during the earlier Burns inquiry was any evidence presented to justify an outright ban. As my noble friend Lady Mallalieu said, all that scientific evidence has been abandoned in a capitulation to zealotry and class prejudice.
The Bill has many defects that render it in my view quite unacceptable in its present form. First, above all, it will not reduce cruelty or animal suffering. Recent scientific evidence demonstrates clearly that shooting, the frequently offered alternative to hunting with dogs, leaves a large percentage of foxes wounded and suffering a slow death. Trapping and poisoning are worse in causing suffering. I personally deplore cruelty to animals; I have never hunted; and I have a Bill before this House—the Committee stage will come early next month—that would prohibit undue suffering for all
784
animals. It is not concerned only with this obsession with foxes. The Bill before us today will not reduce animal suffering but will probably increase it, which is a central point.
The Bill will restrict individual freedom unacceptably. I wonder whether our colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches are happy with that, given their party's great historic commitment to individual liberty. It will deprive thousands of hard-working and lave-abiding countrymen of their livelihoods and many of their homes. I wonder whether my Labour colleagues are happy with that. My Labour Party viewed unemployment as a social wrong, and we should not support anything that increases it. I did not join it to create unemployment.
The Bill will cause the killing of 17,000 extra hounds. I was astonished at my noble friend Lord Whitty's response at Question Time. Because 2,000 to 3,000 dogs have to be put down, does that mean that it is all right to put down an extra 17,000? Where is the logic or moral principle in that?
The Bill also creates thousands of criminals out of law-abiding citizens. Our stretched rural police forces should be used to protect law-abiding citizens from criminals, not to create criminals out of law-abiding citizens. The Bill may also be a breach of human rights—that will be tested.
The fatal faults of the Bill were best expressed by the Minister responsible, Alun Michael. In a letter to John Prescott, he said:
"A complete ban"—
that is, this Bill—
"would…undermine the strong simple framework of enforcement that is set out in this Bill"—
that is, the Government's regulatory Bill—
"and be perceived as pursuing prejudice rather than targeting cruelty".
I say Amen to that. In December, he was more specific in his rejection of the present ban proposal, saying that,
"the effect of a blanket ban would be to require the use of a method that is more cruel—that is a method more likely to cause suffering".
I say Amen to that, too.
Alun Michael's statements against the Bill are correct and irrefutable. Does my noble friend Lord Whitty agree with his Minister? Would he tell us tonight, at the close of the debate, whether he agrees with his Minister on those conclusive arguments against the Bill?
As a strong supporter of the Government, the politics of the Bill concern and utterly bewilder me. What on earth is the advantage to the Government, the country, the countryside or animal welfare in proposing this? Polls suggest that more than 50 per cent oppose this crude ban. More important is how few of those who supported the ban placed it in the top 20 of their policy priorities. It is political nonsense. The issues that matter—the serious problems of the country such as the National Health Service, education, crime and transport—are all seriously acute problems for the countryside. We should be doing something about them for the countryside.

785
I joined the Labour Party exactly 50 years ago this month. I have served in four Labour administrations, and it defies belief that so much time and energy is being devoted to this marginal issue. The issue matters to a few who hate hunting and to a few who strongly support it or pursue it. Why on earth are we devoting time to this marginal issue and to this ill founded legislation, which is based on prejudice and aimed against our rural communities?
Faced by this legislative bigotry, which offers no benefits to animal welfare, what should we in this House do? We should certainly not simply throw it out as it truly deserves, as that might give zealots elsewhere the basis to impose the Parliament Act. We should, as my noble friend Lord Whitty at one point indicated, proceed to constructive scrutiny and amendments to improve the Bill. We should aim to conclude with a Bill based on four robust criteria, which Alun Michael, the Minister, proposed at the Second Reading of his original Bill. It should be based on right principles, tested against evidence to make good law, it should be enforceable and should stand the test of time.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, given that I am going to speak later, but could he say how he would approach the Bill as presented by Alun Michael and whether he would fully agree with banning stag hunting and hare coursing?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I have reservations about that Bill, as many colleagues do. Were it to appear again, we would look to ways to improve it, as we do with all legislation. However, I wholly support the basic criteria that Alun Michael has set out. I hope that colleagues on all sides of the House will attempt to improve the Bill. I look forward to my noble friend the Minister tonight telling us whether he supports the criteria set out by his Minister.
4.19 p.m.
Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, I have never hunted in my life, but I have spent time, many years, among those who do so and in parts of this country where hunting is not just the eccentric luxury of a few but is one part of the social and economic structure of the countryside. I know that that point is hard to grasp for those who do not experience it. However, it makes a nonsense of the comparison which I am sorry that the Minister advanced again today—the comparison between fox hunting which is part of the structure, and old sports such as bear baiting and cockfighting which never were. As we all know, the structure of the countryside is now fragile. We have debated the reasons for that over and over again. The Government and Parliament should surely be trying to rebuild and strengthen that structure and not deal it an extra blow, this time of our own devising.
I should like to look at one particular aspect of this, as one who for 25 years represented part of Oxfordshire and was for five years at the Home Office and gained there some understanding of the policing of our country. Crime, and therefore the work of the
786
police, is considerably concentrated on towns and cities. I take as an example my own police area, the one in which I live. Thames Valley Police inevitably, rightly, focuses on the conurbations of Slough, Reading, Oxford and others. That is where most of the men and the effort go. As your Lordships know, however, there is plenty of crime also in the scattered countryside. There is plenty of fear of crime; perhaps we feel particularly vulnerable to well organised burglary. We know that the police are stretched. They do not have the men or the money to cover the ground adequately.
In the countryside, in particular, the police rely on the co-operation—the friendship—of the citizen in villages and market towns. The Bill would make the main leisure pursuit of many of those citizens a criminal offence. The Bill would give the police the task of enforcing a law which those individuals would regard as unjust and plain wrong. I ask the Minister not to underestimate the passionate resentment of a minority. Ministers always find themselves opposed—it goes with the job. Wise Ministers try to avoid being hated, albeit by a small minority. That is the country into which these Ministers and this Bill are going.
We do not know how the hunting world would react to a ban, and nor do the police. I do not myself believe that established hunts would meet and hunt as they do now were a ban to be enacted. However, we cannot be sure what individuals will do. Some will certainly test to the utmost any loopholes in the Bill, and they are certainly entitled to do so. I can imagine, as one shrewd farmer said to me the other day, individuals meeting defiantly in a pub on a Friday evening and putting together an impromptu illegal hunt for a Saturday morning. More likely perhaps, and more widespread perhaps, I can imagine that individuals, feeling passionately, as many would, that this measure was unjust and oppressive, would find a means of civil disobedience which may be totally unrelated to hunting and would willingly pay the penalty set out by law as their protest against a perceived injustice. When such individuals came before the courts as alleged criminals, I am sure there would be a huge and vocal sympathy on their side.
We do not know, but all those are clearly possibilities. It is no good the Minister shaking his head and saying that they must not be taken into account. All those possibilities would pit the police against those who are now their strongest supporters. All of them would run the risk of disrupting the alliances—the co-operative arrangements—on which the police rely. All of them would distract the police in rural areas from the pursuit of real crime.
It was with those thoughts in minds that, on 18th August, I took a delegation to see our chief constable, Mr Peter Neyroud, at his headquarters in Kidlington. We made those points to him and he fully understood them. It is not for chief constables of police to tell Parliament what the law should be, but it is for them to tell the Home Secretary, the Government and the rest of us what the consequences of a law might be for the policing of England. Following the meeting which I

787
mentioned, our chief constable did just that, as did other chief officers., as my noble friend Lady Byford has already said. Our chief constable said:
"It is going to be extremely difficult for the police to enforce a ban and it will create some distinct tensions. It is going to generate more work for the police of the sort that rural communities are not going to value. Apart from the few who feel strongly against hunting, most people will regard it as a diversion from proper policing and those who want to hunt will feel victimised. It's an absolute no-win situation for the police".
Are we so confident of the success of the fight against crime, are we so confident of the position in which the police are placed today, that we are going to add what they believe to be a "no-win situation" to their existing difficulties?
I should like to append my final comments to those of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, on the fundamental issue here. Some 400,000 people marched on London mainly because of this matter. I should like to pick out just one of them. because I think that it goes to the heart of this question. He is a neighbour of about my age in our village. He spent much of his life as a gamekeeper. He is long retired but he is not idle. In the winter he follows the Heythrop hunt—first on a bicycle, and now in his own small car. He helps the hunt with local information about the condition of the land and the whereabouts of foxes.
The Bill would not just ban the main pleasure of my neighbour's old age; it would tell him that the way he has spent all those winter days has been cruel and wrong. Yet this is a wise man who knows as much about cruelty and kindness as any of us, and knows much more than any civil servant or lawyer about fields and woods and the animals and human beings who frequent them. Who are we to pass this verdict on him and on his life? My neighbour and his friends have written to the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House, and they received a perfectly correct and bureaucratic reply—a reply, I must say, from another world.
This Bill in its present form is presumptuous and illiberal. It passes the bounds which should constrain all of us, which should constrain politicians and lawyers in seeking to direct the life of the individual citizen. I believe that it is the duty of this House to haul the Bill back within that sensible and necessary boundary.
4.28 p.m.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I rise to support a complete ban on hunting. For me it is a conscience issue, and I trust that those who do not agree with me will respect that, as I do their different views. I would say to some earlier speakers in your Lordships' House today that to call those of us who support this Bill unprincipled, bigoted, vindictive, illiberal, zealots and class prejudiced is nonsense, unhelpful and gets in the way of cogent argument. I do not intend to reciprocate in kind. They are our principles. They are strongly and genuinely held. They may be different from yours, but it is because they are held so strongly that I have the courage today to stand up in a minority, I believe, in
788
your Lordships' House and explain why I reach my conclusions. I hope that I will be listened to in that spirit of tolerance.
I reach my position through a conjunction of three particular aspects of the matter. First, I believe hunting with dogs to be cruel. According to my personal moral code, human beings should avoid cruelty to animals wherever possible and should not cause suffering, especially not in the name of sport. Secondly. I believe hunting with dogs to be predominantly a sport and not vermin control. Thirdly, I believe that the sport of hunting often impinges on the rights and freedoms of other country dwellers and their property and livestock in a way which is quite unacceptable.
Let me consider these one by one. First, the issue of cruelty. Clearly in some parts of the country at some times of year there is a need to reduce the number of foxes to protect farmed animals. I do not deny that and believe that it is justified if it can be done with the minimum of cruelty. There is probably no way of killing a mammal with a well developed nervous system and senses which is totally free from fear or pain. However, flawed though they are, there are other ways which, done properly, can be less cruel. Gassing is rather indiscriminate, so careful trapping or shooting is preferable but must be done by good marksmen to avoid wounded animals dying in pain. A fox that is hunted suffers enormous fear for prolonged periods of time which, for a higher animal, is extremely cruel, to say nothing of the few minutes it takes for the hounds to tear it apart. My reading of the Burns report is that there is proven cruelty of a significant level here. Professor Donald Broom, Professor of Animal Welfare at Cambridge University, having examined all the available evidence, has concluded that,
"careful shooting or trapping…will result in a lower net extent of poor welfare than hunting with dogs".
Anyone who chased and killed a cat or a domestic dog in the same way as a hunt chases and kills a fox would be convicted for causing unnecessary suffering to an animal. The same protection should be given to a fox. It is a natural hunter but it is not naturally hunted in this country, not since wolves and bears ceased to roam our countryside anyway. It is part of our ecosystem. I believe that there is a case for a close season for shooting during the breeding season to protect the fox. What it boils clown to is that cruelty is cruelty, and regulated cruelty is no better.
Secondly, hunting is a sport and not vermin control. If that were not the case, why would hunts breed foxes, as they do? Any pest control should pass three tests: necessity, effectiveness and humaneness. Hunting with dogs passes none of those tests. I myself used to keep chickens in the middle of an area with plenty of foxes. They ran freely in a run surrounded by high wire and they were safely closed in their hutch at night. I never lost a single chicken to a fox. Some of the letters I have received have talked about the exaggeration of the need to control foxes. For example, one eyewitness

789
wrote that a fox was blamed for killing a lamb which actually died at birth and was then half eaten away by ravens. In another case a farmer called out the hunt because the remains of a sheep were found in one of his fields. On investigation the so-called remains turned out to be years old.
In May 2002 an investigation by the League Against Cruel Sports revealed that even in upland areas such as Cumbria that are perceived to have a greater need for fox control, sheep carcasses were being dumped on hunting land adjacent to artificial earths to encourage foxes to live in suitable places with a view to hunting them.
Neither is hunting effective in controlling the fox population. Those countries such as Ireland that do not allow hunting with hounds are no more overrun with foxes than we are. The Burns report concluded—
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, as regards Ireland not allowing fox hunting, has the noble Baroness never heard of the Galway Blazers or the Kilkenny Hounds? It is the greatest hunting country in the world.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I am so sorry. I give way to the noble Earl's greater knowledge on this.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, that does not detract from my other arguments. The Burns report concluded that,
"the overall contribution of traditional fox-hunting, within the overall control techniques involving dogs, is almost certainly insignificant in terms of the management of the fox population as a whole".
Hunting is certainly not humane as it does not render the animal insensitive to pain as soon as possible.
I mentioned earlier that hunting is regarded by the hunting fraternity as a sport. For that reason alone I do not believe that we should hesitate to ban it. Killing an animal for pleasure is something I cannot condone.
Thirdly, hunts flout the rights of other country dwellers in relation to their property and their animals. Your Lordships may, like me, have received hundreds of letters about this Bill, the vast majority of them in my case in favour of a ban. Many of them gave eyewitness accounts of the lack of control of the hounds by the huntsman and/or complete lack of regard for the laws of trespass and damage by many riders. It is clear to me that for long periods of time the hounds are completely out of sight and out of control of the huntsman. Many of the letters from members of the public speak of the total arrogance and disregard for domestic livestock and pets, garden and field fences and permission to ride over the land or lack of it. If hunts have generated a mass of opposition from within the countryside itself, they only have themselves to blame.
Those who say that the opponents of hunting are all "townies" are totally wrong. This is not a betrayal of the countryside. The mass of letters I have received
790
came mainly from country dwellers whose lives have been made a misery by inconsiderate and badly managed hunts. For this reason I do not believe that self-regulation will work.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said that Government Back-Benchers want the Bill as it has come to us in this House. Government Back-Benchers were elected in a majority by their electorate in full knowledge of their views. I am a democrat and I accept that their view should be implemented. I also happen to agree with it, and so does the RSPCA and many other animal welfare organisations.
We must have a complete ban. The Government have a mandate for it. I wish that they would just get on and do it and let us get on with discussing other more important matters in your Lordships' House.
4.37 p.m.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, in her impressive speech referred to the fact that some Members of Parliament represent Exmoor and had supported the continuation of hunting. The fact that my former constituency included a large part of Exmoor and the Quantocks has meant that for the past 30 years I have been much involved in the issues that we are discussing.
In the past, debates on this subject in another place and in your Lordships' House were marked, particularly in another place, by a good deal of ignorance and intolerance. I say with great respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that her reference to Ireland was a mind-blowing illustration of some misunderstandings that may exist in this area.
The attitude that I have taken on the issue over the years was much reinforced by a former leader of the noble Baroness's party, the noble Lord, Lord Steel. In a debate in another place he summed up the issue very clearly. He made it clear that to his mind it was illiberal to seek to ban fox hunting. I accept that in my former constituency two-thirds of the people polled were in favour of hunting although a considerable number used to write letters such as those the noble Baroness received to express their disagreement with hunting. In the debate I mentioned, the noble Lord, Lord Steel, made a clear distinction. He said that it was one thing to be in favour or against hunting but it was quite another to forbid other people from doing what they chose to do. I believe that that is absolutely right. The noble Lord, Lord Steel, also said that no true Liberal could possibly support a ban of that kind. The noble Baroness may wish to discuss that matter further with her noble friend Lord Steel.
Although ignorance and intolerance marked discussion on these matters over many years, one had hoped that at last the Government had embarked on a more sensible approach. I applauded the setting up of the committee under the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and the very conscientious way in which it addressed the issues. On behalf of the people of Exmoor, I should like to express my appreciation for the interest and the diligence shown by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, in trying to understand their problems.

791
I had hoped that that message would be carried on in what became known as the Portcullis House process. The Minister, in his Statement of 21st March setting out the process that he would adopt, said:
"I ask the House to trust me to deliver, and to join me in a process that is guaranteed to achieve an outcome as soon as possible. I look forward to engaging with colleagues on both sides of the House and in the other place".—[Official Report, Commons, 21/3/02; col. 458.]
One hoped that at last, in the fog of ignorance and intolerance on these issues, there would be a bit of common understanding and properly informed research.
The Government recognised that. I do not want to give too many of the quotations, but they believed at the time that the approach was right. It is really humiliating, because the Minister said that,
"a complete ban amendment would destroy the architecture of the Bill…and be perceived as pursuing prejudice".
That was in the letter already quoted by the noble Lord, Lord IDonoughue, and sent by the Minister, Alun Michael, to John Prescott. Margaret Beckett, the Secretary of State, said:
"No Bill on a simple ban has ever been thought to be workable. If cruelty is the main concern, I plead with colleagues neither to wreck the Bill, nor delay its timing".
That is precisely what happened. The Government surrendered in the face of their Back-Benchers. That was most humiliating. I cannot recall any occasion on which a Minister has abandoned his Bill and gone into the Lobby to vote in favour of the amendment that destroyed his own Bill. The Minister said in his press release that:
"The future of hunting…should not be decided on personal taste".
I agree 100 per cent; one might say that it was an endorsement of the position taken by the noble Lord, Lord Steel.
We have moved from a situation that appeared to have a certain basis of principle to one of no principles at all. The whole House was impressed by the speech of my noble friend Lord Hurd. Although they did not like the Bill, country people believed that this very difficult and controversial issue would be approached in a responsible manner. There was anger and strong feeling. Anyone who saw the marches and the rallies knows the background. That feeling has been made very much worse. What they thought would be serious and proper consideration has now been thrown out by the prejudice of a lot of Back-Benchers who come from a particular and rather narrow background. That is no secret. We know that the present make-up of the House of Commons is a problem, as we may not have the breadth of background of intake for it that we used to have. Country people see that group imposing its will without consideration for proper understanding and the research and study that has been done.
That is the worst possible climate in which now to proceed. I share the fears of my noble friend Lord Hurd. I do not support illegal actions, but the Minister recognised the problem, as he launched the issue of civil disobedience. It is pretty shaming for him, at a Second Reading, to stand up and recognise that the Bill that he
792
is introducing will very possibly lead to civil disobedience. Any responsible government would turn round and say, "Hadn't we better look at that again? Have we got it quite right?".
I want to talk about deer hunting, which in some ways is the most difficult issue. I have represented parts of Exmoor for 30 years. In the statements of Ministers, it was said that there was incontrovertible evidence that deer hunting should be banned. The Minister has now been challenged to produce that incontrovertible evidence. First, he relied on Professor Batesort, who quickly issued a statement saying that anyone who thought his findings incontrovertible was, in scientific terms, illiterate.
Then the Minister turned to stalking, and claimed that the Burns report had said that stalking was less cruel. His letter to me stated that,
"the nature of deer—their size and their browsing habits in particular—is such that it is always possible for a competent marksman to stalk an animal and kill it quickly while causing it minimal suffering".
I hope that no one will suggest that Exmoor is anything like Scotland, which is quite a different problem, but that is indeed perfectly possible for a competent marksman. However, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, wisely added:
"A great deal depends, however, on the skill and care taken by the stalker…there is no reliable information on wounding rates, even in Scotland where stalking is carried out extensively. In the event of a ban on hunting, there is a risk that a greater number of deer than at present would be shot by less skilful shooters, in which case wounding rates would increase".
A letter from the National Trust stalker from the Holnicote estate—the National Trust estate where stag hunting was banned—stated that there was no doubt that by 2001, within four years, the total ban on stag hunting had increased the number of sick and injured deer on the estate, and that the problem had gone on long enough. We are about to embark on the same approach over a very much wider area.
There is no incontrovertible evidence to support the claim. However, there is incontrovertible evidence that, as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, every responsible organisation on Exmoor—the Exmoor National Park, the Exmoor Society, the Deer Management Group and so on—has said that it is absolutely essential that there be an alternative deer management strategy before deer hunting is banned. The Exmoor Society is not involved in hunting, but is a conservation body committed to the preservation of Exmoor in all its forms. The simple line that it has sent to the Minister is:
"It is simply not a valid option to do nothing except to make it illegal to hunt red deer on horseback with dogs. Failure to do so will be an irresponsible act of folly".
Ministers have so far failed to come up with any alternative deer management strategy. In the considered view of every organisation that knows Exmoor and the Quantocks, if that is not done, the future of the deer herd is at risk. It is essential before we proceed down this line that an alternative strategy is produced, or that a proper, licensed and regulated system of deer hunting should be allowed to continue.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie: My Lords, I preface my remarks by apologising to the Minister for not being in my place during his speech. Unfortunately, I was detained in traffic and I apologise for any discourtesy.
As has been reported, Alun Michael, the Minister in another place with responsibility for framing the Bill, stated that a ban on hunting was not easy. From experience, I echo that remark. During that consideration in another place, reference was made to the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002, and I have to say that some of it was rather ill-informed. I hope to some extent to set the record straight, as I believe that that will be helpful to our considerations. In doing so, I also place on record that I am proud to have been the sponsor of that legislation in the Scottish Parliament, which was given two full years of consideration in that legislature.
After years of misinformation from the Countryside Alliance and other hunt supporters who seem to me, from speaking to them, to enjoy using packs of dogs to chase, terrify, attack and ultimately kill foxes, that brutal practice was made illegal in Scotland when that Act came into force in August last year. We have heard that those opposing my then Bill claimed that a ban would result in the slaughter of hundreds of dogs and horses, and have a devastating effect on employment and the rural economy of Scotland, in particular in the Border region. In fact, none of that has happened, and their rhetoric and scare-mongering has been exposed as just that.
What is reality, though, is that the Act in Scotland bans the deliberate chasing and killing of foxes and mink with packs of hounds, as well as hare coursing and fox baiting. As an aside, I should say that I find it astonishing that anyone, as my noble friend Lady Mallalieu did, should defend hare coursing and say that the alternative of having no legal hare coursing would be even worse. The answer surely is that there should be no recourse to illegal activity in whatever form.
Not for the first time in hunting legislation, Scotland has led the field in that regard. Deer and stag hunting with dogs was outlawed in that country more than 50 years ago. The Bill would provide further safeguards for England and Wales and effect a leap-frogging process, which we will increasingly see in various areas of legislation following, or as a consequence of, devolution.
It is clear that the Act has divided the hunting fraternity in Scotland. There are those who accept that traditional hunting is at an end and that has led to the Dumfriesshire Hunt disbanding. Others, such as the Berwickshire Hunt, acquired a pack of bloodhounds and a new drag hunt has been established in Fife. Both sports follow artificial scents with some success and to the evident enjoyment of their followers.
794
There are those who claim that it is simply business as usual, in a forlorn hope that the ban will be overturned through the courts. That is an important point.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that there is hunting in the Borders at present and that that is followed by the shooting with guns of foxes?
Lord Watson of Invergowrie: Yes, my Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. That is indeed the case. That is what the legislation provides for and that is how it was framed. It does not provide for the fox to be torn to pieces at the end of the hunt in the way that used to happen prior to the legislation.
There are those who claim that it is business as usual in Scotland, as the noble Lord has perhaps demonstrated. Court challenges, which are within the court system in Scotland at the moment, claim that individual human rights have been violated. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, states in the Bill that he has been advised that it does not contravene the European Convention on Human Rights. That has been challenged in one or two of the contributions that we have heard. In the Scottish courts, a judgment has been made that states that there is no contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights in the Scottish legislation, which, in that sense, is similar to the Bill that we are considering today.
In a recent case brought by the Countryside Alliance and others, Lord Nimmo Smith ruled that its arguments were "incompetent" and "of doubtful relevancy". The Act did not interfere with the private lives of petitioners; there were no infringements of the European Convention on Human Rights relating to the control of possessions; and the Act did not discriminate against those bringing the case.
The business-as-usual brigade in Scotland are being orchestrated to some extent by their political masters in London. As today's debate has shown, they want to convey the impression south of the Border that it is impossible to legislate effectively against hunting with dogs, with a view to influencing the outcome of our debate. Such a strategy will not succeed because the overwhelming view expressed in another place must eventually prevail.
It was always expected that when the ban came into force in Scotland, individual members of the mounted packs would test the Act and that has proven to be the case. In doing so, those individuals are sailing rather close to the wind. Two masters of foxhounds have already been charged and now face prosecution for offences relating to "the deliberate hunting of a fox with hounds". Another case is with the procurator fiscal. I do not welcome that, because I do not want to see lawbreaking in any form. I was rather surprised by the contributions of my noble friends Lady Mallalieu and Lord Donoughue, who said that the legislation would criminalise people. My noble friend Lady Mallalieu said that it would criminalise even her family. They will be criminalised only if, after the Bill becomes law, they choose to break that law. No law creates criminals.

795
Criminals are entirely of their own making. That has to borne in mind. The prosecutions that are under way in Scotland give the lie to suggestions that the Act there has no bite or that one simply cannot, in any legislature, legislate against hunting with dogs.
The misinformation campaign being conducted by the pro-hunt fraternity to discredit the Act in Scotland is being aided and abetted by certain newspapers. Those newspapers are in Scotland, but I see that some members of what we might just about term the "Fleet Street press" have entered that mindset as well. A good example of Scottish newspapers' involvement was provided by the Sunday Times last September. It claimed that a hunt in the Scottish Borders allowed hounds to chase foxes over six miles and quoted a member of the hunt as saying that of 30 foxes killed,
"five had been finished off by hounds".
The journalist also claimed that the guns were miles away from the scene, or "specks in the distance". When a formal complaint was made to Lothian and Borders police by the Edinburgh-based animal protection organisation, Advocates For Animals, the police, to their credit, quickly and thoroughly investigated the matter. A senior officer later stated in a letter that,
"during the whole day, not a single fox was seen, let alone chased or killed, by the hounds".
In addition, the police stated that the journalist had,
"embellished, to a very large extent, what actually took place".
When pressed, the journalist,
"admitted that the message he was trying to convey in his article was that the new legislation did not appear to be changing any aspect of country life".
My advice, therefore, would be to take with a huge pinch of salt any bold assertions attributed to those opposed to the Bill.
The line being spun by the Countryside Alliance and others in Scotland is that they are concerned that more foxes are being killed since the Act came into force. It is quite touching, though scarcely credible, that they have suddenly become the fox's friend. It was never the intention of the legislation to prevent the killing of foxes. Its intention was to prevent foxes being torn to pieces by hounds. The intention has always been that foxes can be flushed into the open and shot. I accept the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord King, about the accuracy of gun-owners. However, if they are as wayward as he suggested, I would question whether they should have a licence in the first place. I accept that it is not a precise science and that there will be mixed results, but surely that was always the case. It was never possible to have a clean kill with a gun in all cases.
Before the ban in Scotland, 18,000 foxes out of a population of approximately 24,000 were killed annually, the majority of them on the roads. That is still the case. Fewer than 500 were killed by the then 11 mounted packs with hounds. The proportion being shot has barely changed. As for wounding, no animal welfare organisations, as far as I am aware, have reported an increase of calls from the public about the widespread discovery of wounded foxes. Should a fox
796
be shot and wounded, the Act allows a dog to be used to locate the animal—I stress the word "locate"—so that, if necessary, its suffering can be ended quickly.
Opponents of the Bill do not have a monopoly on the use of the word "principle". I echo the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, in that respect. Disagreeing with a person's stance does not mean that he is not principled in holding it.
I cannot accept the opinion of those who say that the Bill has not been given ample consideration. It spent seven months in Committee in another place, involving the most minute scrutiny of its detail. Following that scrutiny, the Bill was the subject of a free vote, which is not a common occurrence in that place. The freely-arrived-at view of the elected Members was then clear. We should think long and hard about the consequences of rejecting the Bill in your Lordships' House. It seems to me that noble Lords who have called for it to be amended are interested primarily in stripping it of its ability to restrict meaningfully the activities of those who hunt foxes with hounds or course hares. Others want to reinstate the so-called middle way, which was soundly rejected in another place.
I urge your Lordships' House to follow neither road, but to vote in favour of the Bill as it stands. Times and attitudes change and we should be seen to reflect that in the manner in which we go about our business.
Scotland has ended the barbaric and indefensible practice of using dogs to chase, attack and kill wild mammals. It has demonstrated to the world that it is a modern nation that sets and holds very dear, high standards of human behaviour towards animals. Equally, that can certainly be said to be the case for England and Wales. It is therefore gratifying to see that this Bill will go further than its Scottish counterpart and, for that reason, it has my full support.
4.59 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, if I may say so with respect, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, was not only long and quick but it was unrealistic, as I shall show later.
I was MP for Huntingdonshire for 34 years and I hunted there regularly until I was 70 years old. Perhaps that is one reason that I am still all right at the age of 95!
The worst thing about abolishing the hunting of foxes is that it would cause immense cruelty to foxes if we did so. They must be killed because they cause so much pain and destruction. They kill sheep, poultry and game. They also attack small children. Recently I saw in the newspaper that a girl of four was attacked by a fox while she was asleep upstairs in her bedroom. The fox bit her on her arm and she screamed.
When hunted, foxes are never wounded but they die very quickly. Being light-weight myself, I had no difficulty keeping up with hounds. In the last few years that I hunted, I got into the habit of counting the number of seconds between the hounds closing in and the death of the fox. I never counted more than four seconds.

797
In the cubbing season, old foxes and fox cubs are killed easily and quickly by hounds. Because foxes become so numerous when not hunted and because they are so aggressive and cause so much misery, if not hunted, they would have to be killed in other ways. There are only four other ways of doing so: shooting, poisoning, snaring and trapping.
Snaring and poisoning are illegal but effective, very cruel and difficult to detect, but I have seen it happen. I live in the depths of the country and have twice, by chance, come across foxes in a snare—not dead but suffering terribly. Poisoning is illegal and one does not know how or why it is done, but it is done. It is notorious among those who live in the countryside. Trapping is lawful but ineffective. Very rarely can foxes be enticed into a trap. Therefore, that does not work.
Therefore, we are left with shooting, and that is only partly effective, as has been mentioned. One noble Lord said that only about 50 per cent of the foxes that people try to shoot are killed. The rest go away wounded. I understand from a vet that a large proportion of foxes which are wounded go away and die slowly and painfully from gangrene. That is one result that would follow from the abolition of hunting. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Watson, who did not know that, would bear it in mind.
Therefore, it is in the foxes' interest that hunting should not be abolished. I hope that your Lordships, having given the Bill a Second Reading, will restore it to the more sane provisions that the Government originally put before another place.
5.3 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I am very much opposed to the Bill in its present form, although I would support proposals for a middle way, as indicated, I believe, by a number of speakers today. It seems to me that the result of the Bill in its present form could eventually be, although not the intended result, the death of the species so far as concerns the fox. I shall come to my reasons for saying that in a moment. It could be the death of the species, save perhaps for specimens kept in a zoo behind bars or those which these days are becoming mainly urban. We hear more and more about urban foxes and we are beginning to appreciate the problems that they may cause in the future.
However, the fox in the wild is a fine animal. It is a hunting animal and a hunted animal. I imagine that one of the worst things that happened to foxes was myxomatosis among the rabbits, because that deprived the foxes of much of their natural food. It would be a shame if their number were reduced in the way that I have suggested could happen.
My position is somewhat different from that of those who support hunting generally because I live in an area of vast forestry plantations of softwoods produced by the Forestry Commission in a hilly, mountainous area, and the foxes love the forests. They
798
can hide there and know that it is very difficult for a human being to enter the forests, save where roads have been put through. But, of course, dogs can do so.
I no longer farm but, when I last spoke in a debate on this subject, I explained that I subscribed—and still do—to the Plynlimon Pack, which hunts with dogs and shoots with guns. There are a number of such gun packs in the country and many of them are in Wales. Some are in Cumberland and in other mountainous areas, and what they do is very important.
I ask noble Lords to imagine the situation in an area such as mine. There is a great deal of hill area and forestry, and there are any number of foxes—probably far more per square mile than in areas of England and other parts of the country which are flatter and farmed more normally. But in an area such as mine, sheep farming is the basis of the farming community and the flocks are scattered. However, it is terribly difficult to find a fox attacking a flock. Perhaps I may give an example from my own experience in farming.
I remember going to my farm at about eight o'clock one morning. It was a dewy morning and in a 10-acre field I found, to my horror, no fewer than 18 lambs with their throats cut by a fox—all attacked in exactly the same way. I had been told about the losses that I had suffered on the farm, but this was the first time that I had witnessed for myself—first-hand, with no one else present—what had happened.
Foxes do such things at night or very early in the morning, but it is terribly difficult ever to catch one in the act. I know that people who have worked on my farm have lost their ducklings and hens, and so on, to foxes, but one hardly ever sees it. One sees only the result.
If the Bill were passed in its present form, how on earth would one keep down the number of foxes in an area such as mine? One cannot hunt foxes without dogs; one cannot shoot them without dogs; and one cannot get at them without dogs to drive them out of the forested areas. It seems to me that the other place did not even address that problem, as though the Members were completely unaware of it. They should know better because there are Members for South Wales there, and there are certainly packs in South Wales that over the years have been greatly supported by miners, and so on. Some of those packs still exist.
I believe that, if the Bill passed into law, the following situation would arise. In an area such as mine, people might come to the conclusion that it was better to get rid of foxes altogether. One can never shoot them one by one, and it is very difficult to authorise shooting by rifle in an expansive area such as mine because one never knows where the bullet will end up. In order to shoot with shotguns, the foxes must be driven towards the guns, as they are by the hounds, otherwise one cannot get at them at all.
I have never hunted, but as a guest I went a couple of times to see what they were at, first with Plynlimon and secondly on my own farm. I was amazed at how accurate the shooters were with shotguns; they were crack shots. But let us imagine what would happen if they were not allowed to have dogs to hunt. This must

799
be a problem not only in my own area but in other vast areas of the country where the problems are totally different from that of normal farmland. It seems to me that the pressure would be, "Let's get rid of all the foxes. We shall never be able to control them without dogs. Let us have something, poison or whatever, to get rid of them all". I think it was Lembit Opik who was asked in my constituency, "What happens with foxes in your native Estonia?" "Oh", he said, "we don't hunt them there. We hunt not only bears but wolves, and the hears and wolves hunt the foxes".
As I said, the fox is a hunting animal. It kills any other prey that lies before it and will continue to do so. If it cannot get at rabbits and small vermin it will go for lambs, but only if in a precarious position, unless it is what we call a rogue fox. But it will go for other small mammals. It is a hunted animal. It is far better for it to remain as a species, hunted in a manner regulated by an Act of Parliament, than to be driven, as I believe it eventually will be, to oblivion if the Bill is passed in this form.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, nothing that anyone has said, or, indeed, will say in this debate will change any speaker's mind. Most of the interests which I have always declared in the past when debating this vexed subject are now null and void, thanks entirely to the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, and his ill-conceived Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill.
If the Government were to carry out an opinion poll on the subject, I think they would be staggered that most people would not know what they were being asked about. Those that did simply would not care. Hunting with hounds is not on anyone's agenda except, obviously, those many thousands who are actively involved in and, perhaps more importantly, whose livelihoods depend on hunting with hounds, and for that matter, all other country sports.
As other noble Lords have mentioned, it must not be forgotten that this Bill has nothing whatever to do with animal welfare. The double standards concerning animal welfare in this Bill are hypocritical to say the least. The vast majority of the apathetic electorate care about health, education and crime. They cannot believe that a Government can waste such an enormous amount of time debating foxes, especially bearing in mind that the Prime Minister has repeatedly stated that he is,
"resolutely in favour of a society of tolerance without prejudice or discrimination".
There has been a certain amount of talk about this Bill being part of the Government's manifesto. We know very well from resourced figures that only 2 per cent of the population ever read a manifesto. I remind noble Lords that the Government's manifesto was to,
"enable parliament to reach a conclusion"
and not, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said, to bludgeon through a ban.
800
If countryside dwellers started to dictate to urban dwellers, the riots would be uncontrollable and I have to say I am always concerned when one reads of the Prime Minister's and his Government's commitment that shooting and angling are safe. It must not be forgotten that the devolved assemblies can overrule that pledge without any trouble whatever.
What harm does the Minister believe that country sports do to the nation? Those who participate in them do not require a vast police presence like at football matches. I believe that this Bill is a breach of civil liberties on an unprecedented scale. Also, I think it is worth stressing that passing this Bill is harmful to urban as well as rural Britain. It symbolises meanness, intolerance, bigotry and prejudice. It is unwanted, unwelcome, and, according to the police and judiciary, unenforceable.
Other countries throughout the world are far more tolerant, and fox hunting thrives particularly in places like the United States of America. My North American blood riles when I think what the so-called mother country is trying to embark upon. Hunting exists in six other European Union countries and six other Commonwealth countries.
I do not think for one moment that the noble Lord, Lord Watson, can begin to realise the utter misery that his Bill has caused rural Scotland. Certainly, there has been no rejoicing in the streets. Similarly, his Bill had nothing to do with animal welfare and, as statistics have shown, far more foxes have been killed this past season since his Bill became law. One must not forget that the Rural Affairs Committee of that pretendy-wee parliament in Edinburgh strongly advised MSPs not to vote for it. Only yesterday the Scotsman ran a headline,
"Hunting ban taking its toll on Scottish jockeys".
I speak from bitter, bitter experience. His Bill has broken up family units, farms, friendships (not least of all marriages) and I just hope that he is justifiably proud of the misery he has caused to both humans and foxes.
What good will this Bill do for the history of mankind, let alone for animal welfare? What will it achieve? Man has hunted since creation and animals have done the same. Foxes, it must not be forgotten, hunt to kill for the sheer enjoyment of a kill, and I believe that this Bill will haunt and hunt the Labour Party forever. The ridiculous use of the word "utility" will be blazoned across the Government's epitaph. Every single national newspaper since the countryside march has criticised the Government for their misguided list of priorities. If Her Majesty's Government have any sense at all I believe that they should drop this Bill. They know that they will earn the respect of the nation for at least listening to public opinion.
On Saturday night I was deeply moved listening to the "Last Night of The Proms", particularly to "Land of Hope and Glory". If the Government are intent on continuing to undermine those who live in and love the countryside, there will be no hope and certainly no glory, not least of all for the wretched fox.
5.18 p.m.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, like so many Members of this House, I find the Bill difficult to understand in what is intended for the benefit of hunted animals in particular, and wildlife in the countryside in general. Apart from other things, it contains a number of anomalous situations, and I point out two. For example, it is permissible to use one dog below ground to protect game birds who are to be shot—in other words, a form of hunting. Presumably, the wild animal referred to is the fox, which is to be flushed out by this one dog. That is not allowed if the wild mammal is the fox and the prey is another species of mammal such as lambs. As the National Farmers Union points out, an estimated 2 per cent of the lamb flock is taken annually by foxes. That amounts to 340,000 lambs per year at a significant cost of £13.6 million. One should ask a marginal farmer in the Lake District or on the Pennines whether this is a significant drain on his income. I am sure one would receive a very forthright answer.
However, one might ask why digging out is permitted for the benefit of one form of hunting and yet denied for another form of hunting. Another anomaly is the permitted use of dogs to flush out wild mammals for the purposes of falconry—another form of hunting. Those who have seen the fear generated in a mammal that is about to be attacked by a bird of prey realise that it is a fearful situation for that animal.
I am particularly glad to see that the Bill contains one area with which I would agree; that is the use of dogs if hunting is to be pursued for research and observation. That is a very important undertaking. The welfare of quarry animals is little known. It is a point that was made in the Burns report. I declare that I was a member of that committee. The more information that we have about the physiology and the welfare of quarry animals the better we can understand the whole issue of welfare in hunted animals. At least it would avoid the application of anthropomorphism that has dominated misquotation and misinterpretation of the results laid out in the Burns report. I would hope of course that any requirement for this research would follow the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.
If hunting is to be abolished, the question naturally arises of how foxes will be controlled. We have heard from several noble Lords that foxes require to be controlled, that they are predators and can attack wildlife and also domestic livestock. The Burns report examined alternative methods of control, such as shooting, snaring, cage traps and so on.
Individuals with an extensive knowledge and experience of damaged animals, including foxes—the 500 or so veterinarians of Vets for Hunting—clearly state from their knowledge of mammals that animals dealt with by other than hunting can lead to very serious welfare considerations. Wounded animals may linger with gangrene and other damage to them for days on end in great distress, often dying of starvation because they are too wounded to seek food. Seldom are hunted foxes presented for treatment at a veterinary surgery because the death of the fox is the usual result of the hunt.
802
The paper from Vets for Hunting, which I am sure many noble Lords have received, also includes an interesting article by a Dr Addison, which is a contribution to the assessment of physiological stress and welfare of hunted animals in general. Without going into any great detail, it appears that the frontal lobes of the brain are the neural centres for the psychological trauma of pursuit. The development of these is greatly reduced as one moves down from Homo sapiens—human—through mammals and into other animals. It may well be that, if this research is pursued, the interpretation of stress and compromised welfare of the hunted animal may require very serious re-evaluation.
In a previous debate on hunting your Lordships were in favour of the "middle way". Mention was made of ISAH—the Independent Supervisory Authority for Hunting—which has made major strides in getting agreement among the hunts of this country to eliminate or control certain practices that were considered to be objectionable. ISAH has drawn attention to the fact that hunting, apart from controlling predators and being a sport, which one must acknowledge it is, also embraces the concept of stewardship of the countryside. To act as a steward for the countryside could well be a criterion on which to judge the granting of a licence. In that respect the present Bill is disappointing as it does not offer any encouragement for hunts to consider this meaningful stewardship attitude. Yet Alun Michael stated in September 2002:
"The future of hunting with dogs should not be decided on personal taste, but on evidence on the principles of whether or not it is serving an effective purpose in managing wildlife and whether it is more or less cruel than the alternative methods currently available".
The Bill offers nothing for the effective management of wildlife; nothing for the willing unpaid stewardship of the countryside offered by hunting; and nothing to indicate the alternative methods of control that are better than the present hunting.
5.26 p.m.
Lord Fyfe of Fairfield: My Lords, I disagree with almost everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, apart from one thing. He said that almost everyone had more or less adopted entrenched positions and was extremely unlikely to change their minds as a consequence of this debate or perhaps following debates in this House. However, he struck a chord with me when he made some partly disparaging remark about the Scottish Parliament.
The subject has been debated thoroughly over the years. I suspect, as I have said, that all who are engaged in the matter are unlikely to change their minds as a result of these deliberations.
I have never hunted. I am not a huntsman. I have never participated in hunting activities and I have no intention of so doing. But I can claim to have some practical knowledge of hunting. I was chairman of the Co-operative Wholesale Society, the co-operative group which banned hunting from its land almost 20 years ago. There is not the slightest shred of

803
evidence to demonstrate that foxes have proliferated, in any sense of the word, as a consequence of that ban on CWS land.
I happen to live in Leicestershire, which is in the heart of fox hunting country. Living in Leicestershire as chairman of the CWS, which banned fox hunting, has frankly been quite uncomfortable at times. Social invitations have declined. Eyes are averted. I was regarded by some of my acquaintances as a reckless revolutionary because I supported the ban on hunting. But I do not seek sympathy. It does not trouble me.
I tell the brief tale of two people: one who lived for the chase and delighted in the kill—and to be fair he was quite candid on that—and one who maintained that the purpose of the hunt is to control. It beggars belief that someone can rise enthusiastically in the morning, mount a horse and justify it to himself by saying, "I am going out on this horse to control". But, in a roundabout, strange kind of way, I can understand the person who says, "I am out for the chase and the kill". I remain at least on nodding terms with the second person to whom I refer, because he is an honest man. He has been quite straightforward about what he believes in.
In recent weeks, most, if not all of us will have been bombarded by correspondence from pro and anti-hunt campaigners. One of the most amusing was from the lady who said, "I know that you are against hunting, but why do you worry, because we do not kill any anyway?" I could not quite follow that logic, but the fact is that they do kill and they kill in the most hideous and barbaric fashion. I have had the misfortune to witness a kill with children present. Try to explain to a child that slaughtering an animal under appalling circumstances is ever acceptable human behaviour.
Reference has been made to possible hardship as a consequence of a ban. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, referred to that in her opening address. I believe that that has been exaggerated, but as, I hope, a fair-minded person, I also recognise that it could cause some hardship. I have a suggestion. Could not fox hunting enthusiasts establish a fox hunting relief fund to alleviate financial distress that may be caused to people in endangered rural communities? Perhaps those of your Lordships who are better off than average might feel in their hearts able to support that proposed fox hunting fund so that others could benefit from it. There seems no enthusiasm from some sides of the House for that suggestion.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that the Co-operative Society will donate its large sums of money to that venture?
Lord Fyfe of Fairfield: No, my Lords, I certainly am not, as the co-operative movement banned fox hunting 20 years ago arid took great care at the time to provide alternative sources of employment for people whose livelihood might have been in danger.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, as someone who used to hunt over land in Leicestershire owned by the Co-op,
804
it was interesting to know that all the employees of the Co-op on that farm were vitriolically against the decision imposed on them by an urban office in London. They disapproved of that thoroughly; I have that on first-hand evidence.
Lord Fyfe of Fairfield: My Lords, I doubt that. For a start, the headquarters of the Co-operative Wholesale Society are based not in London but in Manchester.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, in Manchester then.
Lord Fyfe of Fairfield: My Lords, there may well have been opposition; I am not at all surprised at that; but I should think that the compassionate way in which the matter was dealt with by people in Manchester and other areas disposed of that feeling pretty quickly.
A ban on fox hunting has been a manifesto commitment. It has been supported overwhelmingly in the other House—the democratic Chamber. In a few years' time, we shall be astonished when we recall that fox hunting was allowed to continue into the 21st century. We class ourselves as members of a civilised society. By demeaning dumb animals, ultimately, we demean ourselves.
5.33 p.m.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I approach the Bill with the view that it is intolerant, prejudiced and illiberal and goes against the evidence and the facts. But I approach the debate with three separate thoughts: two major irritations and one suggestion. Before I embark on those, I must declare an interest in that I have a farm which is hunted over—I think only occasionally and, as far as I can see, almost always unsuccessfully, but that is another matter. I do not hunt and I have never owned a horse in my life.
I begin with my first irritation. I ask myself: why are we debating this Bill; why is it still before Parliament? Considering how it has been handled, I can believe only that the Government are playing games over it. As a retired business manager in another place, I can come only to the conclusion that the Government are not really very serious about the Bill at all. Months ago, it must have been decided that the Bill was for the long grass in this Session. Incidentally, the noble Lord, Lord Watson, who is no longer in his place, said that the Bill was in Committee for seven months; in fact, it was in Committee from 7th January to 27th February, which is six or seven weeks. But the real question is: why did the business managers leave four months from the end of February till the end of June before they proceeded with the Bill on Report in another place?
In 33 years in the other place, I cannot remember a Bill for which there was such a huge gap between Committee and Report. Even here, when the Bill has reached your Lordships' House, we are now having Second Reading. We return after the next break at the beginning of October but, when I read the Whip, I see that the business for the first two weeks when we return in October contains no sign of Committee on the Bill.

805
If the Government are serious about wanting the Bill, I find it impossible to understand why they are handling it in that way.
Unless the Government change the programme, there seems no way that we shall have Committee before the week beginning 20th October. If the Government want to avoid holding a State Opening of Parliament after this side of December, the amount of time that they have given for consideration of the Bill is absurd. As I said, I can think only that they are letting it tick along with a view to losing it and then blaming your Lordships' House for their having lost as a result of their total incompetence in managing the Bill's proceedings.
They may be thinking that it will be all right to let it tick along because they can then use the Parliament Act. I must say in passing that I listened to Mr Alun Michael on the early morning programme this morning. When he was asked whether the Parliament Act would be used, he said, "Oh, that is for the House of Commons and Parliament". Of course, it is nothing of the sort. The Government control the Order Paper; it is for the Government to decide whether they include on the Order Paper in another place the use of the Parliament Act. That is nothing to do with the Members; the Government and only the Government initiate that.
My second irritation is broader. That concerns the Government's whole attitude to the countryside. In my life, I have never known a Government who demonstrated so clearly their contempt for the countryside and for country people. Previous Labour Governments never took up that posture. When I remember people such as Tom Williams, Fred Peart and Cledwyn Hughes, they were always seen as friends of the countryside and did not take up the posture adopted by Ministers now.
That is no longer the case. I listened with horror on Sunday morning to the early religious programme, I think it was, on which Mrs Beckett was interviewed taking part in the Cancun conference. I thought that I was listening to a Minister for overseas development, rather than one concerned with British agriculture and the British countryside. She made no reference whatever to the hugely lower prices that farmers are receiving now than they were a few years ago or to the widespread lack of profit in the countryside.
So I come to my suggestion. I am much alarmed by what a ban on hunting means in our mountainous areas. I follow very much what my old friend—if I may call him so—the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said. In mountainous areas, hunting is the only way to control foxes. My noble friend Lord Inglewood has asked me to associate him with my remarks. In the Lake District, which I had the honour of representing in another place for 33 years, and in parts of Wales, foot packs do essential work in preventing sheep farming being made impossible when foxes get out of control. Hunting there is carried out on foot. There are no horses, or people in top hats—they seem to be the principal reason that many in the Labour Party are so antagonistic towards fox hunting. Foot hunting is
806
done much more informally. It is essential that we build into the Bill an exemption for foot packs, which play such an important role.
I have evidence to demonstrate the importance of foot packs. Mr Ralph Beaumont, who lives near Machynlleth, kindly sent me an article from the November 1941 edition of Picture Post. It describes the case of Harry Roberts, who was called up to the Army at the beginning of World War Two. In 1941, at the request of the Ministry of Agriculture, he had to be released for six months to resume hunting with the Plas Machynlleth hounds, as foxes were threatening food production in that part of Wales at the beginning of the war. The article says that, previously, hounds usually killed foxes out of sight of huntsmen or anyone else. Nobody, therefore, should seek to oppose foot packs on the grounds that they are supported by bloodthirsty followers who lust after seeing foxes killed—that is total nonsense.
I can do no better to demonstrate evidence of the importance of foot packs than to quote from Hansard the Answer to a Question on 16th October 1941 concerning Mr Roberts's release from the Army:
"The soldier in question was released from the Army for a period of six months as a result of strong recommendations by the Ministry of Agriculture. In support of the application it was stated that these hounds were maintained for the sole purpose of protecting sheep and poultry from foxes, and that since his enlistment farmers had suffered severe losses. The Ministry are satisfied that in this mountainous district the only effective method of keeping down the foxes is to hunt them on foot with hounds".—[Official Report, Commons, 16/10/41; col. 1522.]
That is clear proof that, if you ban hunting in those mountainous areas, you will get a profusion of foxes, and sheep farming will be made wholly impossible.
I hope that the Government will look sympathetically at an amendment to exempt mountain foot packs from the Bill. Such a provision could be added to the schedule. As we debate the Bill I hope that we can discuss that proposition. I hope that it will gain the House's approval.
5.44 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, it is already clear that there are strongly held views on all sides. Noble Lords will have noticed that, even on these Benches—often so united—there are nuances to be observed. I look forward in particular to my noble friend Lord Livsey, in about five hours' time, drawing our arguments together and deploying them as a coherent whole.
I share with the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, a complaint regarding the language used about supporters of the Bill. Many real friends of mine will speak against the Bill. Indeed, on the speakers' list, I am sandwiched between the noble Lords, Lord Jopling and Lord Bragg, whom I very much consider friends. I respect their points of view.
I would rather be elsewhere today—I shall explain where in a moment. I am here partly out of a sense of duty to delegations from the RSPCA, the League Against Cruel Sports and my own party, whose party

807
conference decision is in support of the Bill. Many of those delegates are young, sincere, idealistic people, on behalf of whom I felt that I had to speak today.
I appreciate the approach of the noble Baronesses, Lady Byford and Lady Miller. I was less enthusiastic about the speech made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, who was singularly uncharitable in his view of opponents. I am not surprised that his postbag is 100 per cent against the Bill. Given that he has such a closed mind, I suspect that proponents would not think it worth writing to him about it. One thing is certain: in his view there is no evidence of schizophrenia.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, mentioned the problem of urban foxes, which relates to where I was today. I have been dragged to this debate from Brent East, where I was canvassing. There are probably more urban foxes than Tories in Brent East. By Friday, we will probably see that other popular blood sport in the Conservative Party, "hunt the leader"
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord McNally: You lot should be worried as well.
I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Fyfe of Fairfield and Lord Palmer, that speeches will not change attitudes. Only one speech today would have made me change my mind: the one made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. If, in 35 years' time, I can be as coherent and articulate as he is, it might even tempt me to take up the hunt.
We will not change many minds. It is therefore worth remembering when we bandy about ideas of democracy that, in our system, the firmest and clearest test of democracy is Members of Parliament being willing to put themselves up for election. That is what gives the other place its strength and authority. The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, is right in saying that the Government have wriggled and squirmed on the issue and produced part of the problem.
The other part of the problem is the catch-22 position of those opposed to the Bill. Of course we will spend more and more time on the issue if 50-odd opponents put their names down to speak in debates and to vote down Bills in this House.
However, those of us who believe that hunting is cruel have a right to take our case to Parliament. As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, mentioned, previously people have taken bear-baiting, cock-fighting and dog-fighting to Parliament. In response to those who warn of extra-parliamentary action if another view prevails, I ask what message does that send to animal rights activists who want to act in extra-parliamentary ways? The law is the law, and a civilised society has a right to prevent cruelty to animals.
I recognise that many in the hunting fraternity care greatly for animals. I would welcome support for drag hunting. I was very interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Watson, said on the matter. The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, is wrong; I love to see the drama, the colour and the theatre of the hunt. However, I do not
808
accept the linkage between the sport—the riding, dressing up and so forth—and pursuing animals in a cruel way.
The other evening, I was explaining to an American guest the role of this House as an advisory and revisory Chamber. I do not object to any majority in this House pushing, to the very limits of its power, those capabilities to advise and revise—although I could think of better things to pursue to the very end.
We have the machinery, however, to resolve the deadlock. The Government have a majority in the other place and a mandate in successive manifestos, and the Parliament Act is there to resolve such deadlock. If the Government are not willing to use the Act—and in this case, the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, is right—they should tell their own supporters and the electorate at large that that is the case and that they are abandoning attempts to ban hunting. Anything else is dishonest.
The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, is quite wrong. She and her family will be made criminals only when they break the law. As a parliamentarian, I believe that all of us should urge the same standards, whether on animal rights activists or those who believe in hunting. We must accept that it is within this Parliament that these decisions are made. In the end, it is the elected House whose views should prevail.
5.51 p.m.
Lord Bragg: My Lords, like many of your Lordships, I have spoken on this subject before in a debate in which, in my opinion, those of us opposed to the ban on hunting carried every single argument. Since that debate, it appears from a national poll that a majority of people in the country now believe, as many of us in this House believe, that hunting should not be banned. Since that debate, the countryside march showed the strength of feeling and opposition that could be mustered and, since then, the pro-hunting arguments seem, if anything, stronger. In the declarations of interest department, I do not hunt and, like the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, I do not own a horse.
It has still not been proved in any way at all convincingly to a reasonable examination of the case that the kill at the end of a hunt is any more cruel than shooting, snaring or poisoning the fox. As a matter of interest, Sir David Attenborough said a few years ago:
"I don't suppose it matters much to the fox how it dies".
There is no verifiable evidence that marks out the hunt as uniquely cruel and therefore, for that reason alone, deserving to be banned. Nor has the knock-on case been answered since the last debate. For if we ban hunting foxes we will inevitably and logically move on to ban catching fish and shooting birds. We must then ban other country pursuits, and also, perhaps, the ritual religious preparation of meat, which some believe to be cruel. Why should that stop? What is the boundary? Would we go on to ban what some think of as the cruel caging of small birds, the cruel domestication of dogs and cats or the cruel over-training of race horses? Your Lordships may think that that is a mad logic but it could lead to absurd and

809
wholly unforeseen consequences if hunting is banned against all argument and against all public majority opposition. If the force of argument is simply ignored, we are at the mercy of the merely politically correct of transitory fashion.
In that sense, hunting is holding the line. It is a line which must be held despite the many other arguments that can be marshalled against the anti-hunt lobby; the well-rehearsed and well-founded arguments from those who see hunting as an integral part of our country and our life in the country—which it is; the justifiable fears for the local economy and the general ecology—especially in the mountainous areas, as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling; the arguments which see hunting as an important strand in local communities; and, above all perhaps, the fantasy that the fox is a cuddly and harmless little furry animal—the recent attack by a fox on a child in a house in north London just the other week rather undermines that mythical Disneyfication of a cunning predator. Apart from all that, the central and final argument I wish to propose to your Lordships today is far away from the caricature of pink-clad aristos in the heavy shires, and is rooted here, in the urban, equine-free Palace of Westminster.
One aspect of our democracy is that we respect the rights of the majority. It is a small miracle in the whole history of mankind that here, and in a very few other places, a majority of votes can lead to peaceful change of power. Another—I would say equal aspect of a democracy—is that we defend the rights of minorities. That is not so easy especially when, as seems to be the case here, a minority has the majority of public opinion against it but the majority of elected opinion in the other place—elected some time ago—against it. Unless we are prepared to tolerate what we do not like, any notion of liberty is a chimera.
Of course, there have to be rules. I suggest that the principal rule is that the activities of the minority do not endanger human life and do not harm other people. Hunting does neither of these. Minorities should obey the laws of the land—those who hunt do that. Minorities should not infringe on the rights of others. Those who hunt do not do that. Hunting outrages some people—but so do many other things. Indeed, when your Lordships look at some of our newspapers you could conclude that the British are in a permanent state of outrage about one thing or another, but that does not lead us to ban these "outrages" right, left and centre, regardless of logic and sound minority opinion.
One man's outrage is another man's right to have a richer life, provided that nobody is harmed and the law is not broken. There are other positive matters that I do not have time to talk about today—matters of tradition, sport, skill and enjoyment, none of which are light matters or dismissable. But what has emerged most strongly to me in the course of this debate, inside and outside Westminster, is the question of liberty. When we look at what is now permitted—in the name
810
of minority rights in the sexual field, for example—the rights being demanded by those who are pro-hunting seem very modest.
Banning that which harms no one and brings much pleasure to parts of our society is a dangerous course of action. People feel the injustice of it. They look around and compare what they do with what others do and think, "Why should we be singled out in this way?" Sometimes a cliché gets to the heart of the matter. That is why they become clichés and why they are valuable. I believe that we are talking about blind prejudice. I do not doubt the sincerity of those who wish to ban hunting but sincerity has limited value. One can be sincere about the most questionable matters and causes. Social prejudice is a hangover from another age and no longer valid, but it is blind. The arguments to ban hunting are blind to reason, blind to the consequences that will follow and blind to the damage done to a society when a minority which has done no harm and no wrong is judged on wholly unsound and untenable evidence and condemned for following a pursuit which it has every right to follow. Like many of your Lordships, I strongly oppose the banning of hunting.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I have no interest to declare on this occasion. I do not hunt, and confine my sporting activities to the riverbank. I hope that the Government have no plans to ban fishing. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, who is not in his place, I do live in the Scottish Borders, where hunting was outlawed by the Scottish Parliament from August last year, by the passing of the noble Lord's Bill. He is entitled to his own opinion about the effects of that Bill, but I cannot say that I agreed with much of what he said.
I cannot say that the noble Lord is a popular hero where I come from. Many people in the Borders are connected with fox hunting in one way or another—most obviously in the livery stables, the blacksmiths and in looking after hounds. The Scottish Parliament, despite three different propositions for compensation schemes, said that there would be no compensation for those who lost their jobs or their businesses as a result of the ban. Yet those people saw compensation granted to mink farmers when this Government banned mink farming. No doubt the Government have a line to take on these matters, but those affected said that that was unfair.
There is no doubt that the passing of the Scottish legislation has added to the burdens carried by the police. As noble Lords can imagine, feelings run high when a minority is hit in the midriff. That is the feeling in areas in which the law is now enforced. We could say that Borderers are law-abiding folk—generally speaking, they are—but, looking at last week's sheriff's court page, I can say that there is crime in that part of the world that must be dealt with by the police. The police have enough on their plate without the Bill. In the Scottish elections last year, the First Minister pledged more money to counter increasing Scottish crime rates.

811
The House should take note of what the Chief Constable of Suffolk said:
"Parliament's vote for an outright ban on hunting fills many of my fellow officers with dread. Not because police are pro-hunting—the service is…neutral—but because of the practical implications of enforcing such a ban".
My noble friend Lord Hurd of Westwell was right: the police need law-abiding people in the countryside to help them in their job.
From the Scottish experience, I observe that there is still a demand for fox control using hounds. Many farmers have noticed a rise in the number of attacks on lambs and other livestock since the ban started. As noble Lords know, hunting goes on, and the foxes are shot at the end of the chase. In addition, there is a problem of fox welfare: some observers have said that unskilled shots are causing unnecessary suffering. I assure the House that the Scottish legislation has dealt a blow to an integral part of Scottish border life. It is regarded by most Borderers as an example of the overweening power of the townies from the Central belt, who use their political muscle to crush hunt supporters in our area.
I shall not enter into the debate on cruelty promoted by supporters of the Bill. Others with more knowledge than I can address that. However, I have much sympathy with the views of Dr Lewis Thomas and his fellow vets who say:
"The search and dispatch function is the most important welfare argument in favour of hunting…No other method of culling performs this unique function and were hunting be banned in England and Wales, the welfare implications for all hunted species, in the absence of natural predators, would be profound".
He goes on:
"Hunting is thus uniquely selective in maintaining the health and vigour of the quarry species".
There was a Question earlier today about the consequences of a ban for the many dogs affected. I imagine that that aspect of welfare never entered the head of Mr Banks, when he moved his successful amendment.
I have a suggestion. The Government must heed the advice in today's Daily Telegraph from the leaders of major organisations representing land use and agriculture in England and Wales. They must resolve the hunting issue on the basis of evidence and principle, rather than personal taste. A workable system that is enforceable and likely to last must be found. I trust that, at the appropriate moment, your Lordships will not pass the Bill as it stands. The Government must think long and hard about a workable solution rather than, in due course, resorting to the Parliament Act for a measure that has been debated and voted on in a free vote. I can assure the sponsors of the Bill that, underneath it all, there is a deep-seated anger in the countryside that will not be easily assuaged. I hope and pray that people's vengeance will be sorted out through the ballot box, rather than through the courts.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, I intend, in a few moments, to talk about six species of nature or human activity that are threatened by the Bill. However, in order to do so, I should set out the basis of what I intend to say.
812
The basis is an intensively researched consensus that fox control is necessary but must be done humanely and with utility. The original Bill provided, at least, a textual basis for achieving those ends. It was amenable to amendment, and it was, after all, the Government's starting-point on the issue in this Session. What we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, this afternoon was extraordinary. It amounted to saying, "We introduced a Bill that we believed in as a basis for legislation and amendment. We have now thrown it away, and we are going to start on a basis that we don't really agree with, but it's what we're lumbered with". The House should not have to consider such legislation.
I speak as one who believes in regulation. Nobody has yet mentioned a letter that many of your Lordships have received, dated, I think, 12th September, from Sir Ronald Waterhouse, who wrote on behalf of the Independent Supervisory Authority for Hunting. Voluntary regulation has been carried out for some time, and Sir Ronald provides evidence that regulation can and does work. The House should take that into account.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Hooson, as I usually do. Between us, we represented the rural county of Montgomeryshire in mid-Wales for 31 years. For the reasons that my noble friend gave, hunting, properly regulated, creates a proper balance between the farmer and the fox. If we want to retain that balance, we must not go down the road of a ban. The balance would be shifted, not in favour of the farmer, but against the fox.
I listened with interest to my noble friend Lady Walmsley. I am sure that many Members will share my admiration for her doughty performances on our Front Bench. She is always prepared to argue the case against the Government, and she has never seemed reluctant to overturn decisions that have been made by the other place. On this occasion, she makes an ad rem argument, which seems to be inconsistent with her usual course.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Fyfe of Fairfield, is not still in his place. He spoke about the high principles of the CWS, of which he used to be chairman. I had the advantage of reading in detail the contracts that led to the sale by CWS of its food manufacturing group to the Hobson Group, some years ago. Those contracts were not notable for their insistence on animal welfare. The CWS does not let its principles interfere with its interests where money is concerned, although it may do, where publicity is concerned.
I turn to my first endangered species. They have all been mentioned already. The first is the fox. I live in rural Montgomeryshire, and I shall put the position in a sentence. If they get the chance, the farmers will get rid of all the foxes. If they cannot hunt the foxes—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, that there is no shame in enjoying the hunt—there will be no reason to have them any more. Why have on the farm something that, in one night, will kill, as my noble friend Lord Hooson told us, 18 newborn lambs? They will shoot them, trap them or poison them. In my experience, not only are

813
farmers, on the whole, fairly bad shots, but one would be hard pushed to find many who could put their hand on their heart and say that the barrels of their guns were still straight and properly maintained.
The second endangered species is the hound, and there is a Welsh dimension to that. Whether it is the Plynlimon foxhounds, of which my noble friend Lord Hooson spoke, or the Plas Machynlleth foxhounds or any other foot packs, they are paid for by small subscriptions from ordinary farmers who do not ride horses—like me, the only horses that they have are rocked on by their grandchildren and are made of wood. Such people subscribe to the packs because foxes are pests that need to be proportionately controlled, which is what is achieved at present.
The third endangered species is the horses—the hunters. I have been to hundreds of agricultural shows. Occasionally, I have regretted it, although they are usually enjoyable. The horses are usually owned not by Members of your Lordships' House or by belted earls and baronets but by local shopkeepers and business people who, instead of buying a BMW or a Jaguar, choose to buy a horse, which they can use to hunt, for their pleasure and to contribute something to the local agricultural community. There will not be many of them after a ban.
The fourth endangered species is the industry that deals with fallen animals. Eighty-five per cent of fallen animals are taken by the hunt. What will happen to those arrangements?
I turn now to an endangered species which causes me great concern: it is a principle. It is the principle that the process of legislation should command the broad consensus of responsible citizens, though not necessarily agreement. Many of us disagreed with the poll tax, but we had a consensus that the Government were entitled to introduce it—right or wrong. But this is not such legislation. There is no consensus for this type of legislation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, is right. Such legislation will criminalise decent, law-abiding people. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, spoke with disdain about the possibility that people could indulge in criminal acts and civil disobedience. For heaven's sake, what was the Labour movement built on but civil disobedience and mild criminal activity? I hear the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, or one of his ancestors in spirit, saying, "Votes for women. How can they demonstrate for votes for women and commit criminal damage in that cause? It is a crime". And I hear the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and those who follow his line of reasoning saying of certain sovereign governments overseas, "Of course they are entitled to enforce the wearing of veils by women in all circumstances, because they are the lawful government". I am afraid that that argument does not wash. It is a residual constitutional right of all citizens to disobey the government, even to the point of criminality, if the government stray beyond the permissible range of legislation. It is a right enshrined in political philosophy and in jurisprudence.
814
I turn now to my sixth and final endangered species, which is the policing of enforceable laws by consent. I have spoken to chief constables and other police officers about these proposals. I believe that there is not a chief constable in the land who is truly happy with the prospect facing them. The first Saturday that the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, gets on her horse, with her husband and children, are the police in her area going to put the horses in the custody suite at the local police station? Are they really going to prosecute the noble Baroness and her extremely distinguished husband for criminal offences for which they can be fined on level 5? Are we really going to ask police officers—many of whom disagree profoundly with this legislation—to take part in that kind of policing? It is simply unimaginable.
Many of our fundamentals are threatened by this legislation. I have one final point. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, threatened us with the Parliament Act. Do not be afraid of the Parliament Act. The Government will not use it: it has not been used in relation to a matter of conscience of this kind, or remotely comparable with it, certainly in living memory. I believe that the Government have enough residual principle not to use it in this instance either. It is an argument based on the use of a big stick, but it is a pretty rotten stick.
6.13 p.m.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, who has given us heart that we shall not be defeated yet. The Bill is the product of seven long months of debate and committee work. It has been around for five or six years and is nothing new to us. Sadly, I am no longer a fox hunting man. My riding abilities are long forgotten, but I believe passionately in the right of others to hunt with hounds, whether it be for foxes, deer, mink or hare.
There remain a number of questions which still need to be answered. Despite certification by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, the Bill may be in contravention of human rights. Can the Bill be the subject of the Parliament Act? I shall not add to what has already been said by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. In reality, is the Bill practical and enforceable? In the view of a number of eminent lawyers, the 1949 Act is not a proper Act. As has already been said, it is a conscience Act and it is therefore inappropriate to use it to force primary legislation on to the statute book.
Readers of Field magazine were undoubtedly amazed, shocked and alarmed by the front cover, which showed a very young boy on his pony, with the banner headline, "Will Labour make him a criminal"? Presumably, he was hunting. The caption inside said, "See you in borstal". A ban on hunting would make this youngster part of rural crime. Is that really what Mr Michael wants?
Surely, whatever one's personal view on hunting, there are more important matters to which the Government should give their attention; matters such as extradition, local government, anti-social behaviour and criminal

815
justice, just to name a few. The Bill is thoroughly vindictive and threatening. It threatens the liberty of law-abiding individuals without justification. As has already been said, a number of prominent police officers have expressed the view that they have neither the manpower nor the financial resources to enforce such a ban.
Clause 8(3) authorises the search and seizure of any,
"vehicle, animal or other thing",
which a constable reasonably believes may be used as evidence in criminal proceedings for an offence under the Bill. Does that mean that I must remove my hunting whip or my hunting horn from my car or be in danger of being arrested? I may be incorrect, but as I understand the Bill, field trials are to be exempt from the proposed ban. They are defined as a competition in which dogs flush out or retrieve animals that have been shot: the dogs are assessed on their usefulness with shooting. It is precisely a competitive event with very little, if any, relevance to pest control or conservation.
By comparison, hare coursing has been banned from the beginning, although it is also a competitive event in which dogs are assessed on their skill at hunting hares. Contrary to the belief of many people, the coursed hares are wild and are running on their home ground. Why does the Bill exempt field trials in which hares may be caught and killed, but not permit the competitive sport of coursing, which includes the prestigious Waterloo Cup?
I must also express my concern for the ordinary dog walker. Having been involved in the running of a local racecourse for many years, I know how many local residents derive much pleasure in exercising dogs under control. but which are off the lead or leash. There is a great deal of wildlife, ranging from nesting birds to foxes and deer, but if a dog chases and catches a wild mammal, as defined by the Bill, the dog would be liable to seizure and could be put down. Additionally, the owner could be fined up to £5,000.
If hunting is banned, it is estimated that some 68,000 horses and many hounds—as we heard at Question Time today—would be at risk of being disposed of. As vice-president of the International League for the Protection of Horses, I am aware that this league, which does so much for the welfare of horses, could be under great pressure. It is clear from talking to various field officers that in no way would we be able to cope with the many horses which would be put into our hands. To put it bluntly, we would be able to pick up only the pieces, such as welfare cases. The disposal of the horses will be a major problem.
The Burns report has been widely accepted as a valid and truly authoritative report commissioned by the Government. Why did such a report not receive more acceptance generally? Why have the Government been so against some of the findings? Is it because they do not meet with their intentions? Since the Burns report there have been several inquiries and reports into the effect of a ban on hunting. One report stated that hunting benefits the rural economy to the tune of £242 million per year.
816
The economic effect of a ban would he felt by some 14,000 people in full-time employment and 36,000 in part-time employment. They include huntsmen, grooms, terriermen and knackermen, as has been mentioned. Other tradesmen who will he sorely affected by a ban are farriers and saddlers. My local saddler told me that he estimates that, on a turnover of £1 million, he will lose 30 per cent of his trade. The result is that he will probably have to close down his business.
Another matter that has not been mentioned so far is the future of point-to-points. They are organised by hunts and are very much part of the hunting infrastructure. Horses that start their career in the hunting field go on to hurdling and steeplechasing. This is a major part of the racing industry, which may well disappear if hunting were to cease.
Another aspect of the rural infrastructure is the collection and disposal of fallen stock—a necessary task that will not be undertaken if hunting ceases. In the future, farmers will have to pay for the removal of fallen stock. From 1st May next year, the burial of carcasses will be banned. At a cost of between £200 and £300 for the disposal of a horse, a great number of animals could well be abandoned in the countryside to meet their own end.
The end of hunting in England and Wales as we know it will see a revolution, the outcome of which is unpredictable. One thing for certain is that countryside people in no way will take the ban lying down. They will oppose it in every way they can to defend their freedoms.
The Government need to resolve this issue and to show real understanding and leadership of the countryside, otherwise the consequences will he truly devastating. If the Bill were to become law, our "green and pleasant land" would suffer irreparable damage. The rural economy would be bankrupted simply to placate a number of Government Back-Bench Members of Parliament who largely misunderstand rural affairs and are now hell-bent on destroying our heritage and our way of life. I strongly oppose the Bill.
6.23 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Peterborough: My Lords, in the previous debates held on this subject in your Lordships' House, the moral arguments on both sides have been eloquently presented, including in a number of contributions from these Benches. I have re-read those debates in preparation for this week and find myself in substantial agreement with the line taken by the then Bishop of Bath and Wells, the right reverend Jim Thompson. He readily acknowledged that Christians were as divided on this issue as the rest of our society, but believed that a moral case could be made for the continuation of hunting. I remind noble Lords of his conclusion:
"On an issue where opposing views, to which great thought has been given, are held with such passion, and in a society where there is such uncertainty, can it really be right at this time to introduce legislation to ban altogether something that is so much in question and so much part of the rural way of life?".—[Official Report, 12/3/01; col. 539.]

817
I wish to reiterate that view and, even though the arguments have been well rehearsed, to explain why as a Christian I believe it is right in our present circumstance, and that it is wrong to suggest that only one side can claim the high moral ground. This is not a debate between morality and pragmatism, but between firmly held moral convictions on both sides. Any legislation must take that into account.
Like the former Bishop of Bath and Wells and a number of noble Lords, I was brought up in the West Country. My early familiarity with Exmoor and the Quantock Hills has given me a lifelong affection for and interest in our native deer, most notably that noble animal, the red deer. I am sure that, along with a number of your Lordships, I enjoy eating it and my doctor says that venison is good for me because it is low in cholesterol.
My childhood also gave me experience of the Quantock stag hounds, an understanding of the contribution of the hunt to the conservation of this noble animal and of the improvement to the herd through the process of culling the weaker and older beasts. I have long understood it to be the case that when hunting was suspended on Exmoor and the Quantocks, both the quality and the strength of the herd rapidly declined.
Over two years ago both the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and the former Bishop of Bath and Wells reminded your Lordships that there is also what Ted Hughes called the "strange agreement" between the farmers and the deer, to which reference has already been made in the debate. It hinders inexpert attempts to cull the deer because the hunt exists. The sight of a stag dying of gangrene, probably brought on by a misaimed bullet, still haunts me some 40 years after I stumbled across it as a teenager. The noble Lord, Lord King, has drawn on his vast experience to speak on these matters in relation to Exmoor and the Quantocks, so I shall not repeat the evidence he cited, but I share his understanding and support entirely his argument for the need for effective management.
I remain a countryman at heart and, like many of my colleagues, I have served in dioceses which have an urban title but encompass considerable rural areas; at present, in the good hunting counties of Northampton and Rutland. We are therefore acutely aware of how divisive this issue can be and of the strength of feeling in our rural communities.
I freely acknowledge that this issue raises difficult moral questions. It has provoked one of the largest postbags I have received, almost entirely in favour of hunting, and I do not think that was because my views were previously known. I respect those who feel that the killing of animals is wrong in any circumstance, although I personally, along with the majority, take a different view. I know that many believe hunting to be inherently cruel and tell us that it is unlike other methods of control. They feel that it deliberately inflicts suffering on animals for non-essential purposes and is intrinsically objectionable because it does so in the name of sport. Others, myself included, from equally firm convictions—including many from
818
Christian convictions—fully recognise that the welfare of the animal kingdom is our responsibility, but argue that we do not know where the balance of suffering lies and that well-ordered hunting contributes both to control and to conservation by culling the weaker members of the species. We believe it to be neither immoral nor inhumane, and are convinced that it should not be made criminal.
In spite of these differences, I believe that it is important to recognise how much we hold in common across this debate. We agree on an understanding of our humanity which places it within the context of the whole of the created order; we have a shared concern for our environment, a deep respect for the animal kingdom and a desire to eliminate unnecessary suffering. For those of many faiths, that is undergirded with the conviction that the world is God's creation and therefore to be doubly respected.
Indeed, our understanding of the natural world also recognises that there is what could be called a hierarchy of preying—spelt not with an a" in this case, but with an "e"—which has been disrupted by the dying-out of certain species. As a result, some of the natural processes which ensure the limitation of a particular species and the survival of the fittest are removed and the balance of nature disturbed.
We therefore have to provide artificial means of controlling and improving the quality of parts of the animal kingdom. To the taking of animal life for food, we have to add the reasons for the control of pests by the limitation of their number and the improvement of the species by the culling of the weak and the diseased. In so doing, we are seeking to act as the predator who takes out the weakest of the flock.
It is of course at this point that divisions between us begin to appear; between those who believe that hunting is as humane and efficient a way of doing that, and those who do not. The arguments, as we have already been reminded, about what is or is not humane are finely balanced. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Habgood, argued that in previous debates in your Lordships' House. As the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Habgood, who is in his place, said:
"the case against hunting as a cruel practice is not proven. We do not know where the balance of suffering lies and we certainly do not know enough to base socially divisive legislation on what must necessarily be conjecture".—[Official Report, 12/3/01: col. 610.]
It nevertheless remains a matter of dispute whether, as I believe, hunting with dogs is at least as humane as other methods of culling wild animals. I hope, however, that we can agree that properly conducted hunting fulfils two other requirements of any effective method of control. It effectively conserves the species by taking out the weak and the injured—the fittest often escape and survive; and it has the effective support of those who are potentially "victims" of the animals which are hunted—the farmers whose crops may be devastated by grazing deer; the shepherd and the poultry keeper whose flocks may be decimated by the rogue fox.

819
I have great sympathy with the arguments adumbrated by the noble Lord, Lord Bragg. In a liberal democracy it is surely right that where there is such genuine disagreement about an issue—perhaps, particularly, an issue about the morality of which we are divided—we should continue to give people the freedom to make up their own minds and legislate only if we are clear that the health of our society is threatened. I do not believe that to be so and I do not believe that the case is proven that the Bill is for the general benefit of society.
I hope therefore, with many others, that the Government will listen to the voices of those who argue that the reintroduction of a Bill enshrining the middle way is the right course, following the careful work which Alun Michael and others carried out before the original Bill was introduced into another place and was then mangled there. To persist with the Bill in this form can only be divisive and illiberal.
6.32 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, there is not much more that can be said about the Bill—or hunting—which is new or which has not been said before. But, if the Government will continue with a deeply divisive Bill, rather like a water wheel churning round and round, such debates are bound to be the case.
I have never hunted. I was given a pony when I was about eight; the animal decided to throw me off, and I was winded. It was the most dreadful experience that I had ever had in my life. I thought I was dying. I thereafter concluded that horses are dangerous at both ends and uncomfortable in the middle.
I have in that respect, therefore, no interest to declare. The only interest that I have is one on a much wider basis—that we should ensure that people are entitled to enjoy whatever sport they like. To make people criminals all of a sudden for carrying out that which has been done for hundreds of years seems to be without logic or justice.
As to cruelty, I limit my observations to the fact that nature is cruel. Fox hunting is no more cruel than many other aspects of nature. Anyone who has seen a Jack Russell set about a hedgehog, of all things, will know that nature is pretty raw.
Hunting is entirely natural to wild animals. They do it all the time. They do it to live. And none is better at doing it than the fox. What might be a devastating experience for a human being is natural to the animal. One cannot transport the mind of a human into the mind of an animal. It does not work. They are different. In most wild animals the determination to live is at the expense of another animal.
In hunting, killing is instantaneous. Were hunting to be banned, as has been often said today, wounded and sick animals would be left to die a prolonged and lingering death, possibly for years. The fact is that animals have to be killed, either to preserve their species or to preserve other species. This applies as much to foxes as it does to rats, mice and stoats. Fox
820
hunting is a quicker and sharper death than shooting. It has the added advantage—and no one seems to remember this—that the fox might get away.
Many will take a different view—I understand their reasons—but what worries me about the Bill is that the Government are deliberately continuing to pursue a policy which they know divides people against people and destroys the heritage of the countryside. At a time when there are so many problems besetting the Government, as my noble friend Lady Byford said—Iraq, Europe, hospitals, railways and education—it is nothing less than incredible that the Government should consider it prudent to spend hours of parliamentary time in destroying and alienating the countryside.
The Government are drawn from a party of largely urban MPs. There is nothing wrong with that, but they do not possess some superior moral knowledge of what is right or wrong for the countryside. I have told the noble Lord, Lord Whiny, before—I respectfully venture to tell him again—that the Government have shown that they do not understand the countryside and do not care about it.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Jopling that that was not always the case. Tom Williams, Fred Peart and Cledwyn Hughes were all friends of farmers. Indeed, I admit to this extent—which I am hesitant to do—that
some 25 years ago it was always said that agriculture did better under a Labour government than it did under a Conservative government. But not now. Over the past six or seven years we have witnessed the prosperity of the countryside collapse. We have seen businesses and people ruined. The Government now say, "And now we will stop them enjoying their sport". People will be made redundant; horses will be destroyed; saddlers will find their businesses ruined; blacksmiths will find their businesses affected; point-to-points will be closed, as the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby, said; and, on top of that, 20,000 hounds will be destroyed. Why? All because we do not want to kill a fox.
Is not the real reason—I hate to put it as starkly as this—that this is a class issue; that people think those who go fox hunting are the rich? One enthusiast against hunting put it in that charmingly moderate way, which is so endearing to others, when he said, "Those toffee-nosed bastards deserve all that is coming to them". Not much about the fox there. A friend of mine had some correspondence with the RSPCA. The official who replied said that the society did not think dogs were cruel. What they objected to were the people who followed hounds. Not much about the fox there either.
I fear that that is what lies behind the Bill. That is why it is both discriminatory and divisive. And that is why it is so shaming that the Government should not only be a party to this divisiveness but should actually lead it. I find it appalling that the Government should put their muscle behind a Bill which sets man against man and which creates and adds to division. It is the Government's job to heal wounds, not to create or to exacerbate them.

821
The professionals most involved in animal welfare are the vets. It is not insignificant that more than 500 of them have stated that a ban on hunting would be detrimental to animal health because, in the absence of hunting, animals who are old, sick and ill will continue to live and go free.
But who are the people who go hunting? They are not only the rich. They are people who come from all walks of life. Some own and love horses, but not all of them ride. Some go in cars; some go on foot. The common factor among them is that they enjoy a day out in the countryside. They do not go hunting to see a fox killed. They go for the pleasure of a day out; for the fun of friendship; for the excitement of a gallop; for the thrill of jumping a hedge or a ditch; for the determination to hang on like grim death and not fall off; for the exhilaration of succeeding; and for the contentment of having the cobwebs and the anxieties of life momentarily blown out of their minds. Those people talk, they laugh, they take exercise, they enjoy the fullness and the beauty of the countryside, and they often end the day exhausted—in other words, they love a day out in the countryside.
I sometimes think that if some of those who roam the streets of the cities with nothing better to do than carry out crimes had a day out hunting they would be fitter and far too exhausted to carry out their nefarious pleasures. In fact, it would do them good to have a day out hunting and it would do society good. In fact, I only wonder why the Government do not promote hunting instead of destroying it. But no, the Government say, "We want to stop this and we will see that those who do it will become criminals". The real reason is that they are so out of kilter with the left wing of the Labour Party that they have decided to throw it a hone to give it something to chew over and keep it quiet. The countryside and this great country sport are to be the sacrificial lamb.
The Prime Minister recently made a speech to the United States Congress. It greatly impressed the United States, as it did many other people in the free world. The Prime Minister has great personality and that envied ability to put over fundamental thoughts in an easy and understandable way. In his speech, he said:
"We are fighting for the inalienable right of human kind…to be free. Free to be you, so long as being you does not impair the freedom of others".
Quite rightly, he was given a standing ovation. Why does he not apply the same dictum to this Bill? Since when has hunting impaired the freedom of others?
6.41 p.m.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, around 350 supporters of hunting with dogs have urged me to oppose a ban on this activity. They use three main arguments: first, that a ban ignores the wishes of the rural community; secondly, that it would remove what is described as a fundamental freedom; and thirdly, that this House should make what is described as "good law". I wish to respond.
822
First, the largest number of Members of Parliament representing rural areas were elected on an election promise to provide Parliament with a free vote on whether hunting with hounds should be banned by legislation. That was in 1997. Those Labour MPs—because it is Labour MPs who overwhelmingly represent rural areas—were re-elected in 2001 on a pledge by the Government to provide Parliament with time to come to a conclusion on this matter.
Alongside these real measures of rural opinion, subsequent opinion polls show a majority in both country and town in favour of a ban on hunting with dogs. Since I am enjoined to respect the wishes of the rural community, let me give voice to that part of the rural community which has had no mention, as far as I know, in this debate. I refer to agricultural and allied workers. They are part of that rural community—much more so, may I say, than those who treat the countryside as a second home. I am told by Peter Allenson, national secretary of the Rural, Agricultural & Allied Workers group of the Transport & General Workers' Union:
"Agricultural and rural workers accept that the killing of animals is a necessity in the rural way of life. However, we have worked tirelessly to ensure that that is always done in a humane and proper way, and our members take a professional pride in ensuring that this is done. We do not believe that there is any justifiable reason why hunting with dogs should continue".
Lest it be thought this is a sudden new policy, I cite Barry Leathwood, a former secretary of the agricultural workers' union. He says that agricultural workers,
"have been at the forefront of farm animal welfare campaigns for decades; it must therefore be no surprise that they strongly oppose the gratuitous cruelty that is the reality of hunting with hounds".
Secondly, there is a cry of freedom, which I regard as wholly bogus. It was doubtless heard, in this House and elsewhere, when bear-baiting, cock-fighting and bare knuckle boxing were made illegal. It is my view that there is no such thing as absolute freedom in a society. It would amount to anarchy if we were all free to do whatever we wanted. I might also observe that many of those who now cry freedom were among those bitterly opposed to the freedom of ordinary people to enjoy the countryside and what they claim to be their right to roam.
Thirdly, I am not sure that I know what is meant by "good law". It presumably depends on who is making the judgment. However, I know that in our democracy, the elected House has the right to have its way, not least on the back of election manifesto undertakings. I have been here long enough to understand that this unelected House is a revising Chamber, not a wrecking Chamber. If this unelected House, at its will, could veto legislation from the Commons, what, then, is the point of general elections? I regard the invitation from those who have written to me to reject the Bill as profoundly undemocratic and a rejection of our parliamentary democracy. I do not believe it is remotely acceptable that deliberate and wilful cruelty to wild animals should be any part of our way of life.
I also have concerns about the effect on those people who get pleasure from taking part in these practices, not least the effect it may have on vulnerable children and

823
young people. I hope it is a shared belief that there is too much casual, everyday cruelty in our world without dressing up this version of it as "sport" and "country pursuits".
Many of those who have written to me—and it has also been said in your Lordships' House this afternoon—claim that more important matters than hunting demand Parliament's attention. I simply observe that 60 noble Lords have their names down to speak in this debate against the 43 who did so when this House debated a motion on Iraq on 18th March.
I welcome the Bill.
6.47 p.m.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, I speak as vice-president of the Countryside Alliance and chairman of the Cottesmore Hounds. Since my misspent youth at Cambridge, where I was Master for three years of the drag hounds, IL have hunted both the Fitzwilliam and the Cottesmore hounds. When, getting into the House of Commons, I could not give the hounds my undivided attention, I found myself field master to no less than five different huntsmen.
It was almost a year ago today that over 500,000 people marched through London and the Prime Minister said:
"We govern for the whole of the country, and must take note of opinions that were democratically expressed".
A ban on all forms of hunting would do nothing for the welfare of the quarry species. It would have serious economic, agricultural and cultural consequences for the rural community, already in crisis, and would represent an intolerant and anti-democratic measure, based not on fact but on a prejudicial dislike of an activity carried on by a significant minority of ordinary, law-abiding people.
We have over the last few years had the independent supervisory authority for hunting. This now needs statutory hacking as suggested by the Middle Way Group. I was so pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, mentioned what Sir Ronald Waterhouse has achieved. He has already reviewed the conduct of all hunts; he has reviewed the discipline of all hunts; and he has arranged for all hunts to be inspected annually.
The attacks on hunting with hounds in one form or another have been going on since 1928. In 1947, we had the Scott-Henderson inquiry, and in 2001, the Burns inquiry.
The noble Lord, Lord Burns, did not find that hunting was cruel. He said:
"Naturally, people ask whether we were implying that hunting is cruel. The short answer…is 'no'".
He went on to say that there was not sufficient reliable evidence to come to a decision about cruelty. My noble friend Lord Soulsby was also on that committee with the noble Lord, Lord Burns.
A hunting Bill should allow for all currently legal forms of hunting with hounds to be eligible for registration. There should be a presumption that licences are obtainable. To create a fair and workable system of registration, the original Bill needs to be
824
amended significantly. The Bill should be based on a proper and consistent application of evidence that, in turn, will promote wildlife management and safeguard animal welfare.
We now have a system whereby we must include in a Bill the wording that the Bill is in line with the human rights convention. When the Bill is finally produced, will we have that same arrangement in it? We have already had a human rights lawyer advising us that this Bill falls foul of the convention in seven different ways. It would be pointless to continue with the Bill unless that particular point had been clarified.
I remind the noble Lords of what was said in this House in the Queen's Speech last November:
"A Bill will be introduced to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on hunting with dogs".—[Official Report, 13/11/02; col. 3.]
All the evidence points to the fact that hunting under licence is the way to a fair and equitable solution.
6.51 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, the heart of this debate is the clash between liberty and cruelty. It should have nothing to do with whether one likes the people who hunt or disapproves of them treating hunting as a sport. Part of the confusion is that the fox has been sentimentalised, or "Disneyfied". as the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, called it.
Mr Fox has always been one of the great characters in children's books and fables. Yet far from being the cuddly toy in the nursery, Mr Fox is a natural born killer, a mass murderer, a predator that not merely kills to eat but kills for pleasure, which terrorises for pleasure, sending chickens and geese into a frenzy and petrifying sheep and lambs as it gratuitously decapitates the latter. Those who assert that foxes are not much of a menace these days—which is of course disputed—should remember that they are also relentless predators on a host of wildlife, some of it endangered.
Thus if Mr Fox is to be endowed with human feelings and personality, so too should his countless victims. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, touched on that matter. The abolitionists will say, "You can't blame the fox because it's a natural killer". Fair enough, but then do not pretend that it has feelings comparable to human feelings when being hunted down. One cannot have it both ways.
One thing I do accept is that the manner of killing is crucial, albeit more in terms of our cultural and moral health than out of regard for the stony-hearted fox. If the means of death is sadistic, one can reasonably conclude that it is coarsening for its practitioners and for the society that is indifferent to it.
On all those matters I waited for the Burns report for guidance, as I am sure that many of your Lordships did. His committee was clear that hunting is the only method of killing a fox with a cast-iron outcome: 100 per cent alive when the fox escapes, or 100 per cent dead when the fox is caught. Further—and this was a surprise to me—the kill is almost instantaneous, by a matter of a few seconds. By vivid contrast, as many of

825
your Lordships have said, shooting, trapping, gassing or poisoning leads in many cases to a long, lingering and cruel death and/or maiming.
My last thought is that if one endows the fox with human instincts and feelings that in reality it neither has nor deserves, which would you—transmogrified into a fox—prefer: to be hunted by hounds with a sporting chance of escaping unscathed, or to be shot, trapped, gassed or poisoned unawares, but with the prospect of an agonisingly slow death or permanent maiming? The question answers itself. That, I suggest, is at the heart of the real choice today.
The liberty factor has loomed larger with me the more I have contemplated the issue. Liberty is multifaceted, indivisible and priceless. It depends on tolerant restraint. It would be bizarre to me if, in an age of increasing awareness of real human rights, we succumbed to a moral majoritarianism—if it is that—on the issue, which undermines the very context in which their own freedom is enjoyed by that majority. Since the abolitionists have signally failed to discharge the onus on them of proving the relative cruelty of hunting, it follows that it would be absolutely wrong and woundingly intolerant to criminalise this age-old country pursuit. Far more is at stake in this debate than the future of hunting.
6.56 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, I believe this to be a sad day, even for those who like myself do not hunt. To most people outside, it must seem stupefyingly irrelevant that we are spending time considering this deplorable Bill instead of addressing the way in which we are getting bogged down in the mess in Iraq or seeking to sort out the increasingly urgent domestic issues that worry all of us, such as the lack of cleanliness in our hospitals, inadequately controlled immigration, all-pervading crime, the state of our railways and the Tube, the problems of Northern Ireland, the threat to the very independence of our country, and much else.
Many of us said what we thought about hunting in the debate on 12th March 2001. I did myself. We know all too well that for many Members in the other place, it is primarily a manifestation of class envy and dislike of toffs dressed up and on horseback. They are obsessed by the image of a few smart packs. They are indifferent to the fact that with most hunts, certainly in Wales, where I live, the reality is quite different. However, despite devolution, the Welsh Assembly is not allowed to decide for Wales on this issue; I cannot think why not. All that is massively financed by people, often foreigners, who dislike all country sports. If the Bill goes through, it will certainly be followed by well financed pressure to ban shooting and fishing. As a fisherman, I am gravely concerned about that.
Much is made of the issue of cruelty. Peter Hain is reported to have said on Sunday that the Commons has made it overwhelmingly clear that it wanted a ban
826
on the cruelty to animals. However, a ban on hunting would result in not less but more cruelty to foxes. Anyone living in the country knows that foxes have to be controlled. A hunt ends in the swift killing of a fox or its escape unscathed. The alternatives—poisoning, gassing, trapping or shooting—involve much more cruelty, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, pointed out.
The numbers of letters that we have all received show how bitter and distraught so many country people are. Surely it is wrong to pick on a minority who do no harm to others. There are many sports and activities that I dislike, but I do not see merit in trying to ban them. Banning hunting in England and Wales would have many lamentable results. Many hardworking men and women would be thrown out of work and many horses would probably have to be destroyed. I received a letter from a 16 year-old girl in Wales, who said:
"As the huntsmen will have lost their jobs they will not be able to afford to take each hound to the vet and have it humanely put to sleep…Instead it will have to be taken care of by themselves. This will be the hardest thing asked of them. How can they he expected to kill twenty to forty of their own hounds when they have bred, named, trained, got out of bed before dawn every morning to feed them is beyond me".
There will also be adverse effects on conservation and wildlife, particularly in the removal of small coverts and patches of gorse and thorn. I do not think that the proposals put forward by the Government and rejected by the other place did, or do, offer a reasonable alternative. Certainly there should be regulation. There has been regulation under the Independent Supervisory Authority for Hunting, under the chairmanship of Sir Ronald Waterhouse. Supervision must now be made compulsory. However, Mr Michael's proposals went much further. As he said on Report in the other place, the amended Bill would,
"only allow the hunting of foxes and mink in exceptional circumstances".—[Official Report,Commons, 30/6/03: col. 56.]
Hunting as we know it would have been brought to an end. I see little merit in our attempting to revive his proposals, which in any case would only be thrown out again by the other place. However, if we rewrite the Bill on sensible lines, stressing regulation, that may be a different matter.
Above all, I think it dreadful that this Parliament, actuated in large part by envy and hatred, should seek to put an end to hunting, which has for years past been an integral part of the life of the countryside and of our rural heritage and means so much to country people of all sorts and conditions. Parliament must, I believe, recognise what is reasonable for it to do and not try to exceed its proper authority. To continue to push people around and order them about, making ever more of them angry and frustrated, is not good sense. We must learn to leave people alone if they are not doing harm to others. We rightly treat murderers, rapists and thieves as criminals; we have no business to make hunting people criminals.
My inclination was to urge that we should reject this Bill and that this was one of the rare occasions when we should decline to give a Bill a Second Reading. However, I have respect for the views of those most

827
involved that it would be better to amend the Bill. The amendments will need to be drastic to make it sensible and it will not be easy. Practically everyone who has spoken agrees that the Bill is awful. Consequently, in order to amend it to make it a satisfactory Bill, it may need to be effectively rewritten. However, it must be done.
7.2 p.m.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I should think that the remark just made by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, that we must learn to leave people alone, will be very much echoed from all sides of the House. It was very much in contrast to the preceding speech of the noble Lord, Lord Corbett—who I see is no longer in his place—who seems to show all the blind prejudice against hunting that is typical of those who know nothing about hunting and very little about the countryside.
I have never hunted. My wife hunted with the Eglinton and with the Southdown and Eridge, where we have lived for many years. I have a short personal reminiscence. Two or three years ago, she and I, with our family, went to the Boxing Day meet in Lewes High Street, in Sussex, opposite the White Hart Hotel—which is known for the fact that it was there that Tom Paine wrote the many pamphlets which helped to stir up the French revolution. It was an extremely happy occasion on which antis and pros mixed with each other. Right in front of us were two children on their ponies—in ratcatchers, their ponies beautifully groomed—and in front of them their father, also on his horse and in ratcatchers. The anti next to me suddenly pushed his way forward and shouted at them, "Your father is a child abuser to let you go hunting". Their joy and excitement changed very quickly to fear. One of the ponies shied.
I thought to myself, what an extraordinary remark. Those kids were there primarily to enjoy the pleasure of a gallop on their pony, as my noble friend Lord Ferrers said; that is the real reason why they were there. They were excited. They wanted to follow hounds, but they were probably never going to see a fox. What they were going to do was, in the company of others, go over fences and hedges that were a bit more difficult than perhaps they would normally have done, which would challenge them and where there might be a bit of danger too. That is one reason why putting drag hunting in place of fox hunting does not work. Drag hunting is all pre-ordained and predestined, and inevitably there is no danger or excitement in it—which is why the children were there.
Although highly unlikely, those children might have seen a fox killed. As many others have said in this debate—most recently the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury—if a fox is killed, it is a matter of only seconds. Moreover, foxes have to be killed. They are at the top of their animal tree. No other single mammal is ever going to kill a fox. If they are not killed, there will be far too many of them. Living on the edge of the South Downs, I know exactly what they can do to young lambs. There is a chicken coop only 100 yards from my house that has been constantly emptied by a
828
fox. Every time there is a hole in the netting, the fox gets in and kills every hen in the coop, perhaps to eat just one of them. They are natural killers.
On that basis, I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who with all his usual intelligence tried to introduce on Second Reading a Bill which I guess is very different from the Bill for which he would have voted had he been in the other place a few months ago. On the question of cruelty, I do not think that it is in any sense proven that the cruelty of the killing of a fox by hounds is so heinous that it in any way justifies the wholesale stopping of hunting. I just do not believe that that is the case. It is much more quick and certain than shooting, gas, snares or poison. It is nothing like as cruel as, for example, putting a wild animal in a cage in a zoo, where it is very likely that the animal will in due course go mad; or playing for 10 or 15 minutes with a fish with a hook in its mouth and then putting the fish back into the river in order that the same thing may happen to it the following weekend.
The other point on which I seriously disagree with the noble Lord is his apparent view that the fact that this legislation is unenforceable is not an acceptable argument for going against it. That seems to me exactly the sort of thing that the American administration might have said at the end of the First World War when they introduced prohibition. Although a lot of people said that it was good arid important to stop people drinking, the prohibition was totally unenforceable. It certainly led to new riches for the Mafia. A few years later, however, it had to be abolished because it was unenforceable. Surely governments should think about whether laws are enforceable.
The chairman of our local hunt association went to talk to Chief Inspector Mike Flynn—formerly with the Sussex Police, two or three years ago, but now at the Home Office—and he said that, quite frankly, the legislation is unenforceable. Sussex Police are very relaxed about it all at the moment because they do not expect hunting ever to be banned.
Unfortunately, my wife and I have recently experienced two small burglaries. Our neighbours have also suffered two burglaries. We have told the police—who show proper concern and worry but absolutely no sign of catching the burglars. If I was to ring up the police and say, "I have just seen two people walking across the grass fields in front of my house with three dogs—two of them terriers—and I think that they may be going into the wood above us to try to catch a fox", I know what the police would do. They would laugh in my face. Perhaps they would be too polite and not actually laugh, but they would certainly do nothing about it. However, Clause 3(1)—under the heading "Hunting: assistance"—states:
"A person commits an offence if he knowingly permits land which belongs to him to be entered or used in the course of the commission of an offence under section 1",
which makes it an offence to hunt a wild animal with a dog. So as I read the Bill, if I do not ring up the police and say, "These people are walking on my land and

829
this is possibly in their minds", I would be committing an offence. It is hard to imagine anything quite as silly as that in government legislation.
The kindest thing we can do in this House is to get the noble Lord, Lord Whitty—we all have great respect for the noble Lord—out of the fix he clearly is in. I have no doubt that if he had been in the other place when Alun Michael's Bill first came forward, he would have voted for it. Now he has the difficulty of trying to persuade us to accept a Bill that I do not believe for a second the majority of the Labour Government believe in. The kindest thing to do, therefore, is to let the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, off the hook by changing the Bill back to something very close to what it was when it entered the Commons in order to make certain that hunting can go forward but in a regulated, clear and well defined manner.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, what are the benefits of passing the Hunting Bill? First, we end the uncivilised practice of killing mammals for sport, and killing them in a way that most rational people would deem to be cruel. In respect of foxes, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, in his report, using understatement of the most cultured kind, suggests that the kill at fox hunting,
"probably falls short of the standards we would expect for humane killing".
I am persuaded that that is a distinguished Treasury mandarin's way of saying that hunting is cruel. I am also conscious, as is Burns, that hounds are also imperilled by this sport. An example is the avoidable straying of hounds on to live railway lines when their minders, as so often, fail to follow the chase. But, of course, none of this need happen. We in the Chamber today have an opportunity once and for all to expunge this blot on the landscape of Wales and England's green and pleasant land. Hunting must be banned and replaced with drag hunting.
But what are the other benefits of freeing the countryside from the public nuisance of fox hunting and its associated hunt havoc? First, children happily playing in schoolyards and on village greens will no longer have to witness foxes being torn to shreds in front of their very eyes by hounds once again out of control—the responsibility of adults who should know better. Indeed, can it be right to parade such images of manmade violence in front of our children? Gone will be the trespass on to private property by hounds in pursuit of the fox, with the attendant hounding of farm animals and domestic pets. Is that not hooliganism by any other name which all of us would be quick to condemn in any other circumstances? Gone will be the indifference, sometimes the rudeness, and, yes, sometimes even the intimidation shown by huntsmen to distressed householders fearing the worst for life, limb and property when hounds trespass and maraud. Gone will be the over-running of railway lines imperilling passengers in trains and the dogs on the rails.
830
Gone will be the stopping up of narrow country lanes by the hunt and its car-borne supporters, interfering with an Englishman's right to move freely about his own country to reach his home, church or place of work. Gone will be the necessity of those seeking to exercise their lawful human rights having to appeal to the police to defend those rights. Wasting police time is a consequence of the hunt and its wayward practices. We shall all be better off when hunting is banned because police time will be freed to catch the kind of criminals who, for instance, broke into Norfolk farmer Tony Martin's house.
To conclude this point, let me make it quite plain that I expect neither difficulty in implementing the new ban nor a lack of compliance with it by the hunt. After all, for decades the hunting community has always told us that it is comprised of the most law-abiding members of the community. I believe them. Let the ban commence.
Our opponents sometimes charge us with wasting valuable parliamentary time in proposing such legislation. I agree that parliamentary time has been wasted on this issue as our opponents seek to frustrate the democratic will of the Commons, which has voted consistently and convincingly to bring in the ban. Time, indeed, could be better spent on, for instance, the Anti-social Behaviour Bill, on which some of our opponents are professed experts! But the remedy is this: let the proper procedures of the two Houses of Parliament take their course and if a ban is agreed, let our opponents acknowledge it as the law of the land and desist from wasting further parliamentary time. I, for one, wish to uphold the traditions of this House which, having advised the Commons, should submit to its democratic mandate.
One further benefit which ensues from the creation of the ban is that the Countryside Alliance might be encouraged to turn its energies to those more pressing challenges that confront rural Britain today. Hitherto, the alliance has shown itself obsessed with hunting, which is the sport of few and the bane of many, at the expense of tackling high priority issues such as jobs, transport and housing. It is time our opponents got their priorities sorted out.
The ban will have other beneficial consequences for followers of the hunt. First, it will encourage them to institute proper measures for picking up and disposing of fallen carcasses on a sound economic basis. The ban will also obviate the absurd and contradictory practice of building artificial earths to breed foxes to hunt. The disgusting practice of leaving the carcasses of dead sheep near to such earths exposes the rotten contradictions of this rebarbative sport which pollutes the very countryside that we are told our opponents claim to hold so dear.
Indeed, that brings me to the vexed question of the stewardship of the countryside and the maintenance and improvement of its environment. We are threatened by the hunt lobby that the ban will result in the churlish abandonment of their responsibilities to mind the land, even though they are richly rewarded by government and European grants to nurse the countryside. It is quite

831
insupportable for them in a fit of pique to say that they will neglect those responsibilities and mess up their own backyards.
When, further, I am told that a fox hunting ban will destroy community life and lead to lives of lonely desperation in the countryside, I am dumbfounded. It is an unhealthy and bizarre culture that blames the poor old fox for the destruction of our countryside, its customs and its communities.
One final lament—the fear that jobs will be lost in the countryside as a result of the ban. Burns estimates that as few as 700 jobs are directly related to fox hunting, as against the 9,000 jobs lost each year due to the contraction of the agricultural industry. Burns hazards further that within a decade those jobs will be easily absorbed. My prediction is that many of those jobs will not be lost and the remainder absorbed quickly. The tourism and leisure industries, especially those linked to equine activities, are due for exponential expansion over the coming years. In addition, the switch to drag hunting, which is already happening in Scotland, will help retain jobs currently associated with fox hunting. The future is rosy if only those with rose-tinted spectacles would doff their glasses to see the changing world about them.
Nowhere in Britain is life changing so fast as in the countryside. Many in rural Britain are indeed showing the entrepreneurial spirit to reshape its economic, cultural and social landscape, dispensing with outmoded practices such as fox hunting and adopting a fresh outlook on life and work in the countryside. These new bloods recognise that the agricultural industry barely sustains 2 per cent of jobs in rural Britain today. They see that we must look elsewhere for new jobs and industries, but I have to say that, whenever the countryside is discussed in this House, 98 per cent of the speeches concentrate on agriculture at the expense of the countryside's other new and vital industries and the real challenges facing rural Britain today.
I would like to thank all those who wrote to me such heartfelt letters on both sides of the argument. I have studied each letter in turn.
We all, in this House and beyond, should now bend our energies to help rural Britain reshape itself into a land that we can all cherish, whether as visitors, tourists, commuters, workers, householders or landowners. In doing so, we must promulgate the wise philosophy that guides all humane and sensible change—that to stay the same, we must learn to change. The historic liberation of the fox from gratuitous cruelty enshrined in the Bill will, I believe, propel us on to that common path of jobs and prosperity, and instil in us all an abiding respect for the natural world about us.
7.21 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, got a kick out of making that speech, because it certainly did not do a thing for me.
832
Someone recently said to me that if foxes looked like rats we would not be having this argument. Be that as it may, when the subject of a hunting Bill first came up in this House, I was given valuable advice by the late, much-loved but tough Lord Cocks, who was Chief Whip in the then Mr Callaghan's Labour government. "You can do no better," he said, "than to copy the Minister of Agriculture, Mr Tom Williams, who spoke on behalf of Mr Attlee's Labour government in favour of hunting when that subject was debated at that time in the House of Commons".
I did exactly what Lord Cocks suggested. In fact, I read Tom Williams's speech to your Lordships as, in my opinion, his arguments could not be bettered. At the end, I asked what had happened in the intervening years to cause the present Labour Government to totally change their tune. Of course I did not get a reply, I suppose because there was not one. Under the circumstances, I really feel sorry for the Minister, who has to reply this evening to the knowledgeable speeches that we have all been listening to, with one or two exceptions.
I wonder whether I could persuade the Minister to talk about hounds instead of dogs. In the context of today's business, it grates on me every time I hear "hunting with dogs". They are hounds. I also want to say that to produce the argument about bear baiting is simply pathetic. It also grates on me when I repeatedly hear hunting equated with cruelty. Dr D.R. Wise, the distinguished Cambridge veterinary surgeon defines cruelty as the deliberate infliction of unnecessary suffering.
Starting from that definition, Dr Wise notes that mainstream neurobiological thinking supports the view that animals can indeed suffer, but in a manner limited by their restricted conceptual repertoire, which will not allow them to contemplate past woes in the abstract, worry about the future or understand the meaning of death. Following in the footsteps of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, I point out that throughout the Bill the Government ignore the fact that animal and human brains differ greatly, and that animal fear is not equivalent to human fear. A hunted animal will be instinctively programmed to run from a threat, but it will not appreciate that it has been uniquely targeted or that its life is threatened.
The Government claim to be legislating in a principled manner. Why then have they prejudged the issue with respect to deer hunting and coursing? Why has hunting been singled out for such treatment when other culling methods and non-quarry wildlife species have been ignored? How can the uncontrolled destruction and associated suffering of wildlife caused by cats be deemed more acceptable than the vastly lesser, highly targeted and accountable deaths occasioned by hounds? Does Ann Widdecombe, whom in most ways I greatly admire, ever pause to dwell on the agony incurred by her darling cats, which may play the dance of death with all the birds and mice that, unfortunately for them, cross their path?

833
The Bill is negative in every respect and has nothing whatever to recommend it. It will not reduce cruelty to foxes but merely ensure that the only natural way of controlling the fox population, and indeed the deer and hare population, is made illegal. More wild animals will die slowly and in pain from the effects of trapping, poisoning and poor marksmanship than ever suffer in the hunting field.
The Bill will make potential criminals of hundreds of thousands of ordinary law-abiding people who understand the quarry that they hunt and conserve. It will place thousands of rural jobs at risk, at the very time when sources of rural employment are needed more than ever before. As my noble friend Lord Hurd said, it may place chief constables and their staff in an impossible position, diverting scarce resources away from fighting crime to attempt to police the unpoliceable.
The world is in a dreadful state, yet here we are discussing the possible death of hunting. What an indictment of this Government.
7.26 p.m.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, I want to make two points very briefly. One is general, the other particular. The general point is this: it has become clear over the months and years during which the issue of hunting has been debated that it has become, and perhaps always was, a moral issue seen as having wide, indeed universal, implications, for man's relation with other animals and his freedom to pursue his chosen way of life without infringing the liberty of others. As is the way with moral issues, there are irreconcilably opposed views, passionately held, neither of which can be proved correct.
Like most other noble Lords, I have been involved over the past years in matters of public policy concerned with irreconcilable moral values. We all understand how difficult that is. However, regardless of the subject matter, it has become clear to me over the years that regulation is almost always to be preferred to prohibition. I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, when he suggests that it is possible—indeed necessary—for good legislation that there be, if not agreement between people of opposing views, nevertheless a kind of consensus about what will work and do as legislation.
I therefore very much hope that, even at this rather dismal stage of our proceedings, there may be some way in which we can go back to the concept of the middle way, with regulation rather than any prohibition or unregulated hunting. As has been said, a good deal of work has been done in the direction of regulation by my friend Sir Ronald Waterhouse.
There could be a regulatory system within which hunts must apply for a licence—how easy or difficult it may be for them to get licences would have to be decided—with mechanisms of monitoring and inspection in place, and the power to revoke a licence should the conditions of granting it be infringed. Liberty would be preserved, with the reassurance that no outrage would be permitted. In such a system, the
834
criteria for granting or revoking a licence should be clearly set out and widely publicised. That would ensure that merely disliking a habit or way of life was not being used as a reason for criminalising it.
That was my first and general point. My second one is particular and pragmatic, and I shall repeat it despite the fierce words of the Minister. Among all the evidence that has been received and studied by your Lordships, the most telling is that from police forces, many of which have said that they possess neither the resources nor the physical ability to prevent hunting with dogs should people decide to continue it, whatever the law. So strong is the feeling among those who oppose the ban that there will be many who would prefer to incur the risk of criminal prosecution rather than abandon their chosen way of life and recreation. My point is that the risk would be very small. The police and the law could be made fools of and that cannot be the outcome that Parliament wants to bring about.
7.32 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, despite the gentle hint from the Minister, I want to touch briefly on the problems of enforcing a ban. As the Bill is currently drafted, the primary offence of hunting is sketchily defined. It is not clear who is liable for prosecution. Is it the huntsman, who may be up to half a mile from the hounds, the whipper-in, the masters, the followers or the hunt chairman? How will the guilty person be identified if all hunting people copy hunt saboteurs and wear balaclavas?
Will prosecutors be able to assimilate sufficient evidence to secure conviction? Barristers have argued that the standard "It wasn't me" or wasn't hunting" defence remains as strong as for any other offence, and the countryside will clam up if locals are prosecuted.
The matter will be further complicated by drag hunting, which the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, would like to see. A conviction surely cannot be secured if the accused testify that they intended to hunt the line of a drag, but the hounds smelt a real fox and killed it.
Equally, what happens if dogs are used to hunt rabbits, which are exempted, as my noble friend Lady Byford said, and they switch to pursuing a hare? Would that constitute an offence? How will the police prove intent? Indeed, how many enforcement officers could distinguish between a hunted rabbit and a hare?
Rural crime is increasing and a hunting ban raises serious issues for police resources. The House has been told how a ban fills many police officers with dread, because of the practical implications of enforcing it. Would it be practical to stop and arrest people on horseback and seize the hounds and horses that they used to commit the offence? No police force has the resources to do that, nor would it be able to accommodate horses or a pack of hounds to the required welfare standards until the case came to trial.
The alternative approach of reporting offenders for summons is also impractical. It will be impossible to ask 30 or more people on horseback to wait for officers to report them for summons and deal with all the

835
evidence that must be gathered during an interview. Della Cannings, Chief Constable of North Yorkshire, recently said:
"There would have to be a growth in police resources, and I'm not sure that council taxpayers would be prepared to pay the extra money required to meet it".
I sympathise with my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry over his two burglaries, yet if hunting were banned and the police were to try to enforce the law, how would a member of the public feel if there were no response to a 999 call for a burglary or assault, because all available resources were employed to stop hunting?
The enormities of policing a ban become apparent when one considers that there are more than 300 packs of registered hounds in England and Wales, regularly involving 100,000 people, plus an estimated 200,000 individuals who work lurchers and terriers. That will create an enormous surveillance task for the police. As most rural areas are remote, the chances of hunting being reported are slim, and the chances of any officers reaching those areas even slimmer, especially on a Saturday, when a football match is on.
For legislation to be successful, it must have the consent of those whose behaviour it seeks to govern. A large and significant minority in this country believes that hunting is morally acceptable; that it is an efficient method of species management; and that it derives benefits for the rural environment. The members of that minority will regard the legislation as oppressive and do everything in their power to discredit it by showing that it is unworkable and unenforceable. They will flout it, deliberately and publicly, and make matters as bureaucratically difficult for the police and prosecuting authorities as they possibly can.
Each hound might be owned by a different person, giving varying permissions about its use; everyone involved could dress identically and carry a horn; horses and jackets might be swapped between riders during the course of the day; land-use permissions could be noted and respected between those prepared to allow drag hunting or exercise only, and those prepared to defy the legislation.
Police forces in counties with a strong hunting tradition could find their already-strained resources stretched to breaking point. Community relations would be broken, with the police bearing much of the mistrust and ill feeling. Farmers invite the hunt over their land because it is part of their life. The police will be seen to be stopping it.
There appears to be a growing will to revolt. Thousands have already signed The Hunting Declaration, stating their intention to continue to hunt in defiance of the law. Tens of thousands more, many of whom have never hunted, have said that they will take part in protest hunts.
Deep anger is felt by much of middle England towards the Government for allowing themselves to be cornered by Back-Benchers on this issue. In the event of a ban, they will find themselves opposed by well
836
organised, entrenched minorities, battling to save their way of life. They should not underestimate the strength of rural solidarity.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Grabiner: My Lords, I should begin by declaring a non-interest. I have never hunted in my life. Indeed, I have racked my brains and I have no recollection of ever having sat on a horse.
Like other noble Lords, I find it surprising that we spend so much time in this House and in another place debating this subject. One may perhaps be forgiven for thinking that there are other, more pressing issues that are more deserving of valuable parliamentary time.
I can be brief, because everything that I intended to say has already been said very eloquently, if I may respectfully say so, in particular by my noble friends Lady Mallalieu and Lord Bragg, the noble Lords, Lord Hurd and Lord Carlile, and other noble Lords. As I understand it, my noble friend Lady Mallalieu and her family spend their weekends in the season hunting. She has apparently enjoyed that experience all her life. The point I wish to make, and the principal reason why I decided to speak in the debate, is that my noble friend's pastime has, since time immemorial, been entirely lawful. The effect of the Bill would not be to render that activity simply unlawful: it will constitute a criminal offence punishable by a fine.
Leaving aside the fact that, these days, we rightly look for ways of decriminalising behaviour where appropriate, I find it difficult to stomach the proposition that the lifelong behaviour of my noble friend should be regarded as so repugnant to our moral values as to be declared to be criminally unlawful. Our debate is about private liberty and there is no justification at this time for extending the criminal law into that sphere of activity.
I accept that it may be right and proper for previously lawful behaviour to be criminalised, provided there is a genuine consensus in society that such behaviour has become morally unacceptable by the standards of the day. That is presumably a reason for cock-fighting and bear-baiting being criminalised. It is also the reason that in 1991 this House, in its judicial role, declared that rape within marriage was a criminal offence, despite the fact that, in the middle of the 17th century, Sir Matthew Hale had expressed a different view on the subject.
In the case of hunting, there is no consensus. There is a polarisation of views within our society. even if that is not fully reflected in the voting in another place. A number of references have been made to the importance of bowing down to another place. The implication from a number of observations made by some noble Lords is to the effect that this House is not part of our parliamentary structure.
I should add that, like other noble Lords, I have received a huge postbag on this subject over the past several weeks—literally hundreds of letters. For what it is worth, I have received one single letter in support of the Bill. In its present form, I believe that this is a grubby and illiberal Bill.
7.41 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, it is hard to follow the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, but I shall do my best. I shall not speak in defence of hunting this evening but in defence of the principle that, on the whole, people should be free to act as they think fit so long as there is no overwhelming public interest to the contrary. In my view, governments should steer clear of legislating on matters which are largely a matter of private taste or personal moral judgment.
Personally, I have never hunted; I have never fished; I have never shot at anything. In the unlikely event of my acquiring a large country estate, I might try to prevent anyone hunting over it. But that would be me exercising my moral judgment over the use of my own acres, rather than forced obedience to government thought police.
There are some circumstances under which a ban on hunting can be justified. We are all aware of national and international bans on the hunting of endangered species, such as is the case with whaling. But the population of rural foxes shows no sign of decline and that of urban foxes is rising dramatically. Interestingly, it seems that hares are more numerous in places where coursing is practised than where there is no coursing.
So where is the public interest—the peace and tranquillity of the realm for which prayers are said every working day in your Lordships' House—to be found to justify the Bill? If one turns to the legal treatment of other matters on which public opinion is divided on moral and ethical grounds, then the contrast with the ill-judged effort to ban hunting is very striking.
There can be little doubt that, in the minds of all but the most extreme animal liberationists, abortion is a matter of greater moral weight than hunting. At the same time, whether or not doctors should he permitted to perform abortions is clearly a proper matter for action by government in their prime role as the defender of the life and well-being of the citizen. Many people in this country had, and still have, strong moral and religious objections to legalised abortion. Yet current law does not prohibit abortion but creates a legal definition of the circumstances in which it may take place.
Does it make sense for the Government to ban hunting, while the law—correctly, in my opinion—enables women to obtain abortions? And what about the Government's present intention to widen the circumstances in which people can drink and gamble? Surely drunkenness and gaming are at least as morally repugnant as hunting and do far more damage to individuals and families alike. So why is the one to be forbidden and the others to be encouraged?
I repeat that I am not here to defend hunting but to defend the principle that the opinion of some—even of a majority, if indeed it still is a majority—that hunting is immoral is no reason to ban it. I do not have the polemical gifts that Milton displayed in the Areopagitica, but I share his views on the damage done by puritanical legislation and his plea for tolerance. I am very happy
838
to be in the company of the noble Baroness. Lady Warnock, my noble friend Lord Carlile, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, the noble Lord. Lord Bragg, and my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury, to name but a few of those who have touched on this aspect of the subject. I shall support a Bill for the regulation of hunting, but I shall never support a Bill to ban it.
7.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, who served us well in Surrey county over a number of years. One of the delights of my life as Bishop of Guildford was the year I spent as president of the County Agricultural Society, which meant that I presided over the county show. For me, it was a year of learning about some of the issues that confront us in rural life today. It is one reason that I am speaking today.
I make no apology for the fact that this will be a long debate. We should not be ashamed of that. This is an important moral issue that divides our society, and Parliament is here to discuss and debate the concerns of the people. Therefore, let us not flagellate ourselves for giving a length of time to a matter which is of real concern to many people. The moral issue is clearly not only central—how we relate to the animal world, to the ecological systems that surround it and to life itself—it is complex, and the issue before us is unresolved.
What does one do when one has an unresolved moral issue? We on these Benches are all too aware that at present in the Church of England we face a number of unresolved moral dilemmas. What one does not do is close down the debate. An Act which seeks to give one opinion primacy in law is closing down the debate. In an open and civilised society, the task of Parliament is to resist the temptation to close down the debate; rather, it is to provide the environment and atmosphere in which we might persist with it.
Therefore, I believe that it is unwise to legislate in this environment. I do not consider that we in this House helped ourselves when, on the previous occasion, we did not take the opportunity to seek a stronger form of regulatory culture. We might have helped the process of finding a way forward in this matter had we done so.
Sadly, the issue has become a campaigning one, with sectional interests on both sides easily stereotyped: the long-haired Lefties, who are for animal rights; the bucolic aristocracy, who are for hunting. Parliament gets drawn into a lobbying debate, and that is a very dangerous position for us, as part of the legislative process.
I want to make a further moral point about law in a free society. I want to pick up the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in relation to civil disobedience. I hope that in his summing-up he will also make the point that law-making should always seek to be with the consent of the communities to which it applies. It is dangerous for Parliament to try to impose on unwilling communities laws that they do not understand, based on a morality that they do not

839
accept, and with language around the issue, such as calling things "cruel", which they do not accept. We should not impose such languages upon them. Is it not our duty in Parliament as a whole and our fundamental moral responsibility to preserve the liberties of the people? Is that not what we are here for?
Frankly, I am not interested in opinion polls around the issue: whether 59 per cent of people are in favour or against is irrelevant. Minority opinions have a right to look to Parliament to have themselves defended in an open, democratic and civilised society. That is not only a pragmatic point; in my view, it is a moral point about our duty as legislators.
How are we to deal with these matters? I suggest gently that we have to find a way of returning to licensing and regulation. which introduces the issues of transparency and accountability and the possibility that those who are involved in hunting can continue to adapt their practices in the light of the changing cultures and circumstances of life. Is not that a wiser way forward? Should not we, in this House, without being railroaded around issues about whether or not we have been elected, stand firm and insist that Parliament does its duty properly and constitutionally?
7.50 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I address your Lordships tonight in the firm belief that we are discussing one of the greatest threats to personal liberty that this country has ever witnessed. I know that many other people in this country share that very firm but simplistic view.
I declare an interest to the extent that my wife and 12 year-old daughter hunt. I do not and never have, but as I have said in other speeches in your Lordships' House, as I have become more embroiled in the hunting debate, I have become more and more impressed by hunting as a means of controlling foxes and of providing the community with a wonderful community spirit and sport.
What struck me, and. clearly, members of the press judging by what I have read, is that as the debate on hunting with hounds has escalated, the evidence against it as a cruel and unnecessary activity has become weaker to a point where now those who want to implement such a ban are struggling to substantiate such claims. Now, their only argument is that there is a majority in the House of Commons. Frankly, having listened to some of the speeches in the House of Commons, that makes me want to fight even more strongly to protect something which I regard as an integral part of the British countryside. I remember very well when Robin Hanbury-Tenison, the last director of what was the British Field Sports Society, said,
"The longer the debate on hunting continues and the facts become increasingly clear to the people of this country, the greater support it will receive".
Certain noble Lords have said tonight that we all have entrenched positions and that speeches will not have an effect. I am quite certain that mine will not but clearly something that has been said has had an effect.
840
Perhaps we should give credit to the Countryside Alliance. In the speeches made to date, those who have mentioned the alliance have done so in not particularly complimentary terms. I take the opportunity to express my great regard for the way that it has managed the hunting debate and persuaded people that there is another argument to it. It is more complex than people thought, but clearly, judging by the change in opinion in this country, it has done hunting a great service.
Despite that and the fact that three independent inquiries have failed to come up with evidence to condemn hunting, including that commissioned by this Government—the report under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Burns—the Government continue to press on with legislation which, frankly, is an affront to the whole process of democracy. It strikes me as incomprehensible that in a society such as ours there is not sufficient tolerance to allow such an activity to continue, which means so much to so many even if they are in a minority.
As I have said, I do not hunt, but many people I know from around my home in the north of England, who are from all walks of life, simply live For their hunting. I do not exaggerate; they live for it. It is the most important thing in their lives. I refer to respectable people, who respect the law. I find it quite astonishing and, as my noble friend Lord Hurd said in his exceptional speech, would deplore the prospect of the Bill driving a wedge between law-abiding citizens and the police. As has been mentioned, but is important, the fact that 400,000 people took the time and had the courage to march in London is a testament to the anger and betrayal they felt.
When the Government first embarked on their attempt to resolve this issue, the original Bill appeared to incorporate tolerance combined with facts, with one notable exception: it excluded deer hunting and hare coursing on the grounds that there was already sufficient evidence of cruelty to preclude them from the process of regulation. However, subsequently. when challenged to produce such evidence, the Government have failed to do so. Indeed, Professor Bateson—my noble friend Lord King touched on this—to whose evidence the Government resorted to introduce the ban on stag hunting, went on to say that anyone who used his evidence to reach such conclusions would be regarded as scientifically illiterate. If that is the case, I ask the Minister to tell the House in winding-up what was the evidence that the Government had to prevent stag hunting from being part of the original Bill. I can assume only that there must have been evidence other than that produced by Professor Bateson.
The two tests which hunts would have had to have passed in order to receive a licence to continue—namely, "utility" and "least suffering"—as I understand it, were based on the report of the Burns inquiry. However, the original definition of utility—this is very important—included not simply the requirement for a hunt to demonstrate its role as a means of controlling a pest but also those essential elements of the social, cultural,

841
economic and environmental aspects of hunting to which the Burns inquiry attached so much importance and on which so much time was spent.
It seems, therefore, quite extraordinary that the Government allowed the term "utility" to be redefined in Committee to a level to which only pest control would qualify as a means of acceptability. So by doing that—the Minister, Alun Michael, voted for the amendments against his own Bill—the Government shunned the Burns inquiry and ignored so much of the evidence that had been so painstakingly presented at the Minister's request at the three-day Portcullis House hearings.
It became abundantly clear that, despite promises of fair play, the Minister had every intention of selling hunting short by allowing his Bill to become a ban in everything but name as virtually no hunt would have been able to qualify for registration. I believe there is a myth that the original government Bill, the one which was not hijacked by Messrs Banks and Kaufman, was a Bill that this House could have lived with. I do not think that it was. I think hunting was sold down the river by the Government and the Minister.
Furthermore, so far as concerns the test of least suffering, further amendments in Committee resulted in hunts having to prove significantly less suffering—that is very different—which is an almost impossible task. So, in effect, an automatic bias against the Bill was introduced.
I hope we have no crocodile tears from Ministers when they say that they are sorry that the original Bill was hijacked. I do not believe for one moment that that original Bill would have supported in any way the basic principles to which the Minister adhered when he first embarked upon this mission.
We had the evidence from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, which was presented at Portcullis House, and the arguments from scientists, from vets and from Exmoor. Noble Lords who have not read the presentation from the National Park Committee on Exmoor, should do so. It adds another extremely interesting dimension to the argument. Most importantly, we had the pleas from those whose livelihoods depend on hunting and those to whom the whole process means so much. All that demands that we reconsider the whole issue in a thoroughly comprehensive way.
We must not allow sentimentality, coupled with that basic error of allowing the human thought process to be confused with natural animal instincts and behaviour to compromise or cloud our deliberations. Furthermore, we must seek consistency and practicality and, above all, avoid bad law. As my noble friend Lady Trumpington said, why should rats be treated differently from foxes? Why should cats hunt mammals and birds but hounds not foxes? Why should we be allowed to chase a rabbit but not a hare?
The management of the countryside, in whatever capacity, is not a simple matter. It is not a question of either/or. Methods and customs have developed over
842
centuries through trial and error. What is right in one set of circumstances may be different in another. We should respect that. Your Lordships should uphold the principle of democracy, not base their arguments, as too many others have, on class warfare and battles of the past. We must reconstruct a Bill that allows all forms of hunting to continue, subject to a well-defined and enforceable code.
8.1 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I am happy to follow the noble Earl, Lord Peel, in two respects. I agree with two things he said. First, the consideration of the Bill in this House should pay attention to the interests of democracy. I shall explain in a moment why I believe that this Bill does exactly that.
The second service he gave to the House was to make it clear that for the pro-hunting fraternity there would be no Bill from the Government limiting hunting—whether or not under licence—which would be acceptable to your Lordships' House. That is in marked distinction to what the noble Baroness, speaking from the Front Bench for the Opposition, said at the beginning of the debate. It bears a great deal of relation to reality. The fact is that there is no Bill that your Lordships as a whole would accept, but this Bill has come to us from the other place and is the one which we must consider.
I want to look first at whether the Government are right to bring the Bill before Parliament. Secondly, I want to examine whether this is an appropriate moment for Parliament to be considering the issue. Thirdly, I want to ask what should happen if the two Houses fail to agree.
Taking the first issue first, this debate is unavoidable. The party currently in power has been elected twice since 1997, on both occasions winning very large margins in the House of Commons. My noble friend Lord Corbett referred earlier to the 1997 election manifesto. The 2002 election manifesto stated:
"The House of Commons elected in 1997 made clear its wish to ban fox-hunting. The House of Lords took a different view (and reform has been blocked). Such issues are rightly a matter for a free vote and we will give the new House of Commons an early opportunity to express its view.
We will then enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on this issue".
That is what we are being asked to do with the Bill today, because the Bill is the fulfilment to the letter of that election manifesto commitment.
That takes us to my second question: are there not any more important issues for us to debate? Here I detect an uncanny resemblance to arguments used in this House and in another place when animal cruelty issues were being debated in the 19th century. In 1825, for example, a Mr Gordon opposed a Bill to outlaw bear baiting, on the grounds that it was,
"petty legislation, when questions of so much more importance were before the House".
The abolition of bull baiting was opposed because,
"the sport… cultivates the qualities of a certain species of dogs, which affords as much pleasure to their owners as greyhounds do to others".

843
I shall go no further down that road, however, because I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, that there is no direct parallel between the animal cruelty barbarities of the 19th century and present day hunting. However, there is an immense wealth of evidence that deliberate cruelty is inflicted in the name of sport by certain hunts.
I am sure I am not the only Member of your Lordships' House who has had a mass of letters from people asking us to support the Bill and giving evidence of some terrible things that have happened. I give an example from a lady who writes from the Isle of Wight, referring to the Isle of Wight Hunt:
"Worst of the illegal activities I witnessed was terrier men digging out a live fox and throwing it to the hounds, who tore it apart. This was in Combley Wood, near Havenstreet, where I also saw a fox being released from a sack taken from a Hunt van, just before the hounds arrived on the scene. I found a badger set near Brook in the West Wight whose entrances were blocked with large quantities of earth stamped down heavily by men's boots, and reported it to the police who were following the Hunt.
I witnessed a number of instances of the Hunt trespassing on private property. The worst case was when several hounds strayed into the RSPCA's animal shelter… and had to be locked up".
The description goes on and on.
The third issue I wish to touch on concerns the role of this House—
Viscount Astor: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that issue, he has a particular interest in football. Indeed, he has an interest in the behaviour of fans. We all know occasionally that football fans behave in a way they should not. That is no reason to ban football.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: No, my Lords, but it is a reason why I was prepared to sit through the only all-night sitting at which I have been in this House to pass the Act dealing with football hooliganism in order to curb the activities of those hooligans. If by getting this Bill through we shall get rid of the hooligans in hunting, that will be time well spent.
The third issue I wish to touch on concerns the role of this House in considering this legislation and our relations with the other place. I shall defend to the death our right to consider this Bill in detail and, if a majority agrees, to send it back amended to the other place. That is what we do in this House, and we do it well. We do not, however, have the authority to block this Bill or to deny the other place the final word on the content of the Bill.
My understanding of the constitutional position is exactly as expressed by Gerald Kaufman:
"Let us be clear about what will happen after the Bill leaves the House"—
that is, the House of Commons—
"tonight. According to any interpretation whatever of the Salisbury convention, the other place"—
that is, your Lordships' House—
"must accept a Government Bill that has been passed by the House of Commons; it must accept any Bill that has been passed by a majority of the House of Commons; and, under the Salisbury convention, it must accept the fulfilment of a manifesto commitment. On each of those criteria—by the doctrine of leading Conservative, the Marquess of Salisbury—it would be out of the
844
question for another place to block the Bill…It is now for the whole of Parliament to respect the will of the people, as in a manifesto commitment, and for this Bill to become law and to be implemented as soon as possible".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/7/03; cols. 1331–32.]
On the question of implementation, I hope that when the noble Viscount responds to the debate at the end of the evening, he will make it clear that the Conservative Party is under no circumstances prepared to condone the sort of law-breaking of which certain Peers have warned us in the debate.
My noble friend Lord Corbett rightly made the point that a majority of rural constituencies have been represented by Labour MPs since 1997. Those are presumably the people whom the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater—whom I am delighted to see in his place—described in a somewhat infelicitous phrase as "MPs of narrow background".
He could perhaps have reminded your Lordships that among those voting for a total ban on 30th June were six senior Conservative MPs, presumably MPs riot of narrow background. They included John Taylor, Roger Gale, David Atkinson, Sir Teddy Taylor and—most eloquent of all—Ann Widdecombe. She spoke for many of the hundreds of people who have written to me begging me to support the Bill, when she said in that debate:
"if the Bill comes to fruition, we shall be living in a more civilised and kinder society than the one in which we live now. I would be the first to accept that it is necessary to kill foxes, and the first to accept that an argument of necessity can be made for killing; other species. However, at the beginning of the 21st century, the fact that people should want to make a sport and gain pleasure out of it absolutely beggars belief"—[Official Report, Commons, 30/6/03; col. 103]
I agree with her.
8.10 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, it is bad luck on the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, to be sandwiched between two Earls. I find his reference to the all-night sitting on the Bill on football hooligans interesting. I also took part in that debate because I thought that that Bill was another piece of illiberal and petty legislation. had not the blindest effect on football hooligans; it is just another piece in the armoury of our present illiberal lords and masters.
I have an interest to declare: I have hunted. Finally, when I fell off and broke too many bones, I gave up. I have enjoyed it enormously. I shall even produce a marginally risqué story. There is a piece of country in Saddington Vale which is straight off pub table tats, with its cut and laid hedges and its beautiful Leicestershire turf. The hounds were going along looking as though they had been painted by Stubbs or Gainsborough and this gel said to me: "It is better than an orgasm and it lasts a hell of a lot longer".
That is what hunting does to you: it has nothing to do with killing foxes; it is to do with pure adrenaline and excitement. Landing from a big drop fence on the landing side when you are not sure what you are going to do, and at which in cold blood you would never have dreamt of looking—that is the thrill about it. That is why it has inspired so much British art. In fact, it has inspired

845
the only true school of British painting: Wootton, Stubbs, Seymour, Gainsborough, Lionel Edwards and Munnings, to name but a few.
It is also interesting that the Government have been shown an especially strong opinion that the Bill goes against the Human Rights Act 1998. I sincerely hope that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, read that opinion and passed it before his legal advisers to ensure that he was right and it was wrong before he signed the Bill off as being compatible with the ECHR conditions. If it is not, it would be totally outrageous to use the Parliament Act.
I hasten to add that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, has got the Salisbury convention completely wrong. It was signed and agreed when this House had a massive majority of hereditary Peers who have now gone and the conditions are now completely different. This House is perfectly entitled to send back legislation and say to the Government of the day, "You have the Parliament Act; that is what it is there for. If that is what you want to do, use it". This House has the right to do that.
My next remark is for the benefit of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, who announced that hunting was illegal in Ireland. In the only European country to ban fox hunting, it was brought about by a tobacco-detesting vegetarian called Adolf Hitler. If he had not worn jack boots, he would have been a perfect member of certain political parties that we know in this House. He loved eating raw swedes, hated tobacco and banned foxhunting. It is very interesting that such odd bedfellows are made.
It is also interesting that the Bishops' Bench has been solidly as one in this debate. It is unique for the Church of England to agree on practically everything. I believe that the last time the Anglican Bishops in your Lordships' House were solid on an issue was on a Bill to abolish capital punishment for writing your name on London Bridge. The whole Bishops' Bench voted against the Bill. Every single Bishop has said that this is a moral issue and that we have a right to human liberty.
Must we really make girl grooms lose their jobs so that Gerald Kaufman can feel a glow of satisfaction and allow Tony Banks his token worship? I use the words "token worship", because he said that the Bill was a matter of tokenism and not about cruelty. Is it right that farriers will be impoverished to make Gerald Kaufman feel a glow of self-satisfaction and to allow Tony Banks his token worship? Will hunt servants lose their houses to make Gerald Kaufman feel a glow of self-satisfaction and to allow Tony Banks his token worship? That is what Her Majesty's present advisers have come to. It is a pretty rotten state.
We could easily have lived with, and we would have been wise to live with, properly regulated hunting. But this is an attack on the liberties of people for something that does no harm to humankind whatever and does a lot to preserve the countryside. It is interesting to note that, 20 years ago, the Porchester report said that the welfare of deer on Exmoor depended on the
846
continuation of stag hunting. Ten years after stag hunting finished on Exmoor in 1800 there were no stags. They were then reintroduced for the Devon and Somerset stag hunts to hunt, and they have thrived and prospered ever since.
We are trying to do something that will be illiberal, will harm animal welfare and will probably contravene the Human Rights Act. Well done the Government.
8.17 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I very much regret that this "grubby and illiberal" Bill—to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner—should be placed before the House at this time, when there are so many pressing policies and matters to be attended to. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, this House will not wreck the Bill; the Bill that the Government wanted was wrecked by a rampaging House of Commons and a gutless Government who gave way to it. They have now introduced a Bill that they did not intend to have. The Minister's accusation, therefore, falls very flat.
The Bill is not really about cruelty to animals. If it were, it would be much more widely drawn to include all blood sports, including angling, and other cruel treatment. Ritual slaughter, kosher and halal, for example, would be included in a cruelty to animals Bill. The Bill is spiteful, cowardly and aimed at a particular section of the community whom the promoters of the legislation hate, but who are not numerous or influential enough to be perceived as a threat to the Government and new Labour.
It is odd that there was a deafening silence from the animal rights lobby and supporters of the Bill when some 9 million cattle were unnecessarily slaughtered, in many cases with unwarranted cruelty, during the foot and mouth disease crisis. I repeat, 9 million. I suppose that, if the Bill is defeated and fox hunting continues, about 25,000 foxes will be destroyed a year—foxes that are pests. That is against 9 million useful animals slaughtered unnecessarily without a word of protest from the animal lovers.
Those foxes will probably be killed more humanely than were the cattle. That was animal genocide, perpetrated by the Government, allegedly to deal with foot and mouth disease, although the alternative of large-scale vaccination was available. Furthermore, the banning of hunting is unlikely to be of much help to foxes, as we have heard already this afternoon. The most likely outcome is that there will be mass killing and the eventual extermination of the species in the countryside. No doubt the same fate will overtake those foxes that escape to the urban environment—after they have eaten a few cats and other pests or even attacked small children.
The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, told us that Hitler was an animal lover and banned fox hunting. The result has already been described: foxes are hardly ever seen in Germany today. They have been virtually exterminated.
With regard to the Bill's passage through the House, I hope that noble Lords will not be intimidated by the claim by Members of another place and, indeed,

847
people in this House who ought to know better, that this House has no right to frustrate the will of the elected House of Commons. That will no longer wash. The Commons had the opportunity radically to reform this House—and turned it down. It was not this House that turned it down, but the House of Commons. That House preferred to opt for virtually the status quo. This House is the only second Chamber that we have. It has now been reformed and because of that it is more respectable—some of us warned the House of Commons that that would happen—more respected and has a strengthened mandate.
This House has been using that strengthened mandate in all sorts of ways, and I hope it will do so in the case of this Bill. The House therefore has a duty to examine, scrutinise and, if necessary, amend the Bill. In so doing, we should pay particular attention to the civil liberties aspects and the precedent that the Bill would set for other activities. Civil liberty and individual freedom are under constant threat from an increasing authoritarianism by government—of both political parties. It is a paradox that the House of Lords is more caring of those civil liberties and individual freedoms than the elected House, which increasingly legislates to limit those democratic rights. In any event, as we have already heard, the other place has the last word. The Government could use the Parliament Act to override any amendment. However, if they do so, they will hear the responsibility for any consequences that follow.
Direct action has been mentioned. I was surprised to hear some on this side of the House condemn direct action. Damn it, the Labour Party would not exist but for direct action. This country would be a completely different place without direct action by the working-class martyrs and the trade union movement. If there is to be direct action, there are very good precedents for it.
Finally, I oppose the Bill—
Lord Whitty: My Lords, my noble ex-friend is trying to provoke me. This is the third time that my words on civil disobedience have been mentioned. I do not reject the right of people to use their conscience and engage in civil disobedience. What I said in my opening speech was that it would be wrong for our democracy for decisions by the legislature to be guided by a threat of civil disobedience. That is entirely different from condemning all civil disobedience.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, that is complete rubbish—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I must say to the Minister—my previous noble friend—that I was not just getting at him. I was surprised to hear some of the sentiments expressed on the Labour side with regard to direct action. The Labour movement has, through direct action, made an enormous difference, for the good of the country.
848
I have gone over my seven minutes because of the Minister. I finish by saying that the Bill should be given a Second Reading, in order that its provisions can he seriously and rigorously examined.
8.25 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am proud, this evening, to be the fourth voice of Exmoor, after notable speeches by my noble friend Lord King of Bridgwater, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough. I am also proud to be British and proud of our defence of democracy, but I take no pride in the application of bullying majorities. The true test of democracy, as speaker after speaker has said, is how the majority treats minority views.
Within our rural population, there is growing despair about the circumstances affecting its culture, its values and its hopes for the future. There is pent-up frustration at the failure of Parliament to recognise and respect its views. At the core of that disbelief is the decision by the responsible Minister to abandon advice presented by the most recent studies on hunting. Like so many of your Lordships, I suggest that there is no incontrovertible evidence that enables decisions to be made wisely. What replaces wisdom is emotion, for the subject brings out passionately held views. Both sides lift the temperature of debate beyond the boiling point of reason.
Like my noble friend Lord Hurd of Westwell. who made a most eloquent speech, I fear the consequences for our society, if a ban on hunting is imposed. I cannot produce evidence for the likelihood of civil disobedience nor for the problems of policing the ban or action by others in support of the ban, but I am sure that they will be severe and will, possibly, cut to the very governance of our country. The uncertainty that surrounds this major decision is compounded by a deafening silence on what compensating and replacement arrangements—at what cost and when—will be introduced.
Life in the wilds of Exmoor, close to where I live, does not stop. The life or death of many of the beasts now hunted will not wait. It seems that there is a great reluctance to give any form of definition of how our wonderful red deer herd, which has hinds 20 per cent bigger than those controlled by stalking in the highlands, and our foxes, which, although no bigger than others, still present real danger to the income of sheep farmers, are to be controlled without hunting. I retain a deep fear that controlling the red deer exclusively by shooting will lead to a decline in quality, as trophy hunters gather to take the best stags. Animal welfare organisations will not be able to provide the response needed to deal with wounded or injured deer.
I recognise that many parts of our country have been affected throughout the ages by the dreadful economic impacts of shifts in trade or supply. But the impact on the rural communities that would be initiated by a hunting ban would a pure form of direct, government-imposed unemployment, probably without redundancy. Were it to happen in areas not constrained by planning and

849
development restrictions, as national parks are, or in areas that had existing diversity of employment or had not seen such a rapid decline in the number of people employed in agriculture, it might be a lesser evil.
I am profoundly concerned about the impact of any ban on the wider economy of Exmoor.
This is already one of the poorest areas of England, where the average working household income is below £17,500. We have seen dramatic shifts in the balance of population as the young cannot find employment nearby. Retirees and second-home owners are too ready to snap up local housing, which is now well above the affordable limit for young people wishing to stay. Schools, post offices and pubs are closing. This vortex of despair, exacerbated by the impact of foot and mouth disease and fears for the loss of seasonal and full-time income provided by hunting, is creating a heady brew of reaction.
Regrettably, the economic benefit of hunting to tourism has never been assessed. But the impact on tourism within rural areas in the shoulder periods of winter when other visitor numbers drop must be a real benefit to the economies of local tourism and its supporting services.
Of course, it is a privilege to live within a national park or in our countryside, but the attraction of the countryside within a national park is for all people to enjoy. We, who live there, have to tolerate the variety of interests which need the freedom of the rural environment. Motorcycle rallies and four wheelers of every size join the thousands of people who simply want to watch, walk or ride around the country. Toleration and respect for diverse interests is always under threat from protectionist and activist alike.
But this country has a future as well as a history. The future should be based on respect for the need to find appropriate measures to enable all our people, crammed into an increasingly congested island, to live with one another's differences. Although many people living in the South West have experienced or still experience the pleasure of chasing across beautiful country, there is another even larger population that enjoys the social life, which is enriched by the need to raise funds to support the employment and costs of hunting.
On Exmoor alone, there are usually six point-to-points attended by some 20,000 people, hunter trials, sponsored cross-country rides, gymkhanas and country shows, puppy shows, skittle leagues, dances, whist drives—the list and variety is endless. But it provides the very backbone and framework of social exchange for the communities of Exmoor. Many people would experience a profound sense of loss and increasing isolation were this range of activities to cease.
Hunting on Exmoor is like Premier Division football in Liverpool or Manchester. It gives social cohesion to the whole area. To ban it would be to tear the heart out of the community; it would be a fundamental attack on individual liberty and freedom of choice. In my humble opinion, this Bill combines vicious class prejudice with wilful and sentimental
850
ignorance about country life. It would have the effect of making life much worse for foxes. One of the hallmarks of a sophisticated democracy is the protection of minorities. Hunting people are a minority. To destroy their sport and their whole way of life would be the act of an elected dictatorship.
Who was it who, as recently as last July, said:
"We are fighting for the inalienable right of human kind…to be free. Free to be you, so long as being you does not impair the freedom of others. That's what we are fighting for. And that's a battle worth fighting."?
Yes, your Lordships are right: it was none less than the Prime Minister in his speech to Congress, and well worth a standing ovation.
8.33 p.m.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I have said this before, but I want to say it again: I do not live in the town. I have always lived in the countryside and I am very proud of living there. However, I do not recognise at all the countryside described from some of the Benches opposite. In my village, hunting is rarely, if ever, discussed. It certainly is not the Saturday night topic at the Elephant and Castle or the Spinners. People may talk about Manchester United or Blackburn Rovers or even my own team, Bolton Wanderers. I am sorry to say that they may be talking about Wigan rather than Warrington, which always dismays me. But hunting? No.
Perhaps I may give a practical example. Recently we had three ducks taken by a fox. That was our fault because they were not locked up; we shall ensure that they are in future. But if we were to wait for that fox to be killed by a hunt, we would be waiting for ever. To be honest, that fox would draw its old age pension first. I just want to put the record straight. In many areas of the country hunting is not a topic for discussion or a part of country life. Rural transport, education, schools and the closure of post offices are what the people of the village talk about when they are not discussing football or rugby league.
Since I came here, I have always been one of those who advocated the reform of this House. I am very fond of all noble Lords and I have been made welcome ever since I arrived. But during this debate I have been surprised by some of the extreme views expressed about people who support a ban on hunting. I am so sorry that the Bishops' Benches are empty, because I was really disgusted by the comment of one right reverend Prelate that there might be a mental deficiency among some of my noble friends because of our views. As regards other Peers, I can always forgive them. To say that we are all supporters of Adolf Hitler because we happen to take a different view—
Baroness Byford: My noble friend did not say that.
Lord Hoyle: I am sorry, but that is what he said and the noble Earl is a member of the noble Baroness's party, not mine, thank goodness.
Surely we can disagree and still remain friends. While I may disagree with what has been said from the Benches opposite, I know that those views are held

851
with conviction. Equally, however, I believe that the views of the majority in this country are the same as mine. They are held with conviction and they must be allowed. I have received letters asking me to oppose the Bill, but I have also been asked to support it. Some of those letters have described instances of damage caused by hunts and the arrogant way people are treated when they complain about the hunt riding over land which it has been forbidden to cross, or when domestic pets are chased. So there is a difference of opinion on this matter.
Much has been said by both sides about Burns, although more by those on the side of the hunting fraternity. But Burns also pointed out that hunting seriously compromises the welfare of the animal being hunted. It is there in black and white. That is why I believe that bringing to an end hunting with hounds is long overdue. The arguments about civil liberties are the same as those that were used in support of bear baiting, cock fighting and dog fighting when they went. There is nothing new in them; they have been used before.
It has been said in the debate that we should spend our time discussing other matters, as though we do not do so. Of course we discuss issues such as the NHS, crime, defence and education. While we may not discuss them as often as the other place, we do consider them in great detail. I would suggest that it is not enough to discuss them; action must be taken, and I believe that the Government I support are doing just that. Of course in the House of Lords we tend to discuss agriculture rather more because many landowners sit in this place.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I wonder if the noble Lord would give way. I resent slightly his last comment. Many noble Lords in this House speak in agriculture debates, in particular when they touch on the environment and rural affairs. I speak in debates on housing and many other matters. The noble Lord points a finger across at my colleagues, who unfortunately are not all in their places at the moment, and accuses them of being the reason why agriculture is raised. I suggest to the noble Lord that agriculture has been going through some very difficult times—more difficult times since his Government took over 1997 than before. It is not surprising that we discuss those matters.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I am rather surprised by the intervention of the noble Baroness. I am not being critical. I am merely pointing out—and, whatever the noble Baroness may say, it is true—that there are an awful lot of landowners in the House who are interested in the debate. The noble Baroness knows that, like her, I am interested in agriculture, but I very often discuss larger issues than the problems facing the countryside.
I make the same point on defence. Chiefs of staff, brigadiers and air marshals provide a wealth of knowledge in this House on defence matters. That is a good reason for debating defence issues. I heard many first-class speeches on Iraq from noble Lords with defence connections. That is another issue that has been discussed in the House.
852
I should say to noble Lords on the Benches opposite that another issue that is discussed, given the age of the House, is of course other people's sex. That is regularly discussed here.
It has been said that the hunting of deer and, particularly, the hunting of foxes needs to he retained as a matter of pest control. Approximately 25,000 foxes are killed per year. Hunting accounts for about 2 per cent or, put at the top end of the scale, to he generous, 6 per cent. What happens to the other 94 per cent? How do they die? Many die because they are shot, trapped or are involved in road accidents. Certainly it can hardly be said that hunting is a form of pest control when it accounts for only 2.5 per cent of deaths.
It has been said that hunting is needed on Exmoor to cull red deer. About 1,000 deer die each year on Exmoor, but only 15 per cent die because of the activity of hounds. What happens to the other 85 per cent? I hope the legislation will improve the way in which they are killed. But that is a fact. How can you call that "control of deer''? It is not.
Why do we not debate the fact that people enjoy hunting because they regard it as a sport? I can understand that. That is a real reason. Please do not claim that hunting is a form of pest control when the figures are not matched by the rhetoric from the Benches opposite.
It has been said that if the Bill is passed there are people who will become criminals because they will defy the law. They need not become criminals. The choice will he theirs. They will only become criminals if they defy the law, but the passing of the Bill into an Act will not make them criminals as such.
It has been said from all Benches that the uncertainty must end. We gave a manifesto promise that we would give enough time for this issue to be brought to a conclusion. I believe that that will occur. Ultimately, the democratic House will speak: it will make up its mind. It will receive the Bill back from this House with whatever amendments we decide on, and then it will make up its mind. That is the right procedure because, ultimately, no one in this House has to face an election. We made the promise in 1997. We had more Members representing rural areas then than any other party. Those people stood again and were re-elected, and they again said, "We must ban hunting with hounds". They have faced the electorate. Whatever the merits of this House—and we have a right to amend legislation—we do not have to face the electorate.
The other House will speak and the uncertainty will come to an end. When it does, I hope that it will be in favour of a ban to bring to an end now the cruelty that should have been brought to an end in the 18th century.
8.44 p.m.
Lord Nickson: My Lords, we are in very dangerous waters—that has been emphasised again and again in this debate. Two and a half years ago we had the last Second Reading of a hunting Bill. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Whiny, will not he too upset with me—I

853
am not trying to provoke him—if I recall remarks that I made in that debate. I quoted remarks made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. I would like your Lordships to dwell on these two sentences.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said:
"It is deeply necessary not to confuse what we may disapprove of with what must be criminalised".
I repeat:
"It is deeply necessary not to confuse what we may disapprove of with what must be criminalised".—[Official Report, 11/4/00; col. 92.]
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will recall saying
"it is one of the great constitutional…balances of our system—to respect and protect the interests of minorities against a populist majority".—[Official Report, 24/7/00; col. 124.]
They were not talking about fox hunting; they were talking about buggery. One was in the context of the sexual offences legislation in 2000, and the other in the context of local government amendment legislation, also in 2000. But I do not think the principles have changed particularly.
When the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, opened his speech, he said he was consistent and, indeed, he has been consistent in his attitude to the Hunting Bill. But I suggest to him in the most gentle and polite way that there are principles which can apply in other directions.
I must declare non-interests. I have never hunted; I am no longer a director of the Countryside Alliance, and I live in Scotland. If I did hunt, I would have the great misfortune to have to operate under the legislation of the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie. I was sorry to hear he was proud of it; the noble Lord, Lord Hurd of Westwell, said that Ministers may expect to be opposed—they should not seek to be hated. I can only say that this perfectly dreadful Bill in Scotland has caused great distress in the countryside there.
I oppose this Bill on three counts—first, on the grounds of cruelty; secondly, because it is a distinctly illiberal measure; and thirdly, because it is a dangerous misuse of the criminal law.
I do not hunt, but I fish, I stalk in the Highlands and I shoot. I encourage and authorise others to kill foxes by whatever legal means possible. I try to kill foxes myself, and I am not particularly good at it. When foxes are shot, whether lamping, snaring or other methods are involved, there must be considerable suffering. Even expert, trained marksmen would say that four out of five foxes may be all right but the others are not. Those foxes go away to die slowly, in great agony. The great merit of hunting, as I see it, is that the fox is either dead, quickly, or alive.
Secondly, the countryside sees itself as unloved, misunderstood and uncared for by a Government who are much more interested in urban issues. I am sure it is correct that a majority of the rural constituencies are represented by Labour Members, but I can only say
854
that very many people in the countryside do not feel they are being adequately looked after and believe their liberty and livelihood to be under threat.
Thirdly, and most importantly, I believe there is a real threat in the use of the criminal law. This goes far beyond the countryside, beyond the ranks of the country sports. I believe that the law-making process itself is at stake. For if a nation's people come to lose respect for the law-making process, if they hold the law-makers in contempt, and if it becomes extremely difficult and unlikely that it will be easy to enforce that law, those people will no longer feel the need to obey the law. That can become a very dangerous habit indeed. The noble Lord, Lord Hurd of Westwell, was right to draw attention to that great threat.
There are people—I may not be among them—who believe that the Government showed insensitivity, intransigence and, perhaps, inflexibility, in the approach to constitutional reform in this House in various ways in the past few years. My belief is that, if that process had been approached differently, some form of consensus over a longer period could have been achieved. Some agreement could have been made on all those controversial issues on which we have got ourselves into a considerable muddle.
There could have been a middle way, and I believe that there is still a middle way in relation to this Hunting Bill. If the Government are wise, they will accept that there must be very significant changes to the Bill that is presented to us. Were that Bill to go back from this House to another place and be totally rejected, I would urge the Government to think very hard indeed before they sought to invoke the Parliament Act to force through the Bill as it stands at present.
8.51 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, this is the first time that I have spoken in this House on hunting, and I do so now fully realising that many noble Lords know much more about the subject than I do. I intervene because I am appalled by the Bill. Without having given the matter my full attention, I had assumed that the Government's registration proposal was a sensible compromise between those who wanted to ban hunting with dogs and those who wanted it to continue as before. Now that the House of Commons has decided that it wants a total ban, it is time for the defenders of liberty to speak out.
I also now understand that the system proposed in the original Bill was not the even-handed compromise that I had assumed. Tony Banks's amendment brings all hunting to an end, but the Bill's registration system would have had much the same effect because it required applicants for a hunting licence to prove something that could not be proved—that hunting causes significantly less pain, suffering or distress than any alternative method. The task facing us is not only to restore the original structure of the Bill but to revise the registration system so that the onus is shifted on to opponents of hunting to show that there are more humane methods of pest control.

855
I oppose a ban because I do not believe that the case has remotely been made. Those who want a ban say that individual liberty must give way because its exercise imposes unnecessary cruelty on foxes. Unfortunately, we cannot line up a sample of foxes and ask them by which method they would prefer to be killed. If we could, there might be much lively disagreement.
The noble Lord, Lord Burns, tried to do that job in chapter 6 of his authoritative report. The report admits that hunting.
"seriously compromises the welfare of the fox".
That is an unremarkable statement in view of the circumstances. However, it goes on to state that other methods can also have, "serious adverse welfare implications". The noble Lord never goes beyond that hedging conclusion, for the obvious reason that we cannot measure the suffering caused by different methods of culling.
Those who argue that we have scientific evidence about such matters are perpetuating a wicked deception on the public, but the public basically agrees with that sensible conclusion of the noble Lord, Lord Burns. Asked by pollsters which method they thought inflicted more cruelty, 25 per cent suggested hunting foxes with dogs, 27 per cent said killing them by other means such as snaring, shooting and trapping, while 44 per cent thought that both were equally cruel.
Foxes are hunted by people. If we are to argue the case, as the anti-hunters do, on grounds of pleasure and pain, we need to go beyond animal welfare to human welfare, balancing the distress that the existence of hunting causes some people against the pleasure that hunting and its existence gives others.
What is the size of the population of those who feel passionately about this subject? I think that that is where we ought to start. The number of those who are intensely distressed by hunting is certainly quite small. According to a recent poll, only 2 per cent of those asked put abolition of hunting at the top of their political priorities. That makes 500,000 of those who voted at the most recent election. On the other hand, last September, more than 400,000 people turned up at the Countryside Alliance pro-hunting demonstration in London. So there is not much difference in the balance of strong feelings on this subject.
Abolitionists argue that the pleasure people get from hunting is purely sadistic, and, therefore, their interests do not deserve much consideration against those to whom it causes great pain. However, that is an assertion for which there is no evidence. The hunters rarely see foxes being killed, much less torn to pieces. The pleasure from hunting seems to lie in the hunt itself and the social life associated with it, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, pointed out earlier.
What about the population at large? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, to the extent that their views should certainly be taken into account. So what is the evidence? The evidence is that support for a complete ban has been decreasing. According to a Daily Telegraph poll conducted last September, 47.9 per cent
856
believe that hunting should be allowed to continue as now or under licence, while 49.9 per cent want to ban it. An ICM poll in July of this year showed that 57 per cent believed that the Government should allow hunting to continue. So the balance in our utilitarian calculus is still as near zero as makes no difference.
I embark on these tedious calculations only because the case for banning hunting with dogs rests entirely on such pleasure and pain arguments. I have not even tried to estimate the adverse effect of a ban on the welfare of those humans and animals—horses and dogs—whose occupations are bound up with hunting. That would make a formidable addition to my side of the argument. However, for the purposes of this argument, I do not need to do that. I only have to show that utilitarian logic does not produce a positive balance in favour of banning. In the nature of things, I doubt whether it ever will, unless a much more painless way of controlling pests is discovered.
If the need for pest control is accepted, if no one method of exercising it is obviously more cruel than another, if the passions are equally balanced, if the electorate are equally indifferent—if, in short, there is no compelling public interest argument for banning hunting—then liberty should surely be allowed the last word.
I do not accept the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that the will of the House of Commons should prevail in all circumstances. That is a perversion of democracy. If the House of Commons decide to do something wicked or abuse human rights, then, regardless of whether it is a manifesto commitment, the will of the House of Commons certainly should not prevail.
A ban on hunting would be a gross interference with individual liberty. It is a proud tradition in our country that liberty should be curtailed only with great and sufficient cause. I contend that no such cause has been adduced to curtail the liberty of those who want to hunt with dogs to continue to do so. That is why our House will need to amend this Bill. We cannot stop the House of Commons getting their own way, but it is our duty to ask them to think again.
8.58 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, it is my pleasure again to take part in this debate. I begin by thanking a number of people to whom I shall refer later. I want particularly to thank the League Against Cruel Sports and the RSPCA for their steadfast support for those such as myself who have more than once been obliquely referred to as blindly prejudiced, blinkered and so on. I start from the premise that it is cruel and wrong to hunt to the death another animal. I accept all the arguments we have heard about nature and the law of the countryside, but that is not what we are discussing in this Bill. We are discussing whether to allow—in the name of sport or pleasure or leisure—the training of one animal, the hound, to hunt to the death another animal, the fox. However you dress it up, I

857
think that that is wrong. Those who do not share my view think that that is right. For a very long time their view has held sway. I am no stranger to being in a minority in this House; I had almost 18 years of that. However, the electorate, the public, changed their mind and the value of this House in the eyes of some people changed too.
I want to deal with the situation that has been painted, that somehow or other in the areas in which hunts operate they form the bedrock and the core of a social and cultural life which, if not idyllic, is something which we ought to envy. Sitting here I listen to that point time after time. I have received many letters on the matter. I was astounded when the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford said that he had received 260 letters and not one of them was in favour of a ban. There is an explanation there somewhere which I do not have time to go into. I received 100 letters, the majority of which urged me to support a ban. I have them with me. I did not solicit any of the letters.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the League Against Cruel Sports, which he has already thanked for the assistance it has given, provided its supporters with a list of people in this House to write to, which included only those such as himself who had previously supported a ban or who had previously abstained? If the noble Lord compares the letters he received with others in the same category, I believe he will see that they are copies.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, that is news to me. Someone has just whispered that that is not true. The matter will be investigated later. In the interests of individual liberty I wish to quote from a letter from Ms Stretch of Oaktree Close, Wareham. Ms Stretch writes:
"I was one of a group who spent a considerable amount of time last year collecting signatures for the 'Banner for a Ban' anti hunt campaign. We collected well over 8,000 signed forms asking the Government to enact a Total Hunt Ban. Countrywide over a million people signed this petition".
I wish to place that on the record. I am puzzled by the way in which some people are so adamant about what statistics mean. I come from mining stock. I know what mining community life is and I know that it was destroyed. It was destroyed by policies over 15 years. The communities that I come from had to live with that, and they did, and they got over it. The communities that apparently are at risk from the Bill will do the same if a ban is introduced. They will adjust to the change.
I want to bring to the attention of the House some hunts that have not been mentioned tonight but which my correspondents inform me have caused great distress to their individual liberty. I refer to hunts in the Isle of Wight and in the Lake District, Weardale and Tees Valley Beagles, Essex and Suffolk Foxhounds, Cotley Harriers, Quantock Hills, Budleigh Salterton, Shropshire, New Forest Hounds, North Shropshire Hunt, Beaufort Hunt, Wynstay Hunt, East Devon Hunt,
858
Totnes, Plymouth, Mudbury Harriers, West Green and Newport South Wales. All of those have caused great distress to the people who live round about them. They have interfered with people's individual liberty—which, apparently, is a core issue—by not controlling their dogs. The details are well known. The issues are not as clear cut as some people on the other side say.
I want to say a word about my colleagues in the Commons. When many of them fought the 1997 election they stood on a platform that, among other issues, included their opposition to fox hunting, and they were elected. The great shock to many Conservative Peers was that they were elected for rural areas. Between 1997 and 2001, they took part, stood up and were counted and put their jobs on the line, and overwhelmingly they were elected again in 2001. What does that say about the people in their areas, who knew their views, and knew that they could damage them but did not? They returned them instead.
The issue is obviously very important to many people here—far more important than it is to me. I conclude my seven minutes by simply saying that I believe that setting one animal against another to destroy it in such a way is wrong. I think that the Government are courageous in proceeding with the Bill, and I will certainly support it tonight and in future.
9.6 p.m.
Lord Northbrook: My Lords, I would like to make one comment straightaway to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton: if those MPs elected for rural areas vote for a ban, they are unlikely to be elected again.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Just you wait.
Lord Northbrook: My Lords, I declare an interest as a landowner and member of the Countryside Alliance. The Bill has been transformed into a completely illiberal measure without any proper justification except for pure prejudice. As the writer Roger Scruton put it clearly in an article in the Spectator earlier this year:
"A new absolutism threatens our ancient liberties and customs".
He compares the UK to some Muslim fundamentalist countries where law is used to create religious and moral conformity. He says that the other place contains many people who see nothing wrong in using law to create a new moral code. On one hand, they are prepared to relax the laws for and extend the rights of some minorities. They lower the age of consent for gay sex, plan to extend the concept of partnerships beyond marriage, and are authorising leniency in certain drug use. Yet they are banning the activities of this minority, which has committed no offence under the law. Is there not an inconsistency here? Is not the hunting minority being unnecessarily discriminated against?

859
The Burns report covered the civil liberty aspects, looking at them under a European law perspective. It examined how a ban would be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Chapter 10 of the Burns report states, on page 160:
"Legislation to ban hunting might be open to challenge under Article 1 Protocol 1 (property rights) and…Article 8 (respect for private life)…Key questions would be whether the undoubted interference with property, and possibly with private life, was justified under Convention principles".
The Explanatory Notes do not mention Article 8 at all. Chapter 10 continues:
"A relevant issue would be the form of the Bill: one which required proof of unnecessary suffering, or some similar test, would be less open to argument than one which banned hunting per se",
such as that which we have.
Article 1 of Protocol 1 states:
"Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law".
It goes on to state that in certain circumstances the state can override the above when it needs to enforce law in the public interest.
According to the Burns report, both the pro-hunting and anti-hunting lobbies agree that Article 1, Protocol 1, is triggered in the sense that a ban on hunting, although it does not deprive someone of the use of the land or the animals involved, constitutes a control on their use or an interference with the substance of ownership. The issue then turns on whether a fair balance is struck between the interference with the fundamental rights of individuals and the general public interest. In my view, there is no doubt that there is not a fair balance and that human rights are being severely interfered with.
The second relevant article, Article 8, contains the two following paragraphs. First:
"Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and correspondence".
Secondly,
"There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others".
The Burns report states that there is a key issue in each paragraph of Article 8: first, whether hunting with dogs can be regarded as coming within the concept of "private life" and, if so, whether interference is justified on the grounds set out in Article 8.2. I strongly believe that hunting is an activity which is strongly identified with the ethos of the private and family life of a local community. It also takes place to a major extent on private land. Thus, the ban without doubt would be an interference with Article 8.1 rights.
As the human right in Article 8.1 is, in my view, being breached, the key test is whether under Article 8.2 the interference has a legitimate basis. I strongly
860
believe that the Government would not be successful just by arguing that hunting is immoral: they would need to have objective evidence that hunting involves unnecessary suffering, including by reference to that involved in other methods. I would also argue that a ban would fail the proportionality test contained in Article 8.2. This means that a ban on hunting is not justified due to its far greater effect on rural communities and people's lives and livelihoods in proportion to the lack of scientific evidence on the unnecessary suffering of the animal.
So, in summary, I would say that it is far wiser for the Government to have a sensible licensing Bill than to risk a legal challenge to a ban on European law grounds, together with the problems of enforcing bad legislation—which could even result in civil disobedience. I am sure that we can rely on the Prime Minister's good sense to achieve such a solution.
9.13 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I have enjoyed parts of the debate. I enjoyed hearing the points when they were first made but after hearing them repeated three times, one becomes a little weary. I see the Minister smiling and agreeing with me.
A certain amount of logic has been spoken and there has been a fair amount of heat. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, who is no longer in his seat, was a little brave to describe those who hunt as "hooligans" when the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, sits behind him.
The debate boils down to two questions. First, is hunting with hounds cruel? What has clearly been demonstrated by my noble friend Lord Hooson and others is that if you want to control foxes, you must use hounds, terriers or whatever—you may call them dogs.
I believe it has clearly been shown that hunting is no more cruel than shooting or any other means of control. In fact, from the speeches that have been made, it appears to be clear that the hunting and killing of the fox—or its escape—during a hunt is probably less cruel than shooting. I know from personal experience that one can wound animals and not kill them outright. Therefore, I believe that the cruelty issue has been put aside. From the evidence presented here and from the many investigations that have been carried out, there is no question in my mind but that the hunting and killing of foxes with hounds is no more cruel than the other methods of control.
The second point, which has been made with great sincerity by a number of people, including my noble friend with whom I disagreed, although I consider that she expressed it extremely well, related to the morality of people who enjoy hunting. I believe that this point has also been answered by a number of speakers. The enjoyment of people who hunt is not in the death of the fox; it is in the excitement, the danger and the general feeling of good will engendered by hunting.
Therefore, if the House produces acceptable amendments which change the Bill into an improved version of the Government's apparent wish. I hope that the Minister, who has listened patiently—I am not

861
sure whether he has done so patiently but, in many cases, he has listened—will be supportive of that. I hope that he will push such a version among his colleagues, and perhaps we might obtain an agreed solution instead of having the kind of row that we are experiencing at present.
9.17 p.m.
The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, I enjoyed listening to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and I find myself in agreement with almost everything that he said. I apologise if I am guilty of being somewhat repetitive, and I hope that I shall not cause him offence in that.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, this is the first time that I have spoken on this subject in your Lordships' House. I should explain that I do not hunt, having given up following an accident when I was 16 years old. One reason that I feel compelled to speak now is that I, like so many other noble Lords, am appalled and bemused that this issue has been allowed to take up so much precious parliamentary time when there are so many other important issues that we could, and should, be addressing.
We are supposed to be a tolerant society but, in my view, the Bill goes beyond all reasonable bounds of tolerance. It will make criminals out of otherwise law-abiding individuals who have been doing what has been done for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.
It is man's destiny to manage his environment and the wildlife within it. That is a given. Foxes are vermin. That is also a given. I believe that hunting is the most efficient way of managing this particular species as it maintains some sort of reasonable balance. Those who consider that foxes will be better off if and when this legislation is passed are, I believe, deluding themselves.
If foxes had the vote, they would not vote for this Bill. It will be open season for them if the Bill is passed, and they will be persecuted far more than they are at present. If the police had the vote, they would not vote for this piece of legislation. As my noble friend Lord Hurd said earlier, they would not do so because they would see it as completely unmanageable and a serious misuse of police time. If the public had the vote, apparently 59 per cent would vote to keep hunting. That, of course, is an even greater number than those who voted against the euro in the Swedish referendum. I believe that the figure there was 56 per cent, which was reported in the press as being a decisive majority.
According to a newspaper article that I read yesterday, even magistrates are dreading the passing of the Bill. Apparently, if the article is correct, some 25 per cent of all magistrates living in countryside areas are seeking to resign because they do not want to find themselves being forced to criminalise perfectly law-abiding members of their community.
So who would vote for this Bill as it now stands, apart from a majority in another place? The only people I can think of are the lawyers, who will be queuing up at the court of human rights in the Hague and who stand to make lots of money as they
862
attempt—in all probability they will succeed—in getting this legislation overturned. As the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said, true democracy is achieved through the will of the people, not just those in another place. Like many others in this country, I hate the creep of a nanny state into all walks of life. This Bill, born of bigotry, is certainly a fine example of that.
The economy in the countryside is like a finely interwoven fabric. If hunting is banned, thousands of people will lose their livelihoods in areas where getting on your bike is not an option. In any event, the fox, deer and hare population have to be controlled if we are to operate efficient farms in this country. So for the life of me I cannot see arguments for an all out ban. Neither can the many hundreds of people who have written to me. I have had hundreds of letters, one of which was in favour of a ban. But the others, probably 200, were against a ban.
As I have said, it seems to me that almost everyone, including foxes, would be the losers. So I shall certainly join with other noble Lords in seeking to amend the Bill, as the noble Lord. Lord Mackie, suggested, so that it resembles the Bill first presented in another place. As other noble Lords have said, we can speculate on what the Government will do then but I do not think the electorate will easily forgive another place if they use the Parliament Act on this piece of legislation.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I accused the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, of calling hunters hooligans. It was not him; it was the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester.
9.22 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, like the noble Earl who has just spoken, and the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, I, too, have not spoken before in a hunting debate. However, I have always voted with my noble friend Lady Mallalieu against a ban on hunting. It is late at night and we will not change any views, so I shall try to be brief.
When we used to have capital punishment in this country, especially before it became mechanised and made efficient, people who were facing death used to pay a little purse to the hangman because they wanted to die a clean death. They would pay him to use the sword to make a clean cut and not cause suffering while they were dying. Of course, to kill someone is cruel but there are ways which are less cruel and ways which are more cruel.
Like many others, I have never hunted or ridden a horse. I probably would not recognise a fox if I saw one in the street. Fox hunting has never bothered me and I do not know why I should ban something on civil libertarian grounds which has never bothered me. I do lots of things which I am sure would cause distress if people knew about them and they may want to ban them.
Baroness Thornton: Surely not!
Lord Desai: You don't know me!
Therefore, I feel that at least on a personal utility calculus I have no reason to support a ban on hunting. I cannot judge, but other people tell me that there will be various effects on the rural economy, and so forth. I have always thought in all contexts, not just this one, that employment arguments are spurious. As an economist I believe that if people cannot do one thing, they will do something else. After all, that is what happened with coalminers, steel workers and many others. The countryside will adjust. But that is not the issue. The question at issue is: even if there is no effect, is this action worth taking?
I have already given the argument on at least my own calculus. As we are becoming tolerant in many other dimensions, such as sexual mores or in becoming multi-cultural. why is it that suddenly this issue has assumed such importance in the minds of people?
Obviously, there is the argument of majority rule, but majoritarianism is a peculiar argument. Of course the majority can always have its way. There is no doubt about that. Indeed, it may be that this majority will have its way. However, how do we take into account the fact that this Bill will cause distress to a minority, especially if that minority insists, as it has every right, on exercising civil disobedience and floods the prisons of this country, which is what I advise it to do? Let everyone be arrested and we will see what happens to the prison system in this country.
The majoritarian argument is false for the following reason. When I was young, I was a majoritarian. I had great confidence that I belonged, with the masses, to the majority of the population; and therefore whatever the majority wanted was right. Then we suffered 18 years of Conservative rule and found that we were not in a majority at all. There was another majority out there. When one is on the wrong side of majority rule, one realises that life is tough. The answer is not, as my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton seemed to argue, "Well, it's our turn now, so tough luck". The argument is, "No, we suffered during that time. Because we realise that that is not the way to conduct affairs, let us try to be more reasonable".
There is also, however, a defect in the constitution. I have argued about it for many years; not in the context of fox hunting, but on the reform of your Lordships' House. It is that the Westminster constitution has a unicameral majoritarian bias: the House of Commons can always do whatever it chooses to do. Very often, or a lot in this case, the House of Commons does what the Government in power ask it to do, if the party in power has a sufficient majority.
If this House had been reformed, as for a long time I argued that it should have been, and made into an elected Chamber, we could legitimately have said to the other place, "You are not the only representatives of the people. There are other views". There are other majorities, other ways of representation. Sadly, we have not fulfilled that manifesto commitment. But there are manifesto commitments and manifesto
864
commitments. I have been long enough in the Labour Party to know that if a Labour government fulfilled every manifesto commitment, the annual conference would be deserted: there would be nothing to complain about. So, I do not put great faith in manifesto commitments.
Lastly, I turn to animal cruelty. I cannot judge what a fox feels; I cannot anthropomorphise a fox's feelings. But I want to say one thing: out in the streets today there are Animal Liberation Front people who are literally terrorising people who conduct experiments on animals. I believe very strongly in my calculus that human welfare ranks above animal welfare. If people do not like that, they do not. Experimenting with animals to improve human health is a fundamentally good thing. If we concede the animal cruelty argument now, God help the people of the Huntingdon Life Sciences laboratories and every scientist who conducts animal experiments and, in consequence, all those people who hope that experiments on animals will ultimately benefit their health.
9.29 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I wonder why it is that every time that I speak in your Lordships' House I speak immediately after the noble Lord, Lord Desai. Almost every time, he says that he is speaking on a subject about which he has never spoken before but is in agreement with third parties. I shall try to say something different.
I see before me the greatest natural schism that we have had since the early days of religion. Schism, or scisme, effectively means disunion, disharmony or mutual hostility—that word that has more meanings, pronunciations and spellings in the Oxford English Dictionary than any other word. It was once hijacked by the Church in the treaty of Constance when the great divide took place. Now we have the division between St Hubert, the patron saint of hunting, whose day is 3rd November, and St Francis, the patron saint of animals, who only a few years ago, in 1979, was made by Pope Paul the patron saint of the ecologists.
I will speak tonight, as I did a year or so ago, not on behalf of the pro- or anti-hunting lobby. I shall not try to heal divisions, but I shall try to speak on behalf of mammals as a whole. I begin by reminding your Lordships that within rural areas of the United Kingdom there are only 6 million human mammals—only 10 per cent of the population. When we consider that that is the smallest proportion of people living in rural areas of almost any developed nation we must think again: have we lost touch with the rural areas?
We know that the fox population, vulpes vulpes, has increased fairly rapidly since I spoke last March, partly due to clement weather, partly due to the town ecologists, who have been helping the urban fox, who has increased in numbers from about 20,000 to 50,000. As your Lordships will know, the fox population swells dramatically in May when the cubs are out. My favourite was the Belgravia fox on the Duke of Westminster's estate, who now, I fear to say, suffers from mange. He was fit and healthy last year; his cubs

865
are at large and have managed, as leasehold enfranchisement takes place, to go downstairs and eat more and more from the rubbish bins.
Is the urban fox a threat? I do not know. Is the rural fox a threat? The urban fox has had problems in Bristol, which it heavily occupied, because of disease. The biggest enemies of the fox are disease and the motor car, not hunting. For those of us who love the country and have been brought up in it, one of the finest sights in the world is to see a really fit, beautifully trimmed fox in the early morning or evening. You feel nothing but admiration for that animal. More has been written about it in fables and poems than any other animal in history. It is said that the more the fox is cursed, the better he fares. Perhaps that is true of those who fight the Bill: the more they are cursed, the better they fare.
But the fox is only one mammal whose welfare may be compromised. Let us turn to the horse. In the days when I chaired one of the Government's bodies for sport and recreation, we always used to say that there were 400,000 horses in the United Kingdom. There are now 970,000 horses in the United Kingdom—a vast population. That is based on Swedish and other research. Because few are registered, DEFRA, for example, can account for only 270,000 horses. We must consider the inter-relationship between different horse activities. There are only 900—nearly 1,000—working horses. They are in the military or the police. We may talk of 83,000 horses involved with hunting, but we should not forget the pony clubs and the relationships that follow down the line, which may well involve as many as 200,000 horses.
An urban fox lives for seven years; a rural fox for four years; a horse may live for 15 to 17 years. What happens to those horses? They have been growing in numbers. The exports from the United Kingdom abroad are only 6,000, but the death toll is around 34,000 a year. Six thousand go to hunt kennels to feed hounds; 18,000 go to the knacker's yard; and another 10,000 go God knows where.
One fear is that, if we abolish hunting altogether, there may be considerable deaths among horses and movement abroad of live horses, which various bodies are trying to prevent at present, especially when we consider EU legislation that requires live horses, for quarantine and other purposes, to spend up to 12 hours in a horsebox, without water and goodness knows what. Considerable cruelty could apply if we moved down that route.
In the United Kingdom there are 6.2 million dogs, of which around 20,000 are hounds, 150,000 are related to coursing and 50,000 are terriers. However, many more dogs are involved in rural sports and activities. The individual may, in his own right, take his dog out for a walk or a run, and it is common practice for the animal to hunt or chase. I do not know how many dogs live in rural areas. I have been brought up to believe that there are only two types of dog: hounds and terriers. The hound sniffs and follows, and the terrier, whether it be a Shih Tzu or a Lhasa Apso,
866
has a remarkable habit of occasionally deciding to roll in the excrement of a badger or fox and then to pollute the home.
We all love animals of one form or another. But, given that the welfare of many more mammals other than the fox many be compromised, I ask the Minister whether he is certain that the welfare of the horse, hound and other dogs will not be compromised by the extension of the Bill at this time. We all know that there is a division on the issue. I would just as happily sit on the Benches opposite if I could find a way to solve that divide. We are on the side of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. We believe and respect his personal views, and we respect and understand the difficulty that he faces. As I said previously, Tiberius outfoxed the Senate. Please will the noble Lord outfox his own Government?
9.36 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the Bill is illiberal, as has been said in many quarters of the House. It is also immoral because it seeks to outlaw people's way of life, traditions and liberty, and, in many cases, to abolish their livelihoods, for reasons that are, to a considerable extent, malicious or frivolous.
Let us remember that attacks on tradition and liberty affect not only those directly involved but millions of others who value such qualities, even though they may never have hunted or even followed a hunt. Attacks on the freedom of one group are, to a considerable extent, attacks on the freedom of us all. I am sure that the noble Lords, Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Desai, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford agree with that proposition, judging by their speeches.
I have used the strong words "malicious" and "frivolous", so let me justify them. First, it is malicious to use the criminal law to target those whose imagined character and lifestyle you disapprove of, whether or not they bear any relation to those individuals' actual character and lifestyle. It is also malicious—and hypocritical, to boot—to ban hunting on the grounds
that people must not be allowed to kill for pleasure, while cynically assuring the electorate that shooting has the wholehearted support of the Government and the Labour Party, even though shooting is all about killing for pleasure—far more so than hunting. Moreover, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, reminded us, many animals are wounded during and after a shoot; it is never the case with hunting.
Is it not frivolous for educated people, trained to analyse and evaluate—one can perhaps forgive less educated people—to seek to criminalise a longstanding, hitherto legal activity, not on the basis of hard scientific evidence but out of self-indulgent and often anthropomorphic emotionalism? That is all the more so since scientific calculations have now, within the past year or so, been underpinned by the Scottish experience, which reveals that, on balance, there is far more suffering among foxes, now that they can no longer legally be killed by a pack.

867
Of course, not everyone can be an expert on guns and shooting, but educated people must surely be aware that the alleged marksmanship depicted in Hollywood westerns, when the target is always dispatched cleanly and instantaneously without a drop of blood, is entirely bogus. Alas, shooting a moving target in real life is a much more messy and uncertain business. Traditional hunting really is the least cruel practical method of culling foxes. As the country vets have declared:
"We do not pretend that hunting is necessarily the most efficient method of control but it is irrefutably the most humane".
I accept that some supporters of this Bill concede that point. They do not claim that the kill is particularly cruel, but they nevertheless support the Bill on the grounds that the chase is. That argument is certainly worthy of respect, unlike some others. However, it has now been categorically refuted by vets and experts in zoology and clinical pathology in the past 10 months—since the subject was last debated. Certainly, their findings tend to match one's empirical observations. Hares driven by beaters and dogs towards a line of guns always look terrified, whether they actually are or not. However, if a fox is being pursued, it generally appears unhurried and unworried.
Despite the conclusions, we are told to do away with carefully reasoned scientific argument and say, "The public wants a ban and the public must have its way". That is a most interesting proposition. I remember a public opinion poll published in a reputable broadsheet about 40 years ago, when the notion of decriminalising private homosexual activity between consenting adult males was being canvassed. The poll showed a small majority in the south of England in favour, but 68 per cent of people in the North were against, as were no less than 89 per cent of people in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
The United Kingdom as a whole wanted such behaviour to remain criminal. Nevertheless—quite rightly, in my view—the government eventually pressed ahead and liberalised the law, although it took a bit longer in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Those who demand a ban on beagling, should the public wish it, should logically demand a ban on buggery should the public wish it, coupled no doubt with the reintroduction of capital punishment. I doubt that those who pray in aid public opinion on the issue of hunting are prepared to be so logical and consistent.
In any case, as the honourable member for Montgomeryshire, Mr Lembit Opik, pointed out in the other place on 16th December last year, it is the Commons Chamber that is out of kilter with public opinion. The public have started listening to the arguments, unlike many MPs, unfortunately. Now, between 57 per cent and 59 per cent of the public oppose a hunting ban. The riposte to those new statistics seems to be, "Fickle public opinion is neither here nor there. Moreover, we don't decide such matters by plebiscite in this country. The House of Commons is the true voice of the people and it is for the House of Commons to decide". However, even if one takes the view that the majority has the right to
868
ride roughshod over the rights of a minority—and that is a big "if"—to what extent is the House of Commons the true voice of the people at the present time?
In this country, we have constituency boundaries that are grossly unfair to the main opposition party at the moment, to the extent that, if each of the main parties attracted 40 per cent of the popular vole, Labour would still, I am told, have an 80-seat lead. It has not always been like that; there have been periods in the past when the Labour Party has been similarly disadvantaged, albeit to a lesser extent. However, that is the situation today. Then, we have the fact that MPs from Scotland, still over-represented in another place, can vote on hunting in England and Wales but it cannot happen the other way round.
Finally, we have the first past the post system. The consensus is that it is the lesser of two evils because it prevents governments being held to ransom by tiny—often extremist—parties, as happens in many other countries of which one could think. Nobody can seriously claim, however, that the results accurately reflect the precise balance of public opinion, even on polling day. On occasion, the difference between the popular vote and the number of seats gained is wildly out of line; in other words, fairness is sacrificed to effectiveness.
My point is that, of course, the Government and their Back-Benchers have the technical right, in a narrow, constitutional sense, to use their disproportionate majority to ride roughshod over their opponents not only in Parliament but in the country, if they so choose. They need give no quarter and brook no compromise. However, they might ask themselves whether, in the circumstances, they have any moral right to deprive a minority of its liberties for no sound reason.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I begin by declaring my interest as chairman of St Martin's Magazines, publishers of Country Illustrated and Hunting Magazine, and also as a member of the Warwickshire Hunt. I was relieved that it was not in the list of hunting villains with which the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, earlier regaled us.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, for reminding the House that hunting is a sport. It is a sport like shooting, stalking or fishing. The Government must explain why fox hunting, stag hunting and hare coursing have been singled out as sacrificial victims, while shooting, fishing and stalking have been ignored. Is it because hunting unquestionably causes more animal welfare problems because it causes more suffering than shooting or fishing? If so, where is the evidence? There is no evidence for that. Is it because people enjoy hunting? Is it therefore, in some way, morally repugnant? The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough dealt with that point very well. People enjoy shooting, fishing and stalking, never mind ferreting or ratting.
The Government have stated that they do not intend to legislate on shooting or fishing, so what is so unique about hunting that it makes a large number of Labour Back-Benchers foam at the mouth? Why must hunting

869
alone pass the spurious test of utility? What if that test were applied to shooting and, even more, to fishing, particularly the coarse fishing so beloved of some of the fish kissers in the other place? Are trench such an obvious danger to life and limb that we need no pass a utility test in order to fish them?
The separation of sport from pest control is virtually impossible in many field sports. The animals involved neither understand nor care about motive; they care only about what is done to them. The honourable Member for West Ham, Tony Banks, was right—perhaps uncharacteristically so—when he said that the debate on fox hunting was,
"a situation in which passions and subjectivity rule the day".—[Official Report, Commons, 30/6/03; col. 91.]
He said that the issue was "totemic" to Labour Back-Benchers. That makes the whole business absurd and makes the claim made by the Minister, Alun Michael, that any Bill would be based on evidence and principle look shamingly cynical.
What we have now, as many noble Lords have said—I make no apology for repeating it—is a Bill based on prejudice, not principle. Any evidence that is contrary to the beliefs of the other place has been ignored in the scramble to institute a ban. The Burns committee might as well have saved itself six months' work. The hearings that we had last year in Portcullis House were a waste of time.
Sydney Smith once said:
"I never read a book before reviewing it; it prejudices a man so".
Similarly, the other place has never considered the evidence, in case it interfered with the lip-smacking drive to a total ban. It is that drive that produced the Bill that we are now discussing. It is a sorry piece of work. The Minister's attempts to produce a Bill that was even remotely based on utility and least suffering were hijacked on Report and ended in a humiliating climbdown, when he was forced to withdraw his Bill.
Unsurprisingly, the Bill that has resulted is rubbish. The scientific evidence produced by the Middle Way Group in a study of the control of foxes by shooting has been ignored. That study showed that shooting had serious animal welfare implications. I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, who tried to imply that such considerations did not apply in Scotland, where hunting has, allegedly, been banned. It has not been banned; there is a different way of doing it. According to this scientific study, which is now undergoing peer review, shooting incontrovertibly leaves many animals wounded. That can hardly be described as an advance in animal welfare legislation. The other place also ignored the recent study by the University of Kent, published in Nature magazine in May, which concluded that field sports make a significant contribution to conservation and biodiversity.
The Bill is riddled with inconsistencies. First, the Minister has admitted that snaring causes more suffering than the use of dogs, but snaring remains in the Bill. Why? Secondly, hunting rabbits is allowed, but hunting hares is not. Killing rats with dogs is allowed, but killing foxes with dogs is not. Why? I am
870
sure that the Minister has no problem spotting the difference between a hare and a rabbit at 100 yards. But what about dogs? Are they quite as discerning? Has he got plans to introduce a Defra rabbit recognition scheme for visually impaired dogs? Perhaps he will tell us about that at some stage. Thirdly, and bizarrely, the Bill will allow the use of dogs to protect birds kept for the sole purpose of being shot, but will ban the use of dogs for the protection of lambs and rare birds.
Where do we go from here? Like my noble friend Lord Peel and the noble Lord, Lord Moran. I am rather uneasy about returning to the Bill that was originally sent to the House of Commons before the Standing Committee in the other place got at it. The definition of "utility" was very tightly drawn: if it is to make any sense it must include economic, environmental and social issues, as well as pest control.
The test of "least suffering" was equally defective. The only scientific study to date was that which I referred to earlier, carried out by Dr Nick Fox on behalf of the Middle Way Group, which showed that control of foxes by shooting has its own welfare problems. In the absence of other studies, it seems unreasonable to require hunts to prove "least suffering". It should be up to those who wish to ban hunting to prove their case by fact and science, not simply by personal taste, as the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, rightly pointing out.
In that context, I was disappointed by the speeches made by the noble Lords, Lord Corbett and Lord Harrison, who, unfortunately, are not in their places. I thought that they were going to produce something new and different; it is 18 months since the last debate in this House. I thought that they were going to produce facts, which would show that hunting was definitely cruel. But, no. They have come up with the same old insults, the same tired old clichés about hunting being cruel, being a blot on the landscape, and so forth. Unless noble Lords are to suggest that the fox should become a protected species, they must produce more evidence before tens of thousands of men, women and children are criminalised.
Was I the only person to find the introductory remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, slightly aggressive in tone, or perhaps prescriptive? He told us that we were not allowed to discuss this and that we were not allowed to amend that. Yet, in the next breath, he said that we should engage fully with the Bill. Perhaps he can explain how he expects us to do that when there are so many restrictions on what we are and are not allowed to do.
Subject to amendments to what I call the Alun Michael Bill, I join the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, in preferring the Middle Way option; that is, hunting should be regulated by a licensing authority and linked to the Bill sponsored by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, which amends the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996. I shall not go into detail now, but I believe that that would be workable and acceptable to the vast majority of people who want a

871
solution to this problem without occupying Parliament for any more valuable time. After all, that Middle Way solution was supported in this House in March 1992 by a majority of 306 votes. I therefore hope that it will find favour with noble Lords when it reaches Committee stage.
Fifty one weeks ago, half a million people marched through London to Parliament Square to ensure that their voices were heard. Their voice has been ignored by another place. They now look to us to protect them. I am very encouraged by the speeches today and I believe that we shall not let them down.
9.55 p.m.
Baroness Golding: My Lords, I too begin by declaring an interest as co-chairman of the Middle Way Group, which has done so much to try to produce a workable Bill that we could all agree with and which would do much for animal welfare.
Wildlife protection must extend beyond the issue of hunting with dogs. That is why members of the Middle Way Group consider that the regulation of hunting, alongside my noble friend Lord Donoughue's Wild Mammals (Protection) (Amendment) Bill, is the way forward. There is no animal welfare benefit in the Bill before the House tonight. The Middle Way Group has estimated that around £30 million has been spent over recent years by the three main campaigning groups that wish to ban hunting with dogs. What a waste of money that could have been better spent on really protecting animals.
By what logic do those who wish to ban hunting say that a fox shot at and injured may then be chased by only two dogs for the purpose of relieving its suffering, presumably by killing it? Surely anyone with any knowledge would understand that a trained pack of dogs would catch a wounded animal more quickly and put it out of its misery. I believe that that is a case of prejudice over common sense, which underlines much of what this Bill is all about.
The Bill is most certainly not based on the results of the report produced in October 2001 for Defra by its European wildlife division entitled the Review of non-native species legislation and guidance or, indeed, on the Convention on Biological Diversity which arose from the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio in 1992 and to which the British Government are signatories. Why do I say that? The reason is that the convention requires, as far as possible.
"and as appropriate, to prevent the introduction of, and to control and eradicate, those alien species which threaten ecosystems, habitats or native species".
I shall pass over Muntjac deer, which have invaded woodlands throughout central England, and Sika deer, which have hybridised with our native red deer, and turn to my least favourite non-native species, the American mink. I want to speak for the mink hunters, for this is not a Bill only about fox hunting, to which many noble Lords have referred while ignoring the effect on other forms of hunting.
872
One of the main reasons given by the anti mink hunters is that mink hunting is inefficient. Let us compare the Border Counties mink hounds which hunt near me. At the beginning of the hunting season this year, that hunt killed 26 mink in 15 days. By contrast, the Scottish islands have a £1.65 million project for eradicating mink using only traps. Nine trappers, two foremen and a scientific director using 2,024 traps over 35,450 trap nights caught just 124 mink, at a reported cost of £400,000.
Defra's own report states that to meet its commitment to the United Nations convention,
"adequate funds and commitment must be in place continuously over the timescale required to achieve the eradication of. these alien species".
Given the Scottish experience, if the Minister can tell us how much the Government have set aside to eradicate mink once mink hunting is banned, I should be very interested to hear the amount.
There will be consequences on the management of our countryside if this Bill is passed. The Government have signed up to the convention to protect our native wildlife. This Government—my Government, I am proud to say—should be working with the hunting community to protect all our wildlife. I hope that this Bill will be amended to take on that most important task.
10 p.m.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, one of the problems of speaking late in a long debate such as this is that one cannot listen to every speech. Much has been said about cruelty to foxes and danger to animals, but I do not think that anyone has mentioned the fact that hunting can be dangerous to those who take part. There have been a number of fatalities over the years in the hunting field. In the age in which we live, I am surprised that the diligent zealots ill the Health and Safety Executive did not close it down years ago. That would have saved all the time we have spent debating this subject.
Like other noble Lords who have spoken, I, too, live on the edge of Exmoor. I fully endorse what they have said. They have much greater knowledge of this subject than I, but I am used to hunts being around where I live. A few years ago I was enjoying my garden when, out of the blue, a deer leapt over my front gate, followed in short order by what I can only describe as a waterfall of hounds. It was a most unnerving and alarming experience. They raced in front of me, across the lawn and down some steps and negotiated—I do not know how—a double fence, the outer one of which was covered in barbed wire, apparently without any undue damage, and they all raced off across the field and disappeared.
I must admit to being rather shell-shocked by the experience. But, distasteful though I found it, I nevertheless still recognise and strongly support the right of people in my neighbourhood to do what they and their families have done for years. They have done it better than anyone else, and that has been greatly to the benefit and well-being of animals and birds, both

873
wild and domestic. As the noble Earl, Lord Arran, said, hunting is the glue that cements the community in which I live, although I do not take any part in it and never have done.
What will happen if the Bill is enacted in the form in which it stands and hunting is banned? Like many other noble Lords, I have received hundreds of letters. One in particular came from an 80 year-old, who lives no more than 10 or 12 miles from me, and related what may be a pointer to what might happen. It concerned what happened during the war when hunting in his locality ceased and the neighbouring hunts were overstretched and could not reach across to his locality. The fox population increased and farmers had to do something to control it. In those areas where there were organised shoots, the gamekeepers shot or snared the foxes and they disappeared. Elsewhere, foxes ran riot, killing lambs and poultry, until they caught mange, which in turn infected the sheep dogs and so on, causing, as the gentleman said in his letter, untold ecological damage. Is that what we want for our countryside—more foxes being killed or dying in ways that are crueller than happens at the moment?
What worries me most about the Bill is its rank intolerance. I do not hold myself up as any paragon of moral virtue, but if the line that I have taken had been taken up more widely in another place, it would have saved us from all the time and bother we have had over the issue of hunting.
The Government have made a grave error in giving in to the bully boy tactics in another place, because it has opened the door to further action of this kind—action that the late lamented Lord Hailsham described as "elective dictatorship". That is the way we are going. What the Bill as drafted proposes is unworthy of this country. It will greatly damage our reputation as one of the most tolerant nations in the world.
10.5 p.m.
Lord Laird: My Lords, I welcome this Hunting Bill as a huge step forward for animal welfare and I urge your Lordships to support it wholeheartedly. In one way, it is an enormous shame that we are debating this Bill, because it has one big flaw—it does not cover Northern Ireland.
The campaign to ban hunting is not an attack against rural people or against class. It is a question of morality. It is fundamentally wrong for human beings to chase and kill wild animals for enjoyment. Human beings are aware of differences between right and wrong, unlike natural predators. We in Northern Ireland insist that guns must be taken out of politics because we do not want to live in a society where the strongest get their way through threats and violence. Precisely the same argument should apply to our dealings with the animal kingdom.
Domestic animals have been protected from cruelty for around 90 years, but still today we are allowed to chase and kill wildlife for fun. If you chased a domestic cat round a field with a pack of dogs and watched as it rips the cat apart, you would rightly be prosecuted for
874
cruelty. Other cruel sports such as cock fighting, bear baiting and badger baiting have long since been made illegal. It is time for hunting with hounds to join those cruel sports and be banned.
Even the hunters accept that there is suffering involved. That is why they seek to justify hunting by claiming that it is pest control. Pest control is not a true justification. Several scientific studies have shown that this is not the case. The scientific journal Nature published research last year which showed that during the time when hunting was banned during the outbreak of foot and mouth disease, there was no significant increase in the fox population. In other words, the fox population was stable whether or not hunting took place. Farmers I speak to would rather deal with a problem fox by lamping than chasing round after a fox, often damaging property and trespassing in the process.
If the Northern Ireland Assembly is resumed, I look forward to the campaign of the League Against Cruel Sports to ban fox hunting in Northern Ireland. It has already launched its campaign against hare coursing in Northern Ireland. For all these reasons, this Bill should be supported by your Lordships, and the cruel sports of fox, are, deer and mink hunting and hare coursing should be banned.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, before the noble Lord winds up, perhaps he could explain why, if he feel so strongly about the subject, he was unable to be here except for the last 10 minutes, and did not show the usual courtesy of hearing any of the opening speeches.
Lord Laird: My Lords, perhaps I could point out that while I am grateful for the noble Viscount's intervention, I have been here for the best part of an hour and I propose to be here for the rest of the debate.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Laird: My Lords, how many other noble Lords have been here for that length of time?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, if the noble Lord looks at the list of speakers, he will see that it clearly says that it is discourteous for a noble Lord not to be here for the opening speeches if he is going to speak in the debate.
Lord Laird: My Lords, that may be so, in which case I apologise, but I was attending to other business.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: They must be desperate.
Lord Laird: Yes, my Lords, they must be very desperate. It is the mark of the hunting fraternity. I realise that it is unlikely—
A noble Lord: My Lords, the noble Lord has been discourteous.
Lord Laird: My Lords, perhaps it is discourteous to interrupt continually from the Bench.

875
I realise that it is unlikely that the Bill will pass through this House in anything like the form it is in today. That is why the Government must stick to their promises and reintroduce the Bill in the next Session. We now have a chance to be part of a huge leap forward for animal welfare in England and Wales, and I hope that your Lordships will take that chance to make history and that the provisions will soon be extended to Northern Ireland.
10.10 p.m.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I start by declaring my interest as a member of the board of the Countryside Alliance, as a former Master of Hounds and a regular and passionate fox hunter—until my nerve finally gives out.
The purpose of the Bill is not to fulfil the Labour Party manifesto but, as we know, to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on the issue, which is rather different. That commitment followed the publication of the Burns report, which did not conclude that hunting was cruel. Mr Alun Michael, the Minister appointed to deal with the issue, then embarked on a six-month consultation process involving the general public and the three main interested groups. Only 14 of the public submissions of evidence supported a ban. That process culminated in the three days of public hearings at Portcullis House. That was an extraordinary exercise in open democracy and, although little consensus was achieved, there was no evidence that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that a case for banning hunting had been made.
Three areas of agreement were reached, however. First, it was agreed that all four quarry species need to be controlled, and will continue to be, whether or not there is hunting; that all methods of control inevitably cause a degree of suffering, which it is impossible to measure; and that all animals should, in principle, be treated the same way.
That was the basis on which the Minister drafted his Bill. The significant difference between that and earlier Bills is that it did not ban hunting but provided for a system of registration and regulation. Not only the Minister but the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and a number of others who had previously voted for a ban put their names to the Bill as sponsors. The evidence on which the Bill was drafted simply did not, and does not, justify a ban.
As my noble friend Lord Peel said earlier, the Bill was far from perfect. The definition of "utility" excluded both conservation and wildlife management, both of which were included in the consultation process. The definition of "least suffering" required the registrar to measure suffering in a way that the experts at Portcullis House had unanimously agreed was impossible. In addition, applicants for registration faced the reverse burden of proof test. Therefore, the key tests were loaded against hunting for political reasons.
Again, for political reasons, decisions about deer hunting and coursing were not to be trusted to the registrar, but were prejudged and banned in the Bill,
876
contrary to the principles that emerged from the hearings. The tribunal process by which failed applicants could appeal was rigged in the most extraordinary way, perhaps unique in English law. The tribunal, having taken evidence, but before reaching its conclusion, was to take account of evidence from animal welfare groups prescribed by the Secretary of State and paid for from the public purse. Those groups were the very same ones that had been campaigning for years against the very activity they were now to be paid to sit in judgment on.
Putting aside those rather childish and obvious flaws, the architecture of the Bill and the system that it envisaged could, with a little amendment and a degree of good will, have produced a solution to this intractable political problem. It is important to remember that this is a political problem. This is not an animal welfare Bill, but an attempt to resolve a political problem—although it is not a problem in your Lordships' House or in the country as a whole, where polls now show that 90 per cent of voters do not give a hoot about hunting. Contrary to what the Minister told us in his opening speech, the polls also show that a significant majority now opposes a ban.
The only place where this problem exists is on the Back Benches of the government party in the House of Commons. That is why we are here today, wasting valuable parliamentary time. That is why, as the Session draws to a close, we shall have to spend day after day going through a Bill that nobody wants, at the expense of other important Bills and issues facing our country. That having been said, we could have done it, as your Lordships always do.
Unfortunately, that was not to be. As everyone now knows, during its Report stage in another place, the Government lost control of their Bill. Despite the best efforts and pleading of the Minister, who extraordinarily left the Chamber of the House of Commons for over an hour during the debate to negotiate with his opponents, and of the Secretary of State who spent the entire evening sidling round the Back Benches, in full view, trying to cobble a deal together, the Bill they introduced was hijacked and wrecked.
On 14th May, in a letter to the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Michael wrote:
"a complete ban amendment would destroy the architecture of the Bill, undermine the strong, simple framework of enforcement that is set out in the Bill and be perceived as pursuing prejudice rather than targeting cruelty".
You bet. That is what we are looking at this evening. In moving his wrecking amendment, Mr Tony Banks told the other place:
"this matter is now highly political and, in many regards, has become totemic".—[Official Report, Commons, 30/6/03; col. 91.]
That is the Bill before us tonight—nominally the Government's, but now wrecked, delayed, unworkable and "pursuing prejudice", to use the Minister's words: Mr Banks' "totemic" Bill.
I suggest that all is not lost. I and my many friends in the hunting community would indeed like to see this issue resolved, as the Government pledged. We are prepared to accept a system of registration and regulation, along

877
the lines that the Government originally proposed. We would be content with an outcome based on principles, as long as those principles genuinely stem from the evidence that has been presented, and the system is fairly constructed, which means without built-in bias, or presumptions that can be perceived as pursuing prejudice.
In his opening remarks this afternoon, the Minister said that the Government would not be easily swayed by our amendments and that the Bill now represented the Government's approach. That is a slightly different view from that which the Minister for Rural Affairs wrote in his letter dated 11th September, only five days ago. He wrote:
"I believe the Bill that I originally brought before the House of Commons would have been effective in preventing all cruelty associated with hunting with dogs while enabling essential pest control to continue. It would also have been simple to enforce. However, MPs were not content with the fact that it could have allowed some hunting to continue, albeit only where it was shown that alternative methods of pest control were more cruel…In effect they chose a Bill that is simple to explain rather than a Bill that is simple to enforce".
He went on:
"There is a lot of speculation about what will happen when the revised Bill gets to the Lords for consideration. I hope very much that the Lords will react constructively, and look to improve the Bill. rather than just obstructing it".
We are prepared to work with the Government to produce such a Bill, with your Lordships' assistance of course, based on the Bill that the Government originally introduced. However, we need the Government's active and constructive co-operation if we are to achieve that. This Bill entered the House of Commons 10 months ago, in December, and was subjected to almost 100 hours of debate. It is not very helpful that the Bill arrives in this House in the dying weeks of the Session, when the timetable is under pressure, and when, before we have even seen the Bill once, let alone twice, we are already threatened with the Parliament Act, before we have tried to improve a Bill described by its sponsor as "wrecked".
We are lucky to enjoy government by consent and policing by consent in this country, precisely because Parliament has taken the trouble to enact just law. But with the weight of evidence that the Burns report and the Government's consultation process produced, it is clear that a ban on hunting would be completely unjustified and would be a severe and unprecedented restriction of the liberties of a significant minority of demonstrably law-abiding citizens. Several thousand people have now made it clear that they are deeply distressed and appalled at the prospect of this, but that they neither can nor will accept such an unjust law. Indeed, as my noble friend Lord Kimball told us earlier, it is highly probable that, despite the certificate on the face of the Bill, as currently drafted it is in breach of Article 1 First Protocol, Article 6 and Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. My understanding is that the Joint Select Committee will consider that in due course. We look forward to its report.
878
In opening the debate the Minister dismissed those concerns rather flippantly with remarks about Eastern Europe and the right to pursue animals. I do not think that is the way to look at the European convention; and I do not think that the noble Lord's right honourable friend the Prime Minister would think that it was either. The Prime Minister's political triumph is that he has persuaded the British people that new Labour is a responsible party of government. This Bill is now a test of that. Responsible governments do not allow rogue elements in their ranks to hijack legislation for their own ends and to inflict their prejudices on one part of our community in breach of the European convention, backed by threats of a constitutional sledgehammer, when a sensible solution is within sight and people are prepared to work for it.
In his speech to the United States Congress in July, the Prime Minister said:
"We are fighting for the inalienable right of human kind…to be free. Free to be you so long as being you does not impair the freedom of others. And that's a battle worth fighting".
I would not begin to compare the issues faced in the Middle East with those we are debating tonight, but the "freedom to be you" takes many different forms and is always, as the Prime Minister said, a battle worth fighting. This Bill impacts on that freedom here, at home in the British countryside. We should not take that lightly, but work together, rejecting threats and bullying, to find a sensible resolution. Those of us in the hunting community are prepared to do that if the Government will work with us. The alternative is unthinkable.
10.21 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I must start by making it clear that for once I do not speak for my party. The Green Party, I regret to say, like the majority of Members of another place, and like the noble Lord, Lord Laird, for instance in this place, but unlike, I am delighted to say, the Bench of Bishops, have got their moral theology in a twist.
There is a fundamental distinction we must make in our treatment of animals between those which are domesticated or farmed, and for whom we have therefore accepted a personal responsibility, and those which are wild and which we therefore meet species to species. In dealing with those that are domesticated or farmed we have a duty to see that they are treated as well as possible and spared unnecessary suffering, as I have tried to do in your Lordships' House, as your Lordships know. On the other hand, with those animals that are wild our duty lies in our handling of the biodiversity of the planet. We are responsible not for Basil Brush but for the fox population of this country as a whole.
Our primary duty is to see that the fox population is held in balance with that of its prey, competitors and predators. That control is needed we can see from the growth of the fox population. Many of your Lordships live in the country but I suspect that few of your Lordships have seen foxes copulating. Last year in

879
Clapham I saw two foxes copulating in broad daylight on my garden wall. It was a bad place for them to do it but they succeeded.
I am not suggesting the foundation of a Clapham hunt but it is as part of a very complex traditional control system that fox hunting has its place. I do not pretend for one instant that fox hunting is a major or efficient way of controlling foxes—I know more about fox hunting than that—it is merely a valuable part of what, to use a useful cliché, one can call the rich tapestry of life and death in the countryside. It is for that reason that I vehemently oppose its abolition.
I hope that I have earned a reputation in your Lordships' House for short speeches. It is not a reputation I intend to jeopardise today, but there is one particular point arising from the voluminous correspondence we have all received which I should like to mention. I am very dubious, in spite of having carried the whip for two packs of beagles in my youth, about the need for hunting hares, and, incidentally, far from convinced about stag hunting, although I am open to persuasion on that. However, an exceptional case has been brought to my attention in one of the letters that I have received about basset hounds.
I shall quote from that letter, which was from Mr John Cordingley of Oxfordshire. He wrote:
"I am a follower of a pack of Basset Hounds…which hunt hares in mid and north Oxfordshire and adjacent country. As a sport the pleasure is entirely in admiring the working of the pack as a team in following a scent over varying terrain for considerable time during which the scent will disappear and be refound; often several times. The sound of a pack of Bassets 'speaking' is quite thrilling.
"The utility of the event is that the Hunt effectively culls old, decrepit and weak hares, as they are for the most part the only ones that the hounds actually catch (and kill no less humanely than by shooting). On many days, after several hunting episodes, no hare is caught at all.
"Hunting maintains a balanced population of healthy hares at a level. which causes minimal damage to crops".
I find that letter and case to be quirky, touching, convincing, and above all sensible.
The subject arouses a great deal of passion. It is time that what was applied to it was common sense.
10.26 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, as the 58th speaker in a cast of 60, I want to emphasise only three points and to ask one question.
Having been a devotee of fox hunting all my life, if the anti-hunting lobby were, first, to take the trouble to find out exactly what does happen out hunting and then, if it still so wished, to say that even that was not acceptable in these modern times, I might not agree with it but I would respect its right to say so. What I am not prepared to accept is to be condemned for things that we do not do out hunting, that we never have done out hunting and that, if anyone tried to do them, the perpetrators would be sent home and never allowed to come out with our hounds again.
Secondly, what the Government are intent on destroying is not just a few days in the open country for the privileged few, but a whole culture, bringing
880
massive groups of people, truly class-free, together as friends over hundreds of square miles in a way that is simply unmatched in any other activity. Its loss would be catastrophic to the already shaky, town versus country confrontation and divide.
Thirdly, it is no good Her Majesty's Government trying to shelter behind the size and breadth of the majority in another place on this issue. It is they who have set the scene, provided the parliamentary time, drafted the Bill and amendments, and given encouragement all along the line. Like all governments, theirs is the responsibility not always to pander to the majority but, on occasion, for ensuring that a minority is not unjustly penalised by sheer force of numbers on the other side.
Finally, I come to my question. I have been lucky enough to have been able to hunt, shoot and fish for most of my life, and I would defend each of those occupations with total confidence. But they stand or fall together. Her Majesty's Government have declared that, although they support this Bill, they will never allow either shooting or fishing to he banned and, indeed, the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister has given his personal guarantee to that effect.
I would therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, if he will at last answer this one question which Her Majesty's Government have been asked, and vainly asked, over and again: what are the precise criteria that make killing with a shotgun or with a rod and line acceptable, and even admirable, where killing with a pack of hounds is not? It really is vital for his sake that he give the answer to that question now because, if he cannot, once the Bill reaches the statute book, the animal lobby, which has set no such limit to its ambitions, will put exactly the same question, but the other way round. "Now that 'hunting with dogs' has been declared by law to be so objectionable that it has had to be made a criminal offence, what is it about shooting and fishing that makes them still acceptable?"
If the Minister's right honourable friends in another place are unable to give a wholly convincing answer to that question, neither they nor the right honourable gentleman, the Prime Minister, will be able to honour their pledge.
10.31 p.m.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I have the privilege of summing up for my party, which is a very difficult task, as my noble friend Lord McNally pointed out, particularly as I have 24 pages of notes. I am sure that noble Lords will be glad to hear that am not going to read them all out, but I will take a lead from some of them.
The issue before us is one of general principle and of conscience. Members are free to express their own opinions. We will have a free vote in Committee and we appreciate the differences of opinion as they are expressed on these Benches. In previous votes, the majority of my party has championed liberty on this issue. On the previous occasion, it did so by 25 to five. The champions of liberty in the debate today were my

881
noble friends Lady Miller, Lord Hooson and Lord Carlile, the right reverend Prelates the Bishop of Hereford and the Bishop Peterborough, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and the noble Lords, Lord Donoughue—
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I hate to interrupt the noble Lord, but is it not also true that his party's conference is in favour of the Bill?
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: Yes, my Lords, I accept what the noble Lord has said, but I have also made it clear that, in parliamentary terms, we have an independent view. That occurs in the House of Commons as well as in this House.
The noble Lord, Lord Bragg, made a very forceful speech, as did my noble friends Lord Phillips, Lord Mackie and Lady Thomas, the noble Lords, Lord Moran and Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, made a particularly interesting speech, as did many others.
I respect those who oppose hunting on principle, if it is on principle and not out of prejudice. I include in that category my noble friends Lady Walmsley and Lord McNally, the noble Lords, Lord Faulkner and Lord Hoyle himself, in spite of his intervention, and others. I do not know whether he lives in his former constituency, but I still see quite a lot of it and I am sure that there are precious few livestock there.
Attempting to sum up the debate is very difficult. None the less, we have before us a Bill which introduces a ban on hunting. It replaces a Government Bill that allowed hunting to proceed through licensing and regulation. The truth is that Ministers in another place caved in to the extreme pressure of amendments to ban hunting. Editorials in the Guardian and the Independent put a reasoned case as to why such an outcome was fundamentally flawed. They concluded that the Bill is now unjust, oppressive and profoundly illiberal, which is a point with which I particularly agree. I can express my own view as my party grants me the freedom of speech to do so.
Unfortunately, the Bill underlines the divide between urban and country dwellers. It alienates country people from the democratic process through the misuse of parliamentary democracy to criminalise the legitimate protection of farm livestock and wildlife from the predation of the fox. The rearing of livestock is a labour of love, although little about that has been said today. I assure noble Lords that one month of lambing of any reasonable size of ewe flock will result in physical and mental exhaustion. Lambing often takes place at 2 a.m. or 4 a.m.—a little later than this House is sitting tonight—and the ewes represent years of detailed breeding and selection. The output of lambs can be ruined in seconds by the predations of the fox and, indeed, five, 10 or 20 headless lambs in a field can bear witness to that. In my own case, with a 250-ewe flock, in my worst year 39 lambs were lost. That works out at approximately 5 per cent of the lamb output, worth more than £1,000.
882
We all know that foxes kill. My former constituency of Brecon and Radnorshire, which I represented for 11 years in Parliament, was hunted by nine hunts. Those hunts accounted for approximately 2,000 foxes per annum, and that has been the case consistently for the past 30 years. From a utility point of view, I believe that those hunts have kept foxes under control and, indeed, in balance. Foxes are pests to livestock farmers and the fox population is stable.
As my noble friend Lord Hooson and the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, pointed out earlier, one of the main problems has been the impact of blanket conifer forestry planted since World War II. That has imposed an unnatural environment and created a reservoir for the fox population in the uplands. I submit that in those areas only the activities of the foot gun packs have successfully controlled foxes over the years. If we have the opportunity to amend the Bill, I, as an individual, would certainly support the types of amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, and referred to by my noble friend Lord Hooson.
The middle way has been referred to in this debate, together with the proposal to license hunting. Those mirror very much proposals in the previous Bill, which was lost in the House of Commons. We must remember that the principles incorporated in the middle way include: first, an independent hunting authority which licenses hunting; secondly, a legally binding code of practice; thirdly, penalties to underwrite that practice; fourthly, a proposal to cover all methods of fox control and not only hunting; and. finally, independent inspectors—I ask noble Lords to note that those are not the police—to enforce the licence conditions. Those principles are supported, for example, by four directors of the League Against Cruel Sports and by two out of three vets in the countryside. The proposals are practical and fair and, indeed, are supported by many people. Many of the principles were incorporated in the original Bill.
There is no doubt that with the loss of lambs, in particular, the Bill poses a vexed question in the countryside. Some speeches made reference to the communities where hunting occurs and, in particular, to the upland areas, where there are no other real means of controlling foxes. There is no doubt that in those places it will be a devastating blow if hunting is banned because the only way to get foxes out of blanket forestry, for example, is by using packs of dogs. I am afraid that that is a fact and those foxes must be controlled. The economic loss there has been considerable.
The options contained within hunting are: hunting with hounds; dogs with gun packs; lamping with dogs; driving foxes from a thicket or woods to shoot them; the foot packs associated with gun packs; and combining fox shoots on foot with gun dogs and terriers to flush out the foxes. As I see it, none of those can be practically achieved in the Bill as it stands before us tonight because the proposed legislation refers to the use of only two dogs at a time. The practicalities of that do not bear close examination.

883
We must have effective fox control, and we cannot get that without the use of dogs. That, I am afraid, is a fact.
Other matters, for example, deer hunting, have been mentioned. I do not claim to be an expert on that but I listen to those people on Exmoor who know more than I do about it and I am prepared to listen very carefully indeed to those arguments to see whether they can be sustained. From the speeches made here tonight it is quite clear that there are very passionate views in favour of the management of the deer population on Exmoor. The fact that that is supported by the national park needs to be listened to very carefully.
The question of mink hunting, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Golding, is particularly important. Mink are not native to this country and, indeed, cause terrible damage. There is no doubt that they are responsible for the water vole practically disappearing from our countryside. Certainly, the moorhen has practically disappeared also as a result of the predation of mink. There is no doubt that mink should be eliminated because of all the damage they do, not least attacking the fish population and depriving otters, for example, of natural food. Many issues of that kind need to be considered.
There is a fundamental difference between the Bill before us tonight and the Bill that was here previously. The previous Bill was permissive through licensing and regulation. This Bill criminalises those who propose to hunt and, indeed, bans hunting. That is a fundamental situation which confronts the House tonight, and more so the other place. As has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, and others, that criminalisation means that the police will be unable to enforce such legislation. That must be had legislation. Not only that, it divides country people from the police where co-operation has been very close indeed. I refer to the police authority with which I am most familiar, the Dyfed Powys police authority, which has the best detection rate in the whole of the United Kingdom—nearly 60 per cent. That has been achieved by the consent of the local population, which has assisted the police by close co-operation. That precious cooperation can be destroyed by legislation of this kind by dividing country people from their police force.
There is no doubt that the libertarian principles espoused here tonight by many speakers—I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Donoghue, speak of his Bill, which will shortly be debated; I believe there is a lot of mileage in that—are clearly those of the right to protect farm livestock and the right to a leisure activity which keeps wild species in balance. The introduction of indefensible sanctions will criminalise country dwellers and result in their imprisonment.
I conclude by quoting from the editorial of the Guardian on 2nd July 2003, which stated:
"The majority should hesitate before it rides roughshod over the minority. The peacefully expressed fears of many in the countryside, who see things differently and feel their way of life is under threat from people whom they think do not understand them, have made a persuasive case for a less absolutist approach. This was the spirit that
884
underpinned Mr Michael's bill and it will be both legitimate and desirable if the Lords reinstate clauses in a similar (but not in a more permissive) spirit. Thanks to Mr Michael's mishandling, the irreconcilables have won a procedural battle this week. But they have not yet won the broader argument".
10.45 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, it is over 18 months since this House last had a substantive debate on hunting. The issues before us have changed very little. We are once again debating animal welfare, conservation in the countryside, civil liberties and the meaning of tolerance in a free society.
However, the Government's attitude towards them has changed dramatically. Last year they preached tolerance, proposed compromise and promised to listen; today, they support an outright ban on hunting. The listening began last September with three days of evidence taken at Portcullis House. The result was a government Bill to establish a regulatory framework for hunting; a sensible compromise supported by many on all sides, and certainly by a majority in this House.
Ministers then defended their proposals in Committee, which lasted 75 hours over 27 sittings. Indeed, they carried on defending them right through to the very end of the Report stage in another place. Yet, faced with an ambush sprung five minutes before the end of that debate, the Minister, Alun Michael, dramatically withdrew his proposals, leaving the Floor clear for a Back-Bench amendment to ban hunting. Promises of compromise, consultation and tolerance turned to dust in minutes as the Government traded votes for their National Health Service reforms with a ban on hunting.
As explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and by my noble friends Lord King of Bridgwater and Lord Mancroft, the move was a humiliating defeat for the Minister. As he had told the Deputy Prime Minister on 14th May,
"a complete ban amendment would destroy the architecture of the Bill, undermine the strong, simple framework of enforcement that is set out in [it]…and be perceived as pursuing prejudice, rather than targeting cruelty, which is totally banned by the Bill as it stands".
I believe that the Bill before us is not only a triumph of prejudice over common sense, but a defeat for proper parliamentary process.
Let me turn to some of the issues raised in today's debate and start with animal welfare. The Burns report, so ably chaired by the noble Lord, did not state, as the Minister suggested, that hunting is cruel. This extensive inquiry neither condemned hunting as cruel nor recommended a total ban. Instead, it pointed out that a ban would not save a single fox, as other methods would be used to keep the fox population under control. All methods of fox control have welfare implications, as anyone who has tried to shoot a fox or seen an animal caught in a snare will know.

885
It is worth repeating that as a result of the Burns report and further debate in this House, a consensus was reached that a licensing system would address animal welfare issues. It received overwhelming support in this House when we last debated and voted on the issue in March last year.
Secondly, there is the moral debate that surrounds hunting. In the past five years we have heard from no fewer than seven right reverend Prelates from the Bishops' Benches. All have spoken in support of hunting—none against. Today we have heard three powerful and compelling speeches from the Bishops' Benches—from the right reverend Prelates the Bishop of Hereford, the Bishop of Peterborough and the Bishop of Guildford—all against a ban.
The right reverend Prelates have consistently and convincingly argued that anthropomorphic attitudes towards the psychology of animals misleadingly suggests that they experience life exactly as we do—an argument that rejects the diversity of creation. Nor should we forget those faiths that are less well represented in this House. There is little support for a ban from them. Indeed, Jews and Muslims are now under pressure, as explained by the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, to ban ritual slaughter, from the very same pressure groups that would outlaw hunting. Yet ritual slaughter is central to their religious beliefs and is a process that has not been found to be cruel by Defra. As the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, said, there is no general consensus that hunting is morally unacceptable.
The third aspect of the debate centres around conservation. The Government accept that shooting and fishing play a valuable role in conserving the countryside, but they now appear to totally reject the conservation role played by hunting. Those involved in field sports more than most spend precious time, and their own money, conserving our rural heritage. We all benefit from the richness and diversity of our countryside. That is man-made, tended by those who live in and care for it. To quote from the Burns report,
"Hunting has clearly played a very significant role in the past formation of the rural landscape and in the creation and management of areas of nature conservation".
This House is a revising Chamber and I hope that your Lordships will do just that. I should like to see the Bill amended so that the principles of licensed hunting as originally proposed by the Government are returned to the Bill. That would present the Government with an opportunity to take back control of their own Bill.
I accept that another place might not agree. In such a situation, should the Government reintroduce a banning Bill and attempt to invoke the Parliament Act? The Parliament Act was designed to enable Governments to push through their legislation. But a banning Bill is not the Government's legislation. It is the work of Back-Bench MPs with no commitment to tolerance or compromise.
886
Just consider the views of two MPs who tabled the banning amendment on Report. Mr Tony Banks once famously told the Independent:
"I am now convinced that in years to come we will regard eating animal flesh in the same light as we now regard cannibalism".
For Mr Gerald Kaufman, the ban was not about hunting, but about revenge and class war. He said that Conservative Members of another place had no right to defend hunting because:
"During the last period of eight years, [they] deliberately destroyed 215,000 jobs in the coal industry, together with hundreds of thousands more jobs in the coal communities".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/7/03; Col. 1311.]
That had nothing to do with hunting and the fox; it was about revenge. Incidentally, they were supported in the lobby by 36 Scottish MPs who could not resist voting on the Bill, even though it affects only England and Wales.
The Parliament Act is for driving through government Bills, but this is not a government Bill, no matter what the Minister says. There are strong legal and moral reasons why the Government should not use the Act to bulldoze this legislation through. Parliament should uphold the rights of minorities, not ride roughshod over them. Democracies become elective dictatorships when they ride roughshod over the rights of minorities. Democracy requires respect for the rights, beliefs and traditions of the minority.
Nor should we ignore the consequences of a ban. First, there would be protracted legal battles about whether a ban breached common law, the Human Rights Act 1998 or both. Laws passed by Parliament, as recent Home Secretaries from both parties have discovered, are often thrown out by the judiciary. A case is currently waiting to be heard in Scotland on this very issue.
Secondly, there is a real risk of civil disobedience and social unrest in the countryside. Many would see a ban as an unjust law. Professor Ronald Dworkin's standard moral position on civil disobedience in a recent article gives us a clear perspective:
"In a democracy each citizen has a general moral duty to obey all the laws. He owes that duty to his fellow citizens, who obey laws that they do not like, to his benefit. But this general duty cannot be an absolute duty, because even a society that is in principle just may produce unjust laws and policies, and a man has duties, other than his duties to the state.
If he decides that he must break the law, however, then he must submit to the judgement and punishment that the state imposes, in recognition of the fact that his duty to his fellow citizens was overwhelmed but not extinguished by his…moral obligations".
Civil disobedience would be a major challenge for the courts.
In a recent judgement in the Court of Appeal the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, commented on Dworkin's summary as follows:
"It will of course be different if the law itself is unjust. The injustice of the law will carry over into its enforcement".
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, summed up those issues in his speech. Civil disobedience would be a major challenge for the police. As my noble friend Lord Hurd said, they would face a no-win situation. It is worth repeating the words of Alastair McWhirter,

887
Chief Constable of Suffolk and the Association of Chief Police Officers' rural policing spokesman, who said:
"Parliament's vote for an outright ban on hunting with dogs fills many of my fellow officers with dread. Not because the police are pro-hunting—the service is determinedly neutral—but because of the practical implications of enforcing such a ban".
The League Against Cruel Sports would resume its dangerous and violent activities.
When we last debated hunting, I made a plea to the Government that they had an opportunity to take the conflict out of the countryside—to do away with attitudes such as those of the Deputy Prime Minister, who once said:
"Every time I see the Countryside Alliance's contorted faces, I redouble my determination to abolish fox hunting".
As the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, said, the Labour Party promised that Parliament would have the opportunity to settle the matter once and for all; it did not promise a banning Bill. The Minister promised that he would achieve that goal in a fair, balanced and scientific way that would stand the test of time. He tried, but failed, defeated by a cabal of his own BackBenchers, whom one might call the "class war vegetarians".
If we returned the Bill, with a workable—I stress the word "workable"—licensing system, to another place, the Government might still have an opportunity to reclaim their Bill. We know that the Minister is against hunting; so are his ministerial colleagues in another place. It is sad that they all seem to despise our rural and farming communities, and that they appear so unwilling to listen. But now they have a chance for a change to do something right, to disprove their critics and to promote a Bill that can balance civil liberty and individual freedom with sensible and reasonable legislation. If the Minister does not do that, we will.
I shall conclude with the words quoted by my noble friends Lord Ferrers, Lord Arran and Lord Mancroft:
"We are fighting for the inalienable right of humankind…to be free. Free to be you so long as being you does not impair the freedom of others. That's what we are fighting for. And that's a battle worth fighting".
Those are the words of the noble Lord's Prime Minister, Tony Blair, to Congress this summer. I am sorry that he does not agree with them, but I hope that the rest of your Lordships' House will remember those words as the Bill proceeds through this House.
10.56 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that was an interesting speech. It reflected—
Lord Jopling: My Lords, I am most obliged to the Minister for giving way. On a matter of procedure, he will have noticed that the speakers' list states that it is discourteous for Members not to be here for the winding-up speeches, and that any Members who are unable to stay until the end of the debate should remove their names from the list. I have noticed that five Members who spoke are not present now. I shall not name them. Does the Minister agree that it would
888
be helpful if the Clerk would be kind enough to see who those Members are, and to send them a note saying that they ought to have been here tonight?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am not certain that the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, is correct in asking the Clerk to do that. I can assure the noble Lord that that is the role of the Government Whip with regard to the Government Benches, and I am quite sure that those on the Opposition Benches who have noted any absences will do likewise.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, with the greatest possible respect to the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, by my recollection there are six such Members. They include the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, who made a very powerful speech—most of us disagree strongly with what he said—and I remind noble Lords that he did not stay for the winding-up speech last time we debated this vexed subject.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I think that the point will be taken by Members of your Lordships' House.
The nature of the winding-up speech from the Opposition Benches reflected both the apex and the bathos of the debate. On the one hand, tile noble Viscount engaged in high-flown rhetoric about human rights, and, on the other, he engaged very clearly in reverse class conflict.
This is a difficult situation for the House arid, in many respects, the Government. Neither sweeping generalisations about the constitutional position nor petty remarks about the motivation of others are particularly appropriate. Many good points have been made—although not many that have not been heard before. At this time of night, I do not intend to reply to all of them, but will try to refer to specific points in correspondence. I will now make some general points.
I regret that I have to make this point almost every time we discuss the countryside, and certainly every time we discuss hunting. Those who oppose the position of many of us on the Labour Benches and others in other parties on fox hunting are wrong to accuse us of being against the countryside or ignoring or disparaging the countryside. It is especially wrong for those who claim on behalf of the pro-hunters to speak for the countryside. There are plenty of people in the countryside who oppose, want to restrict or ban hunting.
There has been some argument about opinion polls. I have spent a fair part of my life putting the best gloss on bad opinion polls, but I do not intend to engage in discussion on particular opinion polls tonight. However, it is significant that, at every stage of this argument, when there has been a breakdown between urban and rural dwellers in opinion polls. the difference has been 2 per cent or 3 per cent either way. There is no huge difference between the views of country people and those who live in towns or suburbs on this issue. There is conflict in both communities. It is very important that we recognise that.

889
We should also recognise the stage we have now reached with this Bill and how we got here. This was a live issue for many years before this Government came to power on a manifesto to allow Parliament to vote on a ban on fox hunting. We introduced a Bill in the last parliament. That Bill did not complete its passage through Parliament and this House. We had a Second Reading, and this House voted overwhelmingly for what was called independent supervision but was in effect close to the status quo.
The vast majority of people who took an interest in this debate in that House voted at that stage not to do anything about fox hunting, despite the fact that the vast majority of public opinion wanted something done about it—although maybe not this particular Bill or any other Bill. I have checked the list, and about 50 people have spoken in this debate, excluding the Front Benches, rather fewer than 10 of whom were more or less on the side of this Bill, some of whom were not in the House in 2001. Of the remainder of the speakers, 30 out of 40 noble Lords who spoke against this Bill voted for the status quo the last time legislation was before this House in 2001. That is the situation in this House that the House of Commons has had to take into account.
Admittedly, when we debated the general Motions in 2002, there had been a vast conversion—at the time I said that some conversions are more convincing than others and that some of those conversions were rather like Charlemagne's conversion of the Saxons—people recognised the way the wind was blowing and therefore made a token vote. That has also been evident from some contributions tonight. People speaking in favour of the middle way and of reversion to the original Bill that was put before the House frequently went further. There were greater restrictions than even the Middle Way Group proposed, and significant additional points were made over and above the position in the government Bill at the beginning of its Commons stage.
People called for a middle way, but what that meant was pretty vague the last time your Lordships voted on this issue. It is important to recognise that that was not what the Government proposed to the House of Commons. The government proposals were much closer to a situation in which tribunals and registration would very much limit the scope of hunting within England and Wales. In other words, the Bill presented to the House of Commons would not have received support from many who spoke today. Let us not kid ourselves about that. Had the Government, instead of allowing a free vote, used the normal whipping system and put forward the Bill originally presented to the House of Commons by Alun Michael, most of the people who have spoken in this House today would not have supported it in any way. Many of their pronouncements and the pronouncements of some of the hunting organisations make it clear that they opposed that Bill almost as vociferously as they oppose a complete ban. So, let us not have any kidology about that.
890
What has happened in the House of Commons? We have heard various pejorative phrases.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, I thought that the Government's original intention was to try to build a consensus on the matter. The Minister has just said to anyone who has moved their position or sought to move towards the Government's position, "I don't believe you. You weren't going to agree to everything that we required and, therefore, I dismiss you". Is that the best approach?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am going on what was said today and what was said when the government Bill was introduced at the beginning of the procedure in the Commons. Some people switched their view in the second vote in this House in 2002. The Government also shifted their view by producing the legislation that they did. They did not go as far as the Middle Way Group, but, nevertheless, they shifted position.
What happened in the House of Commons? Various pejorative phrases have been used to describe proceedings in the House of Commons. "Giving in to the bully boys" was probably the most extreme; "mishandling", in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, was possibly the gentlest. We have been told that the Government were bounced", "rolled over", "ambushed". What has actually happened is that the Government have accepted a free vote of the House of Commons—the elected House—and have done so in line with what was in the manifestos for two elections in which the Government won an overwhelming majority.
Democracy is about such procedures. We have not acted hastily; we have not acted without taking into account the views of others. Ultimately, the elected House did not accept the compromise that the Government proposed and, certainly, would not have accepted the kind of compromise that has been talked about in this House today.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, does the Minister accept that another place did not have an opportunity to vote on the compromise proposed by the Government? Mr Michael withdrew his amendment, and there was no vote on it.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that is a misleading statement. What actually happened is that, on Report, the Commons accepted another amendment, which Mr Michael voted against, that would have rendered much of what the Government proposed redundant. That is why the Government withdrew at that stage. The House had already made its determination clear. It was not a question of the Government running away from gunfire; Ministers had already voted against an amendment that significantly adjusted the Government's overall approach.
There are important issues of principle involved. Some of the principle is clouded in some uncertainty about the facts. I accept that. The issue of cruelty is central to the debate. We have indicated that by "cruelty" we mean

891
unnecessary suffering. We have said that fox hunting was not regulated or controlled in previous generations because it was regarded as an essential element of pest control in the countryside. Many noble Lords have reiterated that today. However, even the report produced by the noble Lord, Lord Burns—I agree that he did not say that we should go for a ban—shows that about 6 per cent of fox deaths are achieved through fox hunting. Fox hunting has some marginal pest control benefits, greater in some parts of the country than in others—that was recognised in the original government Bill—but, in overall terms, pest control is a very small part of the motivation for hunting.
The real point about hunting is that it gives enjoyment and engagement to some people in the rural community. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, perhaps, put it a hit extremely when he said that it was better than an orgasm. I am not sure that there is any objective research on such matters.
A noble Lord: Watch out.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, it lasted a lot longer; that was the point. If anyone says withdraw, that is a very bad taste joke.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the regrettable thing is that that is part of the problem.
A noble Lord: What is?
Lord Whitty: The noble Earl's partial withdrawal, my Lords. Enjoyment in the countryside—whether riding, following hounds, or whatever—ought not to he dependent on the distress and suffering of an animal. Distress and suffering of an animal may he justified if it is for food production or for pest control, but, in my contention, it is not justifiable simply on the basis of enjoyment. In any sense that has been suggested in this House. we are not attacking the rights of a minority. There is no right for a minority or a majority to engage in cruelty to animals without justification.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that most people who go hunting go out for the pleasure of the hunt and for the pleasure of the day out, not just to see a fox killed?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that is my point. We do not need to reach the heights of pleasure described by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, by having to chase a small animal. A gallop, a run, a drive in the countryside, or maybe drag-hunting or a paper chase, and so forth, will give as much pleasure to the majority of those people as will fox hunting. However, a minority of people need the quarrying and the kill. In today's society it is not appropriate to accept that we should allow that degree of cruelty to an animal.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, but I must get this right. His right
892
honourable friend Mr Michael is wrong. The Bill is not based on evidence in principle; it is based on personal prejudice. Is that what the noble Lord is telling us?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord ought to listen to what I say. Cruelty is justifiable only if the alternative is worse cruelty or there is no alternative in achieving the utilitarian objective. That is what the original Bill was based on; utility as against relative cruelty. That was the balance which Alun Michael sought to achieve within his Bill.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, on this point, for the sake of argument, let us assume that we agree with the Minister on fox hunting. Why does he not then say, "Our principles are consistent. We are going to stop shooting and we are going to stop fishing."? Those questions have been asked and the Government have particularly ducked them and given undertakings that they will not be—
A noble Lord: What is the difference?
The Earl of Onslow: What is the difference?
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: When did you last eat a fox?
Lord Whitty: My Lords. as so often, the noble Earl is contradictory within two seconds. He says that the Government have ducked those questions and then says what we have said. We said that we will not do that. I reiterate and underline again that we will not be legislating against fishing or shooting. There are two reasons for that. First, a significant amount of shooting and fishing is either for conservation or for food. Secondly, we have to take account of general public opinion.
In the latest poll, however people think about how we should deal with the issue of hunting, 80 per cent of people believe hunting to be cruel, and there is not much difference between the opinions in the countryside and those in urban areas. It may not he 80 per cent of the Conservative Party in the House of Lords, but they hardly represent public opinion, so shaking heads on the Opposition Front Bench is unlikely to do much good. That is the fact of the matter.
Clearly, civilisation moves, although not necessarily in a straight line. At present, the sensibilities of society are overwhelmingly against unnecessarily causing suffering to wild animals. The word, "unnecessarily" means that a judgment needs to be made against other forms of pest control. "Unnecessarily" means that there should be effective methods of pest control, along with other means of achieving the management of wild animals. If they do not exist, clearly we can return to using fox hunting, as the original Bill would have allowed.
Those arguments have been debated in the House of Commons. That House has spent many hours in Committee and on Report discussing these issues and it has reached a conclusion. It is a conclusion with

893
which the majority of the speakers in this debate, and probably the majority of the Members of the House of Lords, do not agree. This is not the end of the process. The House of Lords is able to make suggestions to the Government for amending the Bill and to propose amendments that might receive favour in the House of Commons. Alternatively, noble Lords may take a wrecking approach to the Bill which, in effect, would delete its main principles.
The Government continue to hope—it may be hope against hope—that some agreement can be reached between the two Houses. It is difficult to see how that will be done, but I suggest that your Lordships' House conducts the Committee stage of the Bill on the basis of constructive amendments being proposed to the main thrust of the provisions. The Commons will then consider diligently whether it can accept those amendments. The situation beyond that is clearly a matter for the House of Commons rather than the proceedings here, but I advise Members of this House very strongly not to use the Committee and subsequent stages of the Bill to destroy or delay it, because that would simply precipitate a situation where the House of Commons would undoubtedly take the view that that was an act of sabotage.
Were noble Lords to make constructive amendments, the House of Commons would need to consider them and see whether some further compromise was available. It is important, however, to recognise the overwhelming majority with which the position of the House of Commons was carried. At the close of the debate the noble Lord, Lord Denham, remarked that it was no use the Government hiding behind the size of their majority in the House of Commons. Ultimately, however, the existence of a majority and the size of that majority in the House of Commons determines most of our legislation. If at this stage we want to convince the House of Commons to do something different, we need to propose constructive amendments to the Bill.
With a few exceptions, I have to say that most of the contributions to this debate have indicated that noble Lords do not accept the framework of the Bill as it has come from the House of Commons. Many did not accept the framework of the original Bill. If we go down either of those roads, there will be conflict between the two Houses. I would regret that, Alun Michael would regret that and the Prime Minister would regret it, but nevertheless that would be the position which the House of Commons would have to consider. Therefore, this House should think seriously about how it behaves in Committee and beyond. For the moment, however, I hope that the Bill will receive its Second Reading.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I wish to make a genuine attempt to clarify what he has said. I have understood him to say that there needs to be some control on the number of foxes. I would be grateful if he could clarify whether the Government's position is that hunting with hounds
894
is a more cruel method of controlling the number of foxes than shooting, trapping, gassing or poisoning. Is that the position?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that is the position taken by the Government and by a majority of Members of the House of Commons. The Government are now facilitating it. It is also true to say that one cannot justify hunting with hounds as the main method of pest control because the facts do not support that argument.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Hunting Bill
  Local Government Bill
  Bill returned from the Commons on 15th September with certain amendments disagreed to with reasons for such disagreement; with an amendment agreed to with amendments and with consequential amendments to the Bill; and with the remaining amendments agreed to; the Commons amendments and reasons were printed pursuant to Standing Order 51.

Inter-Governmental Conference
A message was received from the Commons that they have made the following order:

(1) There shall be a standing committee, called the Standing Committee on the Inter-Governmental Conference on the Future of Europe.

(2) At any sitting of the standing committee, the chairman may permit a Minister or Ministers to make statements on the inter-governmental conference, and questions may then he put thereon by Members:

Provided that no proceedings under this paragraph may continue after the expiry of a period of one and a half hours from their commencement, except with the leave of the chairman.

(3) At the conclusion of proceedings under paragraph (2), the committee may consider either of the following—

(a) when a written report has been laid before Parliament by a Minister or Ministers, a Motion proposed from the chair "That the committee has considered the report of [date] on the intergovernmental conference"; or

(b) a Motion for the adjournment of the committee, provided that a Minister of the Crown has given notice of a subject relating to the intergovernmental conference for the debate on the adjournment not later than five days before the sitting.

(4)

(a) The chairman shall put any Questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings on any Motion under paragraph 3(a), if not previously concluded, when the committee shall have sat for two and a half hours; and the chairman shall thereupon report that the committee has considered the report of [date] on the inter-governmental conference, without putting any further Question;

895

(b) in case of a Motion under paragraph (3)(b), the chairman shall adjourn the committee without putting any question, not later than two and a half hours after the committee has begun sitting.

(5)

(a) Notwithstanding Standing Order No. 86, the standing committee shall consist of those Members of the House nominated for the time being to the European Scrutiny Committee (appointed under Standing Order No. 143) and to the Foreign Affairs Committee (appointed under Standing Order No. 152); and

896

(b) any Member of the House, not being a member of the committee, may take pan in the proceedings of the committee and be counted in the quorum, but shall not vote or make any Motion, except that any member of the government may move a Motion under paragraph (3)(b).

(6) Members of the House of Lords may participate in the committee's proceedings, but no member of that House may vote or make any Motion or be counted in the quorum.

That this order be a Standing Order of the House until the end of the next Session of Parliament.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past eleven o'clock.

  Questions for Written Answer: Response Times
  Questions for Written Answer: Response Times
  Kenya: Aid
  Kenya: Aid
  Advisory Board on Restricted Patients
  Advisory Board on Restricted Patients
  Police Complaints Authority: Annual Report 2002–03
  Police Complaints Authority: Annual Report 2002–03
  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund
  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund
  Housing Corporation: Review
  Housing Corporation: Review
  British Forces Germany: Post-Op TELIC Helpline
  British Forces Germany: Post-Op TELIC Helpline
  War Cemeteries in France: Prevention of Vandalism
  War Cemeteries in France: Prevention of Vandalism
  Gulf War Veterans: Case of Shaun Rusling
  Gulf War Veterans: Case of Shaun Rusling
  Future Aircraft Carrier
  Future Aircraft Carrier
  Armed Forces: Review of Pension and Compensation Arrangements
  Armed Forces: Review of Pension and Compensation Arrangements
  Immigration Advisory Service
  Immigration Advisory Service
  Public Guardianship Office: Annual Report and Accounts 2002–03
  Public Guardianship Office: Annual Report and Accounts 2002–03
  EU Working Time Directive: Marine Pilots
  EU Working Time Directive: Marine Pilots
  Mental Health Services: Report
  Mental Health Services: Report
  Child Tax Credit and Working Tax Credit
  Child Tax Credit and Working Tax Credit
  World War Debts to US
  World War Debts to US
  Schoolchildren: Travel to School
  Schoolchildren: Travel to School
  NHS: Efficiency Measures
  NHS: Efficiency Measures
  Aircraft: Seat Spacing
  Aircraft: Seat Spacing
  M1 Motorway
  M1 Motorway